Agenda Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Regular Meeting 2:00 PM, Monday, April 15, 2013

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, April 15, 2013
City Council Chamber
Few Memorial Hall
Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

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 TAC and which is not on the agenda. Any
person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so by
addressing the Committee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to:
MPRWA TAC, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate
staff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. March 18, 2013

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Discuss and Provide Recommendation for Draft Criteria for The Ground Water
Replenishment Workshop Hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission on June 12,
2013 (Stoldt)

3. Receive Update Regarding the California Public Utilities Testimony Hearings April 2012
(Burnett)

4. Receive and Discuss Presentation Regarding the Salinas Valley Perspective on the Policy
Statement by the MPRWA on the Proposed MPWSP Project (Huss)

5. Receive Update Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting Authority
Adopted Conditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Cal Am Representative)

6. Receive Governance Committee Update (Burnett)

ADJOURNMENT

Created date 04/12/2013 12:32 PM Monday, April 15, 2013
2

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-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 staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

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 T E S
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Regular meeting
2:00 PM, Monday, March 18, 2013
COUNCIL CHAMBER
FEW MEMORIAL HALL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,
Members Absent:

Staff Present: Clerk of the Committee, Legal Counsel, Executive Director

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and staff and had no requests to speak.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Burnett invited public comments for items not on the agenda and had no requests to
speak.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. February 25, 2013
Action: Approved

On motion, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes of February 25,
2013:

AYES: 8 MEMBERS Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,
NOES: 0 MEMBERS None
ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS None
ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None
RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

2. March 4, 2013
Action: Approved
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/15/2013 , tem No. 1., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, March 18, 2013

2

On motion, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes of March 4,
2013:


AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report on First Governance Committee Meeting (Burnett)
Action: Received and Discussed

Chair Burnett reported on the first meeting of the Governance Committee and indicated the
largest agenda item was discussion of the proposed Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The RFQ will be issued by April 1,
,
2013 to narrow
the field from eight to four firms. In June, 2013 the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released
with a 90 day response time, and the winning firm will be selected. He then reported that he
was elected as Chair of the Governance Committee and will be working on agenda
management to determine appropriate timing of decisions.
Cal Am representative Rich Svinland provided additional details for the RFQ process including
the distribution date of June 15, 2013 and a return Deadline of September 15, 2013 with intent
to have the firm on Board by the finalization of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The
current plan is not to contract with the design-build firm before the EIR is completed. He also
report that permits have been submitted to the Coastal Commission, The City of Marina, the US
Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the State Water
Quality Control Board and the California State Lands Commission. There is a meeting being
coordinated with all federal agencies to expedite the process.

Legal Counsel Freeman requested that to ensure the integrity of the RFQ and RFP process,
that there be no ex-party contacts with any eligible firm.

Chair Burnett communicated to Cal Am three suggested changes to the RFQ from the
Authority:
1. Adding compliance history with labor laws.
2. Energy efficiency with consideration of costs.
3. Review of past ability for firms to design plans that are maintainable and adaptable to
new technology.
Director Burnett clarified the Authority is not requesting the project to be governed by specific
labor laws, but only ensure that firms have complied with labor laws on previous projects.
Mr. Svinland confirmed that there are currently eight firms seriously considering the project and
he discussed the firms that were eligible and capable to complete the project. He then
explained the benefits of seeking a design build firm, and that cost us not the largest factor to

3
consider. Contractors can bid for lower initial costs, but the facility can have a high operating
cost. Chair Burnett pointed out that the RFP will not used to select the lowest bid but instead
identify the best value proposal. Cal Am as a private entity can do that, unlike a public entity.

Member Narigi spoke to the issue of change orders and how it can impact costs outside of the
contracted work and questioned how that would be addressed. Mr. Svinland responded that Cal
Am is leaning toward lump sum prices, and that costs and finalization of costs will be flushed
out through the governance committee.

Member Seigfried spoke to the need for a firm with permitting experience and questioned how
an international firm would be knowledgeable about regionally required permits. Mr. Svinland
responded that the RFQ requires providing experience with permitting processes and the RFP
will specify the exact 30 permits that will be required to obtain. He also clarified that the
Engineer of Record must be a California Professional Engineer and any international team will
need to team up with local team that can manage the permits.-
Member Riedl questioned how the project will be impacted if the EIR is delayed and noted that
if SRF funding is utilized it would trigger a requirement for prevailing wage. He also noted that if
the project is built to follow the California Building Code, it will qualify for LEED Silver.
Chair Burnett also discussed the timeline for the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project,
and that the Governance Committee agreed to send a letter requesting the CPUC to hold a
workshop on the issue in the future. He then opened the item to public comment and had no
requests to speak.
4. Receive Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting Authority Adopted
Conditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Cal Am Rep Bowie)

California American Water Representative Rich Svinland delivered an update report regarding
the progress to meet the Authority adopted conditions of support for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project.
1) Contribution of Public Funds: Cal Am Water filed their rebuttal testimony with the CPUC
and is still working to find a way to make utilizing public funding mutually beneficial. Will
present verbal arguments at the CPUC testimony hearing.
2) Agreement to form the Governance Committee. Completed.
3) Obtain Lower Electricity Rates: Cal Am does not view this as a critical path and it can be
resolved later in the process. This item will be reviewed by the Governance Committee and
will include a comprehensive study of total costs. Chair Burnett reported that the goal is to
reduce costs to 8 or 9 cents per kilowatt hour.

4) Limit the use of the Surcharge Understands that driving force is to limit the costs of
interest during construction as well as the risk to the public moneys. In the rebuttal
testimony, discussed the facilities that need to be built no matter what facility is built. There
will be an amount of tangible assess greater than that amount. The surcharge counts as a
contribution to the larger pot of money and will have a net effect in the project.


4
5) Slant Wells.
a) Submitted testimony that did address Durbin's testimony
b) All permits have been submitted and Cal Am is collaborating with public agencies to
expedite the permitting process.
c) Clarification of NEPA - the PUC will deliver a determination if NEPA is required, and will
be determined by the permit from the US Army Corps of Engineering.
Chair Burnett requested Member Huss to look at the updated information that Mr. Svinland
provided from a perspective from the impacted Salinas Valley residents and businesses and
report back at a future meeting.

6) Development of Alternative Intake Strategies. Cal am is focusing on solving the process
of the slant well and subsurface intake system before exploring an open ocean intake,
justifying that attempting to obtain permits at the same time would cause delay. He
acknowledged that Cal Am is not perusing an alternative strategy aggressively. Mr.
Svinland answered questions of the TAC regarding alternative methods considered
including direct push, vibrations methods and the overall efficiency needed from the slant
well.
Member Seigfried questioned if their process would invoke the Agency Act. Chair Burnett
indicated that it only applies one direction. Mr. Svinland indicated that a successful GWR
project would be beneficial because the amount of water utilized from the Salinas basin would
be less. Chair Burnett and the TAC agreed that there has not been focused discussions on the
GWR project but will be considered more in the future. He then spoke to the agreement that the
City of Marina has with the Sierra Club that might impact the permit.

7) SRF Financing. Cal Am is working to provide something in writing, but will not be eligible
until the release of the EIR.
8) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion. Issues with coastal erosion will be addressed by
engineering levels and by the CEQA review. Sea level rise is not a factors due to the
location of the squash zone and how the property line will move back with the rise and wells
can been replaced over time to address if the sea level rises. The Intake pump station will
have a 150 foot barrier and be designed to handle flooding. The substation will be at the
same elevation from the MRWPCA and will not be a problem.
Chair Burnett questioned the level of coastal erosion due to the sand mining effort of Semex
facility. Mr. Svinland responded that there have been studies indicating Semex is contributing to
the degradation of beaches further south but has not seen a recent report. Member Huss
questioned at what level the water will be treated, and if there are considerations of a second
stage process and the quality that would result. Mr. Svinland responded that they plan to use
boron for the main driver, but have decided to do a second pass system with the goal at trying
to keep the system at or below a partial second pass.
Executive Director Reichmuth spoke to a systematic way that the conditions could be reported
in an easy to use and understand matrix, yet provide information to judge progress on the eight
conditions. Chair Burnett opened the item for public comment and had no requests to speak.
5. Receive Report From Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regarding The
Ground Water Replenishment Project (Israel, Stoldt)

5

Member Israel spoke to progress made in the last month by the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) including approval of a project budget, the selection of an
environmental firm to assist with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and selection of a
special legal counsel to assist with the project definition. Currently, the project description is
being formulated for the Notice to Proceed as well as development of a public outreach
campaign with an outside consultant. There will be a focused campaign that will need to include
the other agency partners such as the Authority and the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District to develop a coordinated education plan.
Member Israel provided a timeline that included receiving reports on the overall progress and
the schedule, updated through quarter four of 2014. He then reported that the MRWPCA has
joined the Western Recycled Water Coalition consisting of twenty eight agencies predominantly
in the San Francisco Bay Area, focused on obtaining funding from the federal government
funding for recycled water. Member Stoldt clarified the fourth quarter of 2014 is the critical
decision point to get the project completed on time. Member Israel answered questions of the
TAC.
Member Huss expressed concern that there have not been continued discussions with the
Salinas Valley region for support. Member Israel responded that there would be more
communication around June after the feasibility study is developed.
Chair Burnett explained that the timeline that is critical is that from the CPUC, as it will
determine the quantity of water available. Member Israel indicated that the MRWPCA has
begun trying to identify ways to bring in new sources of water including potential water
purchase agreements with Salinas. Member Narigi urged information to be communicated to
the business community. They are very concerned about the ground water component, the
reliability and how it relates to the tourism industry.
Chair Burnett opened the item for public comment and had no requests to speak.
Chair Burnett and the TAC came up with the below list of key issues that the TAC needs to
engage with respect to GWR:
Review Feasibility Study and Scoping documents and make recommendation to the
Authority Directors
Address the unpleasantness factor
Review Public Outreach plan, and ensure that it is targeted for both consumers and
businesses, simplified and understandable
o Potential survey of public understanding
Review a matrix study of source water

6. Discuss and Review Benefits and Disadvantages of Private Investor-Owned vs. Public
Ownership of Desalination Facilities (Riley)
Action: Discussed

Member Riley spoke to this agenda item and discussed the information in the packet. He
reported that his intent for the agenda item was to help inform the Authority on the different
positions to assist with future decisions of the Authority.

6
He spoke to the principles outlined in Document 1 provided in the packet; advocating for lowest
costs and elevates public interest over corporate interest. The funding interest should be
considered with regards to three areas: 1) State Revolving Funds (SRF), 2) Public Bond
Financing and 3) Surcharge Two. He noted that SRF were established to help public agencies
and not corporate interest. Financing from the other two categories are associated with direct
ownership opportunities andthe rate payers should have more than just a financing stake but
standing as well.
Chair Burnett requested that Member Riley speak to the 8 conditions and the degree to which
they address or don't address the ultimate objective. Member Riley acknowledged that he
supports all the adopted conditions and thinks it does work in the interest of the ratepayers.
Member Riley then answered question from the TAC.
Chair Burnett opened the item to the public and had no requests to speak.
Member Seigfried spoke to the possibility that in the future Cal Am could sell the facility if it
does not achieve the expected revenues of 7 to 10% increase of earnings per share. Chair
Burnett responded by identifying that there is a cost element and a control element involved
and said it is important to stay focused on obtaining the water, at the lowest cost, and after
2017 there will be the ability to address the issue of facility control. Member Riley thanked the
TAC for the opportunity to present information on both points of view.

7. Approval of Meeting Dates Through June 30, 2013 (Milton)
Action: Approved

On a motion by Member Narigi, seconded by Member Israel, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the Meeting dates through June 30,
2013.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to come before the TAC, Chair Burnett adjourned the meeting at 4:30
p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, MPRWA TAC Chair
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: April 15, 2013
Item No: 2.

08/12

FROM: Prepared By: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Discuss and Provide Recommendation for Draft Criteria for The Ground Water
Replenishment Workshop Hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission
on June 12, 2013 (Stoldt)
DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation will take place at the meeting.


Agenda Report

Item No: 3.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update Regarding the California Public Utilities Testimony Hearings
April 2012 (Burnett)

DISCUSSION:



Agenda Report

Item No: 4.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Presentation Regarding the Salinas Valley Perspective on the Policy
Statement by the MPRWA on the Proposed MPWSP Project (Huss)

DISCUSSION:



Agenda Report

Item No: 5.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting
Authority Adopted Conditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(Cal Am Representative)

DISCUSSION:


ATTACHMENTS:

Police Condition Status Report (Dated 4/10/13)
Summary of Evidentiary Hearings
Policy Conditions Status Report
FORM UPDATED: 4/10/13
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Condition Status Next Milestone Comment
1. Contribution of Public Funds:
Cal-Am must accept a significant contribution of public funds. Without the
interest rate advantages afforded by such approach, the costs of water from the
Cal-Am Project will be materially higher, and a significant contribution of public
funds will avoid unwarranted expenses to Cal-Ams rate payers.
Pending
Extensive testimony at the PUC hearings regarding implications of a public
contribution. Water Authority has not defined what is meant by
"significant."
2. Formation of Governance Committee: Cal-Am must agree, upon mutually-
acceptable terms, to form a Governance Committee to provide publicly-
accountable oversight of the project.
Completed
June PUC workshop.
Still need to develop criteria for the "GWR Recommendation." Governance
Committee Chair Burnett sent letter to PUC ALJ Weatherford requesting a
workshop. Judge has set a June PUC workshop. Parties to Governance
Committee must agree on criteria.
3. Seek Lower Electricity Rates: Cal-Am must diligently seek to secure lower
electricity rates for the project including an agreement to purchasing power
through a municipal electrical utility, generation of on-site power if necessary,
other public entity or other source of low-cost power;
Pending
Proceeding on two tracks. First, Cal-Am is investigating installation of high-
voltage lines to reduce the unit cost of power. Second, the Governance
Committee has engaged with the Waste Management District regarding a
possible Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for landfill gas power.
4. Limit Use of Surcharge 2: Cal-Am must agree to limit the use of revenue
from Cal-Ams Surcharge 2 to reduce risk to Cal-Am ratepayers in the event the
Cal-Am project does not move forward.
Pending
Proposed Surcharge 2 ($103 million) is slightly less than Cal-Am only
facilities ($106 million), allowing for the possibility that the PUC could
require Cal-Am to spend Surcharge 2 revenues on and only on Cal-Am only
facilities (pipelines and the like).
5. Address Test Well Concerns & Permitting: To promptly address concerns
pertaining to Cal-Ams proposed intake wells including:
Pending
Address all issues raised in the December 2012 Tim Durbin testimony;
Mr. Durbin testified at PUC hearings. CalAm and others asked questions of
Mr. Durbin.
Proceed with planned test wells and other advanced geotechnical
work to support the proposed intake wells;
Application for test wells before City of Marina, state and national.
Collaborate with local public agencies to advance permitting efforts
Cal-Am working with Water Authority representatives on permitting issues.
Seek to clarify whether the installation of Cal-Ams intake wells will
require approval from any federal agency, which could require NEPA
Cal-Am has applied to City of Marina (CEQA), State Lands, and Army Corp
of Engineers (NEPA) for test wells.
6. Development of Contingency Plan: Fully develop a contingency plan or
plans concurrently with planning and testing of slant wells and implement those
plans for source water that do not involve wells in the Salinas Basin.
Pending
Cal-Am has expressed some concerns with implementing contingencies.
They state doing so may reduce their ability to successfully pursue their
preferred option.
7. Access to SRF Funds: Provide written documentation demonstrating ability
to secure SRF financing. Cal-Am must accept a public agency partner for SRF
purposes if necessary, even if doing so results in a reduction in Cal-Ams equity
position.
Pending
After EIR complete (late
2013)
Cal-Am says the state is unwilling to provide written documentation until
the project's EIR is complete. Cal-Am has submitted a financing application
to the statef for SRF purposes.
8. Address Environmental Challenges: Must address questions about
environmental factors such as sea level rise, coastal erosion, liquefacation in
seismic events, and damage from tsunami events with respect to the placement
and longevity of their proposed slant wells.
Pending
Much of this work is being done by the EIR team. Draft EIR due Summer
2013. Final late 2013.
For more information about the Policy Conditions adopted by the MPRWA, please visit www.mprwa.org/rfp
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
3

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

5
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

2
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

1
4

SB 643730 v2:015621.0002
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT TESTIMONY FROM CPUC EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(A.12-04-019)
Issue Pertinent Testimony
MPRWA Position Statement Issues:
1. Public contribution Extensive testimony by Cal-Am financial and expert witnesses asserted various concerns concerning
proposed utility securitization (principally concerning recourse to Cal-Am, effects of consolidated debt
to company credit worthiness, need for separate Cal-Am credit rating, costs and delay associated with
securitization, and tax consequences). MPRWA cross-examined aggressively. Resulting impression
was whether the securitization would adversely affect the company is a matter of circumstances
(likely not in this case). Cal-Am acknowledged willingness to further explore acceptable public
financing structures. MPWMD witness, Stoldt and Larkins explained basis for opinion that
securitization would not be recourse to Cal-Am and would not adversely affect Cal-Am credit
worthiness. Stoldt and Larkins recommended that the Commission order Cal-Am to explore
securitization package so long as completed within six months of permanent financing, which would
not adversely affect Cal-Ams credit worthiness, would not require separate Cal-Am credit rating, and
the proceeds would not be treated as income to Cal-Am for tax purposes.
2. Governance Committee Svindland, Keeley and other witnesses acknowledged Governance Committee as a prudent means
for community participation, oversight and cost scrutiny. On the matter of establishing criteria for
GWR Decision, Governance Committee Chair Burnett sent a letter to PUC ALJ Weatherford
requesting a workshop. Judge has set a June PUC workshop to explore settlement on criteria.
3. Lower cost and alternative electricity No extensive testimony: Svindland acknowledged that Cal-Am evaluating options, including potential
use of landfill gas power.
4. Limited use of Surcharge 2 Svindlands direct testimony explained that Surcharge 2 could be used for Cal-Am only facilities (i.e.,
product water pipes, terminal reservoir and related infrastructure), but he qualified statement under
cross examination that the company has not pledged to do so.
5. Intake well issues (water rights,
Salinas Valley Basin impacts, and
permitting)
Extensive testimony was provided by SVCs witness, Durbin, and Cal-Ams witness, Leffler,
concerning potential impacts of the source wells on the Salinas Valley Basin and the percentage of
groundwater that will be drawn by the source wells. Principal issue is whether the site of the source
wells includes a significant aquitard between sand dune aquifer and the 180' aquifer (i.e., is the 180'
aquifer confined at the Cal-Am site?). More confinement would likely result in more impact on the
basin and greater take of groundwater as opposed to seawater. Durbin recommended that there be
geotechnical studies to understand the 180' aquifer, geochemical analysis to age the water, test wells
in 180' aquifer and dunes aquifer, density effects analysis (higher density seawater causes
groundwater to move), and sensitivity analysis (consideration of different hydrogeology resulting from
future phases of the SVWP, future scope of seawater intrusion, etc.)
6. Develop a concurrent contingency
plan for source water
Svindland explained that Cal-Am is willing to collaborate with MPRWA with respect to source water
contingencies, but Cal-Am remains committed to only applying for permits for slant wells/horizontal
wells at Cemex site until and unless the Cal-Am plan proves infeasible.
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
3

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

5
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

3
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

1
5

SB 643730 v2:015621.0002

7. Proof of SRF financing availability Svindland explained that the state is unwilling to provide written documentation until the project's EIR
is complete, but that a financing package is complete and has been submitted.
8. Address environmental issues,
including seal level rise and coastal
erosion issues
Significant cross-examination of Cal-Am witness (notably Svindland) on this subject. Cal-Am
explanation that project has changed to gravity system of source wells to avoid powered infrastructure
within/at wells and locating desalination facility at 100' above sea level. MPWMD witness, Hampson,
testified that there should be further evaluation of coastal erosion and coastal flooding, including
significant waves during construction. Surfriders witness, Damitz, testified that barrier dams cannot
extend seaward of the high tide line under the NMSs Desalination Guidelines (non-binding guidelines
only). Cal-Ams proposed construction of slant wells in swash zone would require barrier dams that
would be inconsistent with the guidelines.

Other issues
Project sizing Svindland testified that project sized for replacement water (Carmel River and Seaside Basin),
Seaside Basin payback at 700 afy, tourism/economic bounce back, Pebble Beach water entitlement,
and new service to lots of record (1,181 afy subset of general plan build-out of 4,545 afy).
Brine discharge (MRWPCA outfall
capacity)
Cal-Am witnesses were cross-examined by MCWD with respect to sufficiency of MRWPCA outfall
capacity for brine discharge. Cal-Am explained they believe there is sufficient capacity in all but
occasional winter months, in which case Cal-Am is exploring solutions, including temporary brine
storage.
Brine discharge (potential marine
environment impacts)
Surfrider witnesses testified in written testimony that brine diffusers would be required to permit brine
discharge and cross-examined Cal Am witness, Svindland, regarding the same. Svindland testified
that Cal-Am believes that outfall as-is would provide sufficient brine diffusion but has contingencies for
slip-lining the outfall pipeline and use of diffusers, which would require an additional cost of $9-10
million.
GWR and portfolio supply approach Testimony by PCL witness, Minton, regarding the benefits of GWR, including consistency with state
support for water reclamation, reduced brine, reliability, and diversity of supply.
Community collaboration and political
issues
Testimony by PCL witness, Keeley, regarding community division as an element in the failure of
previous water supply projects and benefits of present emerging community consensus as it relates to
potential overcome political challenges to yield success for current project.
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
3

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

5
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

4
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

1
6
Agenda Report

Item No: 6.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Governance Committee Update (Burnett)

DISCUSSION:



Agenda Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Regular Meeting 2:00 PM, Monday, April 15, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Regular Meeting 2:00 PM, Monday, April 15, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

You might also like