BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

FILED
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/17/18
04:59 PM

Application of California-American Water

Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Application No. 12-04-019
Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization (Filed April 23, 2012)
to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates

JOINT BRIEFING REGARDING

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Norman C. Groot Nancy Isakson

Executive Director, President,
Monterey County Farm Bureau Salinas Valley Water Coalition
P.O. Box 1449 3203 Playa Court
1140 Abbott Street, Suite C Marina, CA 93933
Salinas, CA 93902-1449 For: Salinas Valley Water Coalition
For: Monterey County Farm Bureau nisakson@mbay.net
norm@montereycfb.com (831) 224-2879
(831) 751-3100

1
Following is the briefing from Monterey County Farm Bureau (MCFB) and Salinas Valley Water

Coalition (SVWC), jointly, on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Final

Environmental Impact Report / Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS).

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of the application process for the MPWSP before the California Public

Utilities Commission (CPUC), MCFB and SVWC have participated in briefings, filings, hearings,

and public forums. Significant resources have been invested by MCFB and SVWC throughout

the many-years process, responding as required and providing testimony when scheduled. Both

MCFB and SVWC hold in their missions the protection of water resources of Monterey County

for the benefit of all categories of users.

MCFB and SVWC joined as interveners to MPWSP for one concern; the location of the proposed

source well intakes located directly over the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB)1 as it

extends out under the Monterey Bay. With seawater intrusion a well-documented2 issue for the

northern portion of this basin, and concerns over further extractions of water through coastal

groundwater pumping, MCFB and SVWC sought to protect the groundwater and the rights of the

landowners of the SVGB including those overlying the area near the proposed intake facilities.

1
Note: The terms Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) and Salinas River Groundwater Basin (SRGB) are
both used in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Salinas River Groundwater Basin is the term referenced
in the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act; the SRGB is the area of the Salinas River and the Salinas
Valley that is recharged by the alluvium of the Salinas River.
2
Refer to Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Seawater Intrusion Monitoring; webpage
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/government-links/water-resources-agency/programs/seawater-intrusion-
monitoring#wra

2
Early on in the CPUC approval process the interveners determined a need for a global settlement

addressing numerous issues that Cal-Am and the interveners could agree to settle if certain

conditions were met by Cal-Am during the design and construction of the project’s facilities. One

of the provisions of this settlement,3 filed in July 2012 with the CPUC, is the creation of the

Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG) comprised of groundwater experts who could review the

available data and offer conclusions on various issues related to the project’s proposed source

water extractions. The HWG convened over the course of this proceeding and concluded with

submitting their findings in a technical report to Cal-Am4 which was incorporated as an Appendix

to the FEIR/FEIS. MCFB and SVWC provided support for the HWG as this was our main issue

concerning the project and we wanted assurance of the scientific basis utilized to show there would

be no harm to the SVGB and/or the overlying water rights of its landowners and water right users.

In the subsequent years, MCFB and SVWC joined with a small number of interveners and Cal-

Am to craft the Return Water Flow Settlement5 (RWSA), submitted to the CPCU in June 2016.

The provisions of the settlement offer a win-win-win solution for potential small percentage

freshwater extractions from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin by providing desalinated water

in lieu of certain groundwater extractions from the SVGB to the Castroville Community Services

3
‘Settlement Agreement’ submitted for approval to the CPUC by California-American Water Company, Citizens
for Public Water, City of Pacific Grove, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, County of Monterey, Division of
Ratepayer Advocates, LandWatch Monterey County, Monterey County Farm Bureau, Monterey County Water
Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency now known as Monterey 1 Water), Planning and
Conservation League Foundation, Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Sierra Club, and Surfrider Foundation.
4
“The EIR/EIS preparers had the benefit of working closely with, and receiving input from, the Hydrogeologic
Working Group (HWG) that was formed as a result of the proposed settlement …” detailed in footnote 2 above;
FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 2 Project Water Rights, footnote 42; page 2-36.
5
‘Settlement Agreement on MPWSP Desalination Plant Return Water’ submitted for approval to the CPUC by
California-American Water Company, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, LandWatch Monterey County, Monterey
County Farm Bureau, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority,
Planning and Conservation League Foundation, and Salinas Valley Water Coalition.

3
District (CCSD) and the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP). The benefit of this return

water solution is that it reduces reliance on groundwater in the immediate area of Castroville where

seawater intrusion has caused well water quality degradation. The RWSA also requires Cal-Am

to make any water user in the SVGB whole should they be harmed from MPWSP project source

water extractions.6

MCFB and SVWC present their response comments to the FEIR/FEIS according to the Common

Outline for Briefing noted by the CPUC Ruling issued on April 4, 2018. Generally, MCFB and

SVWC agree with preference of project Alternative 5a7 and the findings in the FEIR/FEIS and the

statements about hydrologic impacts and source water availability for the MPWSP.

MCFB and SVWC urge certification of the FEIR/FEIS as presented, including the Return Water

Settlement Agreement as part of the MPWSP.

FEIR/FEIS ISSUES

II. A. Water Demand, Supply and Water Rights

MCFB and SVWC make no comment on water demand.

6
“The Parties acknowledge that Cal-Am could be legally required by a regulatory agency, including the CPUC in
this proceeding, or by a court, to make water deliveries to other locations in the SRGB to the extent necessary to
mitigate any groundwater impacts from the Project that were demonstrated in relation to a specific location
overlying the SRGB….” Settlement Agreement on MPWSP Desalination Plant Return Water, Agreement Section 4,
page 9.
7
FEIR/FEIS Executive Summary, ES 7.2 Environmentally Superior/Environmentally Preferred Alternative and
NOAA-Preferred Alternative; page ES-16.

4
When reviewing water supplies available to for the MPWSP, there is significant evidence to

suggest that the project will have a reliable source of water8 for the desalination project.

MCFB and SVWC have stated in previous testimony and motions that the impacts to the SVGB

in the area of the source wells should be evaluated by both the HWG and as part of the EIR

modeling. As there were many conflicting claims made during the course of the MPWSP (both in

the CPUC process and publicly in the local media), the HWG provided both Cal-Am and the CPUC

with an objective review of the basin hydrology and particularly in the immediate area of the

proposed intake well facilities. It should be especially noted that the HWG is composed of

technical experts comprising years of experience with SVGB hydrology and history. These

experts took their time to examine the available technical data, information, science, and facts

related to groundwater flows and seawater intrusion, as well as the modeling made available. The

conclusion of the FIER/FEIS supports the findings of the HWG that the MPWSP will not harm

the SVGB users or overlying landowners of the SVGB and specifically in the general vicinity of

the source water production wells9. Specific aspects of the proposed source water extraction

facilities on groundwater levels, and potential impacts to water rights of local landowners, are rated

as no impact or less than significant impact with no mitigation proposed; only degradation of

groundwater quality is rated as less than significant impact with mitigation10.

8
FEIR/FEIS Chapter 2 Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights, Table 2-4 Cal-Am Monterey District Water
Supplies with Proposed MPWSP; page 2-18.
9
“… it seems reasonable to conclude that the MPWSP would not result in harm or injury to Basin water rights
holders such that CalAm would possess the right to withdraw water from the Basin …” – FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 2
Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights; page 2-39.
10
FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 4 Environmental Setting (Affected Environment), Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, Table
4.4-9 Summary of Impacts-Groundwater Resources; page 4.4-61.

5
Return Water flows from the project to the SVGB are critical to MCFB and SVWC supporting

approval of the CPCN for the MPWSP. As discussed in the FEIR/FEIS in Chapter 2, there is an

expectation that a small portion of brackish water will become part of the extracted source water

for the desalination process11. Taking into account that this brackish water is coming from the

SVGB, there is benefit to provide an equal amount of the freshwater component back to users

within the SVGB. Designating the CCSD and CSIP as recipients of this return water flow provides

water that would otherwise be pumped from the SVGB, near or within the seawater intruded areas,

and reduces the potential for any impact to this area from the MPWSP. Providing CCSD with

replacement drinking water as an alternative to their groundwater dependency suggests that

creative solutions can be crafted for mutual benefits. Adding water to CSIP reduces the need for

supplemental water from other sources, including groundwater stand-by wells, and provides an

opportunity to better manage salinity in reclaimed water through blending, as well as soil salinity

over time. These all work to reduce the potential impacts from the MPWSP.

As explained in the same FEIR/FEIS Chapter, the reasoning for the return water flow is multi-

level:

 “Delivering return water by injecting desalinated water from the proposed project into the
SVGB is considered less desirable than delivering return water for beneficial use in the
SVGB.
 The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) may not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate all of the MPWSP SVGB return water under some conditions.
 The Castroville Community Services District (CCSD), which provides municipal and
domestic water service to the Town of Castroville, currently relies on about 780 afy of

11
“MPWSP source water would include some brackish groundwater from the SVGB.” – FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 2.5.1
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Return Water; page 2-23.

6
 SVGB groundwater to meet Castroville’s water demands, and increasing has experienced
water supply challenges because the water is getting saltier.
 The CCSD wants to take delivery of a SVGB return water supply to replace all or part of
CCSD’s current reliance of groundwater from the SVGB.”12

MCFB and SVWC support the conclusion that the return water flow is necessary to meet the

Monterey County Water Resource Agency Act and provides mutual benefits to Cal-Am, SVGB,

CCSD, and CSIP.13

II. B. Project Description

MCFB and SVWC make no comment on the project description.

II. C. Environmental, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

MCFB and SVWC make no comment on environmental, setting, impacts, and mitigation measures

other than those noted in II. A. above.

II. D. Alternatives

As stated previously, MCFB and SVWC support the preference for Alternative 5a.

II. E. Other

12
FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 2.5.1 Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Return Water; page 2-24.
13
“This plan would further protect against injury to Basin groundwater users, and in fact the Basin and its
groundwater users could be benefitted by the return of fresh water to the seawater-intruded Basin for use in lieu of
groundwater.” – FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 2 Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights, Section 2.6.2Water Rights;
page 2-39.

7
MCFB and SVWC note that the Interlake Tunnel project14 is not yet a fully engineered project and

calculations for water storage capture by this facility has not been determined nor made public.

The fact that this project exists in concept should not influence the decision for certification of the

FEIR/FEIS nor the issuance of a CPCN for the MPWSP.

PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OF PROJECT –

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

III. A. Public Utilities Code Section 1002(a)(4) and Other Law

MCFB and SVWC make no comment on this CPUC Code section.

III. B. Other

MCFB and SVWC make no other comments related to CPCN environmental factors.

CONCLUSION

Community participation is essential to any project and is critical to obtaining support for that

project. Toward that end, MCFB and SVWC appreciate the efforts made by Cal-Am and various

agencies to reach out to the Salinas Valley agricultural community to discuss how the use of wells

to produce source water for the MPWSP will affect the SVGB, the source of water supply on which

the Salinas Valley’s agricultural economy depends.

MCFB and SVWC appreciate the revision to the FEIR/FEIS by including the RWSA as part of the

project. We believe this works to resolve many of the outstanding issues, including avoidance of

14
FEIR/FEIS, Chapter 4 Environmental Setting (Affected Environment), Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, Section
4.4.6 Cumulative Effect of the Proposed Project, subsection Interlake Tunnel (no. 24); page 4.4-105.

8
any significant harm to water rights users along with protecting SVGB overlying water right

landowners. MCFB and SVWC believe it is essential that the RWSA be approved as part of the

MPWSP approval.

After the comment period closed on the MPWSP Draft Environmental Impact Report, significant

time, resources, and effort was expended by MCFB, SVWC, Cal-Am and other parties who

negotiated and executed an agreement that would avoid significant impacts to the SVGB and make

the MPWSP feasible with respect to water rights. The RWSA would return to the SVGB the

portion of source water that the MPWSP’s wells produce from the SVGB groundwater (as opposed

to seawater). Under the RWSA, the return water would be delivered prior to the delivery of any

water to the Monterey Peninsula; the return water would be available for use in lieu of existing

groundwater pumping in the area threatened by seawater intrusion – so that there would be no net

increase in SVGB groundwater as a result of on-going MPWSP well production. In other words,

approval and performance of the RWSA would mean that the MPWSP’s on-going well production

would have a net-zero impact on SVGB groundwater on which the Salinas Valley’s farms,

families, and workplaces depend. In turn, that net-zero impact on SVGB groundwater would make

the MPWSP legally feasible by avoiding conflict with prior groundwater rights of the SVGB’s

overlying landowners and prior appropriators, like CCSD. Further, delivering the return water

prior to delivery of any water to the Monterey Peninsula15 avoids any type of net basin exportation

by starting with a ‘surplus or credit.’ And finally, the net-zero impact on SVGB groundwater would

15
“In order to ensure Cal-Am’s compliance with the Agency Act, the Parties agree that upon start-up of the Project,
the first 175 acre-feet of Return Water delivery by Cal-Am pursuant to this Settlement Agreement … shall be
delivered to CSIP.” Settlement Agreement on MPWSP Desalination Plant Return Water, Agreement Section 2.b.,
page 6.

9
avoid significant adverse physical impacts to the SVGB and to the remarkable agricultural

economy it sustains.

The solution to the MPWSP’s water rights feasibility problem is for the CPUC to approve the

RWSA that already has been approved by Cal-Am, Monterey County Water Resources Agency

(MCWRA), Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey Peninsula Water

Authority, LandWatch Monterey County, in addition to MCFB and SVWC.

The RWSA is necessary if the CPUC is going to approve the revised project allowing the Monterey

Peninsula to take water pumped from the SVGB wells. Absent return water, the MPWSP will be

legally infeasible from a water rights perspective and will violate the MCWRA enabling act

prohibition against exporting groundwater from the overdrafted basin. Absent return water,

litigation is certain.16

The approval of the RWSA by Cal-Am and the other necessary parties (including CCSD) shows

this component of the MPWSP is feasible and necessary with the return water component of the

MPWSP. Failure to approve the RWSA would result in significant impact.

MCFB and SVWC urge certification of the FEIR/FEIS as presented, including the Return Water

Settlement Agreement as part of the MPWSP.

16
“MCFB and SVWC has sated they may litigate these issues if they are not resolved through agreement.”
Settlement Agreement on MPWSP Desalinated Plant Return Water, Recitals Section V., page 3.

10
 Respectfully submitted on April 17, 2018,

/s/ Norman C. Groot /s/ Nancy Isakson

Norman C. Groot, Executive Director, Nancy Isakson, President,

Monterey County Farm Bureau Salinas Valley Water Coalition

11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)