M I N U TE S

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

DIRECTORS AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Joint Special Meeting
6:30 PM, Thursday, June 23, 2015
COUNCIL CHAMBER
440 HARCOURT AVE
SEASIDE, CALIFORNIA
Directors Present:
TAC Present:

Burnett, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson

Riley, Scuito, Alternate Ottmar, Riley, Alternate Stone, Chair Cullem

Directors Absent:
TAC Absent:

Edelen, Rubio
Stoldt

Staff Present:

Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL
President Burnett called the meeting to order at 6:34 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF
Chair Burnett invited comments from the Directors or the TAC and no reports were made.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Burnett invited comments from the Public

Tom Rowley spoke to a previous TAC Meeting where he remarked to the dangers to
polluting an aquifer. He referenced an article from Hawaii that is using a similar process
and which is harming their basin. He reported he would provide a copy of the article to
the Executive Director.

CONSENT AGENDA
On motion by Director Pendergrass and seconded by Vice President Kampe and approved by
the following vote the Directors approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

4
0
2
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson

None
Edelen, Rubio
None

RECUSED:

DIRECTORS:

None

1.

Approve and File Authority Checks Through June 23, 2015

Action: Approved & Filed

2.

Receive Report on Visit to the Monterey Peninsula by Tam Dudoc, P.E., Member of the
State Water Resources Control Board on May 29, 2015
Action: Report Received

3.

Receive Certificate of Appreciation for Keith Israel and Authorize Appointment of his
Replacement on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Action: Received
AGENDA ITEMS

4.

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
President Burnett reported that the City of Marina has two main concerns the first is concern
regarding the groundwater that the City relies on. They want to ensure that Marinas interests
are protected as they do not have a representative on the Hydrogeological working group. The
Second issue of concern to the City is the level of disruption that the construction will cause to
the City. There will be pavement impacts and disruption to the Marina community which the
other Peninsula cities will not have as dramatically. Nothing necessarily needs to be
incorporated into the EIR comments but President Burnett encouraged helping facilitate
discussions with Cal Am and the City of Marina.
Paul Scuito, General Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
reported that they did receive Marinas comments on the GWR project, which will be addressed.
He offered to provide copies to each of the Directors if requested.
President Burnett invited public comment on the item.

Michael Baer pointed out that there will be disruption of some kind to all Cities from
Marina to Pacific Grove with the installation of the pipelines.

President Burnett agreed with Mr. Baers comments.

The update was received.
5.

Receive Presentation, Discuss, Provide Direction and Authorize Sending of Comment

Letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Director Cullem introduced the contracted consultants from Geosyntec that were
obtained to conduct a peer review analysis of the intake structures and the brine disposal
analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP)

Gordon Thrup, from Geosyntec provided a presentation including on overview of the project, the
review goals and a focused review determining if the DEIR addresses the main critical issues of
the water intake system and brine disposal.
Mr. Thrup explained in detail the different hydro static situations, the aquifer diagram, water
flows patterns as well as the salt water intrusion levels due to over-pumping of the aquifer for
agricultural use. He further explained the different site specific properties and testing done by
Cal Am for the project, the geological cross section of the CEMEX area and the groundwater
modeling
Mr. Thrup spoke to the conclusions made in the DEIR as it related to the intake and the salt
water intrusion and impacts of the intake systems and their recommendations as it relates to the
proposed DEIR. His resulting conclusions are that there are some assumptions made in the
DEIR regarding modeling which are too conservative and some that are not conservative
enough. He presented the following conclusions regarding the subsurface intake system:

The models provide reasonable simulations of pumping from the subsurface intakes.
The contribution of inland fresh groundwater to the proposed pumping beneath the
coastal margin is minor and can realistically be returned to the Salinas Basin.
The potential impact to inland wells is not significant.
The project pumping would decrease sea water intrusion to inland aquifers.
Updates to the model predictions can be made based on the long-term pump testing
currently in progress at the slant well.

President Burnett invited comments from the Directors.

Director Pendergrass requested clarification on the perforated interval screen. He also
questioned if there was a possibility that the Marina wells will have sea water intrusion, to which
Mr. Thrup indicated that he thinks the wells are installed lower as to go underneath the seawater
intrusion so that it would take a long time for the Marina wells to flow downward.
Director Kampe spoke to the setback from the coastline either that the pipe has to go out further
or it has to be located to the shore line. What effect would it have to the result and particular the
% of seawater to freshwater if the intake was further out based on the proposed modeling?
Answer: there was a sensitivity analysis to the angle of the well as well as the depth. The angle
will dictate the depth of the well. The further you are out in the ocean the different depth will be
required. Mr. Thrup thinks the impact would be less than significant. Director Burnett indicated it
was going to be closer to the shore line but there was concern with coastal erosion. If you go
too far to the ocean, they can be exposed with coastal erosion and they had to account for sea
level rise.
Director Roberson requested clarification as to why salinity levels raise over time to which Mr.
Thrup responded some of the dunes sand is not very intruded with salt water, and that
influences the initial salinity but with time, the pumping will reach a connection with the ocean,
which would raise the salinity.

President Burnett questioned the hydraulic connectivity values and the assumptions made to
which the main method was based on the lythologic logs.
President Burnett invited questions from the TAC
TAC Member Riley questioned the conductivity pattern that exists in area 10.02 on the Fig 31
appendix E2 and it gets close to the Seaside Groundwater Basin and is there any data that
creates a picture of the Basin. He expressed concern that it could change flow pattern of
conductivity to the adjudicated basin. Mr. Riley further commented that due to the newness of
the slant well technology, and the time line, there may be some short cuts and expressed
concern that the data is fully collected so that the full implications are known.
The presentation continued with Al Preston, Geosyntech Consultant who discussed the brine
disposal system overview, provided an update on the critical issues, and the differences
between a near and far field approach. He discussed assumptions made in the modeling,
potential weaknesses, results and monitoring, mitigation and then their recommendations as it
related that should be included in the DEIR.
DEIR uses appropriate analyses to address most of the main critical issues related to the brine
disposal system

Include the following analyses provided by Geosyntec

Port merging
Coanda effect
Hypoxia
Address/discuss potential for buildup of PCBs in sediments surrounding intakes
Conduct additional near field analysis to estimate additional dilution achievable by
pulsing brine discharge
Consider retrofit of diffuser ports with inclined angles to achieve more dilution if
necessary
Add discussion of potential for diffuser structure to trap brine
Consider current directions (from ROM) and bathymetry slope with respect to
diffuser alignment and tidal reversals
Consider using 3D far field model
Will likely result in additional dilution
Will better address potential for brine trapping by diffuser structure
Add discussion of the effect of only tracking brine particles for 48 hours

Director Kampe thanked the consultant for the presentation in an easy to understandable
format. He questioned if it was possible to have a continuous buoyancy plume, that may happen
due to the lack of waste water available and asked if that was why the strategies of storage and
pulsing is important.

Director Roberson questioned the concentration of brine consistency and if it would be impacted
with the reduction of the waste water quantities through GWR to which Mr. Preston indicated
that the DEIR did consider scenarios where there was no waste water at all.
President Burnett questioned if pressurized diffusers were included in the analysis, to which Mr.
Preston affirmed if you pressurize the diffusers it will increase the velocity of the diffusion and it
would be a feasible solution.
President Burnett invited questions from TAC Members:
George Riley spoke to pulsing and gravity feed and questioned the difference in modeling that
would need to take place to change the dispersal patterns. Mr. Preston responded that when
the plume sinks because it is so close to the ground, if you pressurize it would aid in the
trajectory and would push it out further.
President Burnett indicated there are two longer term impacts that are listed as not judged to be
mitigatable to less than significant. The First is Green House Gas and the second is Land Use
associated with the size of the facility. He questioned if the Authority would consider requesting
inclusion of the Authoritys desires to ensure there is water for lots of record. He also expressed
two options which could mitigate the above to make it less than significant which could be
included in the response comments. It would make it easier to certify the EIR if those were
reduced.
1) Ability to go out on the open market to purchase recs or carbon credits to reduce the
impacts to less than significant level. This may incur economic impacts
2) AB 32 which covers electric generating units in the public sector and some EIRs point to
AB 32 as mitigation because the emissions are off site but at a different facility that feeds
into the PGE Distribution system.
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

Tom Rolwey spoke representing the Monterey Peninsula Tax Payers association who
supports the adequate water for lots of record comment inclusion. He also thanked the
Directors for hiring the consultants and that it was money well spent.
Michael Baer spoke to attending other meetings and is trying to understand from an
environmental impact position in a laymans perspective. From a discharge side, waste
water discharge is dependent on seasonal rainfall, it is an unknown going forward. The
wave action on the surface can be significant, and thinks there may be some motion
during storms that may diffuse this stuff. He outlines the quantity of brine to be
discharged with fresh water and is not convinced that the brine will not build up over
time. The DDT is from the GWR project. All of this seems to be based on models, is
there anywhere else in the world with a desal plant that has similar situation with actual
data and what is happening to the ocean. Concerned it is based on speculation. Does
not think there is a baseline biology done in that mud below the pipe.

Public Comment was closed and President Burnett answered questions posed during public
comment.

President Burnett clarified the process going forward that there would be a cover letter signed
by the Authority and listed as an attachment would be the written technical report completed for
submission as an attachment.
The Authority discussed the content of the letter and agreed that the letter should outline
references and comments on mitigation measures as they pertain to the DEIR. The letter will
contain the general concern but also to include accurate cite references and requested
specification of the changes to make it easier to respond and show how it directly applies to the
DEIR. They agreed to the inclusion of a recommendation to explore the financial impact to the
rate payers for a power purchase arrangement for renewable energy as a mitigating option.
On motion by Vice President Kampe and seconded by Director Pendergrass and approved by
the following vote the Authority Directors approved Executive Director Cullem and President
Burnett to draft a transmittal letter outlining specific recommendations on both the intake and the
discharge elements of the Draft EIR and incorporate GHG mitigation suggestions and
confirming lots of record as part of the water supply project plan .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
6.

4
0
2
0
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson

None
Edelen, Rubio
None
None

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: This item was continued to a future meeting.
The Authority requested a representative from the Water Management District be present a
report.

7.

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.
Action: This item was continued to a future meeting.

8.

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
President Burnett spoke to the item and indicated that it is unlikely this item will be taken up by
the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the adoption of the EIR. He spoke in support
of the fact the request is a joint document between the Authority, Cal Am and the Water
Management District which proves the community has a unified voice and anticipates the Board
will be more receptive. President Burnett suggested the Authority authorize being a signatory to

the action itself. The Directors discussed the timing of the request, the amount of public input
prior to submission and other items for inclusion. President Burnett spoke in support of delaying
the submission of the request due to their distraction with new water regulations and
enforcement throughout the state. He clarified that the Authority is not a party to the action, and
would not lose any legal rights, but that by signing the document, it shows a collective
commitment.
President Burnett invited comments from the public.

Tom Rowley expressed regret that the County of Monterey is not represented on the
authority.
George Riley there should be wiggle room in the letter to comply with the conservation
target and find a solution to the economic improvements. Disappointed that the proposal
did not include his previous suggestions regarding fines.

On motion by Director Pendergrass and seconded by Vice President Kampe and passed by the
following vote the Directors approved the addition of the Authority as a signatory to the letter of
support of the Cease and Desist order extension request.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

4
0
2
0
0

DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:
DIRECTORS:

Burnett, Kampe, Pendergrass, Roberson

None
Edelen, Rubio
None
None

ADJOURNMENT
No longer having a quorum, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 PM

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton-Rerig, Clerk of the Authority

Jason Burnett, President