Appendix A CAW 10-12-17

FILED
10-12-17
04:59 PM
Appendix A
Proceeding A.12-04-009
CAW MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY
AND TO SHORTEN RESPONSE TIME
56238670.v2
Appendix A of California-American Water Companys Motion to Strike Testimony
Basis for Motion

Entry Location of Testimony Text
to Strike
# Testimony (Portion to be Stricken Shown in Red with Strikethrough)
Testimony
Citizens for Just Water PREPARED TESTIMONY OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (JUST WATER) FOR CPUC
EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS 1
1 Citizens for Why is it that so little comparative focus has been given to the Marina and Ord C. Outside of
Just Water communities, and MCWD in contrast to the volumes analyzed and documented on the Parameters of
Hofmann MPWSP? This has been the visible focus... so much so, that the huge and endless Identified Issues2
Page 3. distractions of Cal Ams facts and justifications has created neglect for full accountability
to Marina. This omission reflects the parable of the emperors new clothes. We have
been forced into contesting all the myriad of debatable elements to this fatally flawed
project, but in essence, we have missed the point that rigorous study from the
perspective of Marina and MCWD has not been mandated by CPUC. CPUC must hold
an impartial entity accountable to provide this balanced and complete study of the
jurisdictions from which the project intends to extract water. Who will speak for the Marina
and Ord communities? Does CPUC or MBNMS or CCC actually expect that volunteers of
the public, with little resources of money, time and expertise, or small public agencies
with very limited budgets, counter all the one-sided information that Cal-Am has so
professionally provided for their region only? Where is the devotion of the same
amounts of public resources for a full and balanced evaluation that includes all the
interests of Marina and Ord communities where the project is sited?
2 Citizens for A closer scrutiny of estimates in the Appendices of the DEIR for future water shows A. Environmental
Just Water embellished overestimates far beyond the data provided by cities. For example: the City Issue to be
Hofmann of Carmel estimated 45 second units requiring water might be developed in the future. Addressed in
Page 4. The MPWMD has helpfully boosted this number to 287 units. This padding is repeated Environmental
1
California American Water notes that the testimony provided by the Citizens for Just Water cited to a number of references in footnotes in the testimony.
Citizens for Just Water have provided Appendix A and Appendix B to its testimony, which it described as Supporting Documents for Prepared Testimony of
Citizens for Just Water (Just Water) for CPUC Evidentiary Hearings. It is unclear whether Citizens for Just Water is seeking to introduce each of those
supporting documents into the evidentiary record or if they are merely providing them as a courtesy copy to the Commission. To the extent that it seeks to
formally introduce those documents into the evidentiary record, California American Water opposes that attempt and move to strike any documents referenced in
footnotes or otherwise in sections of testimony that are proposed to be stricken here.
2
The testimony in this portion of Citizens for Just Waters testimony discusses potential future development in areas outside of California American Waters
service area and are therefore not relevant to the analysis contemplated by the August 28 Ruling. It therefore should be stricken for that reason.
2
56238670.v2
again in estimating needs for future toilets in the City of Carmel. Of the 3,349 units that Impact Review
might consider adding another bathroom, this calculation assumes that 83% or 2,825
homes will add an entirely new bathroom! This calls into question any and all other C. Outside of
numbers used to justify the quantity of potable water that the MPWMD says the peninsula Parameters of
needs and underlines the basic inequity between the wealth of the Peninsula and the Identified Issues
complete and utter disrespect for the population of Marina. How many more future
toilets in the City of Marina are anticipated? Nowhere are such questions posed and the
persistent impermissible bias continues.
3 Citizens for As identified above, Cal-Ams project has carefully analyzed their own customers future A. Environmental
Just Water demand projections but has had no regard for the Salinas Valley stakeholder needs from Issue to be
Hofmann which they intend to illegitimately take water. The Marina and Ord communities have Addressed in
Page 4-5. some of the largest undeveloped and valuable parcels in the region, and therefore also Environmental
have significant future water demand need for these build outs. As an aside, the Impact Review
availability of this actual water (not allotment agreements) is currently in question with the
critically over drafted nature of the Basin. MCWDs service area include approximately C. Outside of
34,000 people with doubling water demands predicted in 10 years, an anticipated future Parameters of
CSUMB Master Plan enrollment of 25,000 students, and a brand new, now opened Identified Issues
Veterans Administration Outpatient Center. The demand needs of MCWD is of equal
importance to the Cal-Ams water demands for the Peninsula. If Cal-Am takes water from
the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, a zero sum game, this will cause a deficit of water
for others in the region. Where are MCWD water needs considered in this Evidentiary
Hearing? If one says, that is not the question here, then where should this be
considered? It is not in the DEIR nor in this hearing. How does the demand need of
Marina, Ord communities and MCWD not have relevancy?
4 Citizens for All of these developments have water agreements in place using Salinas Valley C. Outside of
Just Water groundwater. So it is curious that CalAm has chosen to ignore any discussion of Parameters of
Hofmann economic recovery of hospitality in Marina or to acknowledge that water needs will grow Identified Issues
Page 7. in our region as well. If CalAm sites its operation in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin,
not in the communities where it provides service, this discussion of groundwater needs
must be identified with as much detail as has been documented for the Peninsula needs.
Any negative impact to groundwater supplies will cripple economic recovery and future
expansion of industry in the Marina and Ord Communities.
5 Citizens for Because the CPUC and MBNMS will not review the water rights for this project, there will B. Impermissible
3
56238670.v2
Just Water be, without a doubt, significant litigation costs. CalAm does not have water rights to Legal
Hofmann extract SVGB water. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 is a Conclusions
Page 8-9. statewide statute that mandates local communities to implement Groundwater
Management plans to protect, preserve and restore groundwater aquifers to January 1, C. Outside of
2015 conditions. As the water purveyor in a groundwater-dependent region, MCWD is Parameters of
required to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Identified Issues
In the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, uncodified findings state:
(a) The legislature finds and declares as follows:
(5) Failure to manage groundwater to prevent long-term overdraft infringes on

groundwater rights
(7) Groundwater management will not be effective unless local actions to sustainably
manage groundwater basins and sub basins are taken.
6 Citizens for The SVGB is one of 21 critically over drafted groundwater basins in California.4 There is A. Environmental
Just Water no surplus water. CalAm states in the DEIR that it plans to extract 2100 gallons of water Issue to be
Hofmann per minute from the 180-Foot Aquifer. This rate of water extraction means that 3,024,000 Addressed in
Page 9. gallons a day are being lost by MCWD consumers, but calculations for maintaining Environmental
balanced levels of pumping and recharge to satisfy SGMA are glossed over. This puts an Impact Review
undue burden on MCWD to manage groundwater while CalAm freely extracts this
resource! If approved, there will be lawsuits that significantly contribute to the overall B. Impermissible
costs of this project, and unfortunately, includes costs shouldered by the water Legal
ratepayers and less financially endowed public agencies (MCWD) who can ill afford this Conclusions
necessary challenge.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
7 Citizens for The Agency Act prohibits the exportation of groundwater from the critically over drafted B. Impermissible
Just Water Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin beyond Fort Ord. Legal
Hofmann Conclusions
Pages 9-10. Sec. 21. Legislative findings; Salinas River groundwater basin extraction and recharge.
The Legislature finds and determines that the Agency is developing a project which will C. Outside of
establish a substantial balance between extraction and recharge within the Salinas River Parameters of
4
56238670.v2
Groundwater Basin. For the purpose of preserving that balance, no groundwater from Identified Issues
thatbasin may be exported for any use outside the basin, except that use of water from
the basin on any part of Fort Ord shall not be deemed such an export. If any export of
water from the basin is attempted, the Agency may obtain from the superior court, and
the court shall grant, injunctive relief prohibiting that exportation of groundwater.
If approved, this project will incur litigation costs.
8 Citizens for Cal Am does not have rights to process water and return it to Castroville and its B. Impermissible
Just Water Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP). It is a clever sleight of hand to maintain Legal
Hofmann that the water taken from one jurisdiction that possesses overlying rights will be Conclusions
Page 10. returned nine miles north to the same location because it can be considered a part of
the larger basin (SVGB). This argument does not stand up to scrutiny. What if someone C. Outside of
extracts $100 from my account and then argues that they have returned that money Parameters of
because they have deposited it to a different account in the same bank! How will this Identified Issues
water be returned to its point of origin? At what rate of percolation will the return water
ever arrive from Castroville to Marina? Will any of this proposed returned groundwater
ever actually return to the CEMEX pumping site or anywhere near it? If approved, this
project will incur litigation costs.
9 Citizens for There is a freshwater layer (called Dune Sand aquifer) that was completely overlooked by A. Environmental
Just Water Cal-Am in its assessment of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and now verified in Issue to be
Hofmann new information from the AEM (airborne electromagnetic) imaging completed by MCWD Addressed in
Pages 10- this past August. This means that Cal Ams desalination project will not only be pumping Environmental
11. our groundwater, and NOT pure ocean water as they misled us to believe, and this water Impact Review
turns out to be not even brackish groundwater (mix of fresh and seawater) but is actually
also freshwater! Cal-Am has no rights to our groundwater and further cannot obtain B. Impermissible
appropriative rights based on their illegitimate claims of take of brackish water. Legal
Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
5
56238670.v2
10 Citizens for Cal Ams claim to the groundwater is considered junior to existing appropriations and A. Environmental
Just Water overlying users, but no such discussion of the costs of litigation exists in the MPWSP Issue to be
Hofmann DEIR. Without this analysis, this project must be deemed infeasible. Addressed in
Page 11. Environmental
Impact Review
B. Impermissible
Legal
Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
11 Citizens for CalAm has no prescriptive groundwater rights in the Basin. Thus, CalAm would take any A. Environmental
Just Water Basin water for the project via appropriative rights, which are junior to existing Issue to be
Hofmann appropriations and to overlying users. If the proposed project is approved and any Addressed in
Page 11. dispute arises as to whether or not CalAm possesses legal water rights, such dispute Environmental
likely would be resolved through court action. Naturally, however, if CalAm does not have Impact Review
the right to the supply water for the proposed project, the proposed project could not
proceed and would thus prove infeasible. (CalAm MPWSP DEIR_EIS 2017) B. Impermissible
Legal
If approved, this project will incur litigation costs. Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
12 Citizens for It is a travesty that Cal Am plans to take water from the overlying users, apply A. Environmental
Just Water enormously costly filtering, then ship the water nine miles north, through a water pipe that Issue to be
Hofmann has not been built, to the Castroville services district at a reduced price. It is unjust that Addressed in
Page 12. the entire mitigation plan will be ultimately subsidized by the CalAm ratepayers. It is Environmental
unjust that the brackish groundwater that Cal Am claims would be of no use to anyone, Impact Review
can, will and has been very useful to Marina Coast Water District, as it establishes its
groundwater sustainability plan as required by the state law. This plan may include B. Impermissible
building a desalter, as many small coastal cities are beginning to develop to assure future Legal
6
56238670.v2
water needs are met for the regional users. It is unjust that the project has been Conclusions
promoted as a regional water solution when, in fact, it seeks to benefit only CalAms
customer base. The Project burdens Marina and MCWD with all the adverse impacts and C. Outside of
negative consequences while receiving no benefits at all. Parameters of
Identified Issues
13 Citizens for California Water code, App 52, Section 21 states that all seawater intruded water is B. Impermissible
Just Water groundwater. Legal
Hofmann Conclusions
Page 12. Calculating percentages to determine how much freshwater is being extracted is not
legitimate since brackish water is still groundwater, not ocean water. All water CalAm C. Outside of
extracts from the aquifers is classified as groundwater. The return water theory seems to Parameters of
be an invalid means to an unlawful end. Identified Issues

14 Citizens for The MPWSP DEIR initially proposed an oversized 9.6 MGD project that it now seeks to C. Outside of
Just Water downsize. This for profit corporation has invoked the specter of water rationing and Parameters of
Hofmann scarcity with the looming State Water Resources Board Cease and Desist order to set a Identified Issues
Pages 14- tone of urgency for Peninsula decision makers. This project has been presented as a
15. regional solution, yet Marina has not been party to fair and meaningful participation in the
environmental decision-making that will impact its groundwater. Without our groundwater,
all plans for our local Marina economic recovery and growth would stagnate for lack of
water. If the Cease and Desist Order were not the driving force for hasty decision making,
wiser heads would see this project for the distortion that it is. CalAm has misrepresented
this plan as an ocean intake process from the start, and now creates dire consequences
for innocent parties (Marina, Ord communities, and MCWD).
15 Citizens for No amount of downsizing can mitigate this fundamental deception inherent in the B. Impermissible
Just Water MPWSP. The downsizing cannot be predicated on changes in demand need since no Legal
Hofmann Peninsula water demand need supersedes the illegitimacy of taking groundwater from Conclusions
Page 15. one of Californias 21 most critically over drafted basins, i.e., the 180/400 Foot Aquifers in
the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
16 Citizens for CalAm does not own the CEMEX property nor do they have any water rights on the B. Impermissible
Just Water Cemex property. What entity will acquire the Cemex property post cessation of sand Legal
7
56238670.v2
Hofmann mining operations in three years, and what amount of water of the 500 afy allotment will Conclusions
Pages 16- the new owner need and whether any would be left over for the MPWSP purposes is not
17. within CalAms control nor can they predict a timeframe of when the property comes
available. In the CA Coastal Commission Cemex settlement agreement, the post sand
mining Cemex property was reserved for conservation with a deed restriction to protect
the access and the habitat at the site in perpetuity. The disposition of the Cemex property
entails conveyance to a nonprofit or governmental entity approved by the CCC, in
consultation with the City of Marina. The buyer is to hold the land, in perpetuity, primarily
for conservation purposes but with allowances for low-impact, passive recreation, public
access and education, restoration of native habitat, and activities consistent with existing
easements (subject to obtaining a Coastal Development Permit, if required).
17 Citizens for Another equally pressing issue is whether there is adequate water for a new owner to B. Impermissible
Just Water accommodate CalAm e.g. for visitor serving facility needs, restrooms, etc. plus the Legal
Hofmann operation of the MPWSP plant. If the future property owner will need water, CalAm Conclusions
Page 17. cannot assume that they can share the water rights of any new owner nor can water be
commandeered from any new owner of this property. Has CalAm identified what volume
of water, if any, from the Cemex site will be needed for their operational use and if their
operation requires more than what can be pumped by new owners, how will CalAm
acquire it? Will they be using expensive desalinated water for day-to-day operations? The
future owner of the Cemex site would be entitled to only 500 afy, and this may or may not
be available or accessible to Cal-Am.
18 Citizens for Note: Just Waters response to community values is organized as below: A. Environmental
Just Water Issue to be
Hofmann Community values: Best practices scientific research Addressed in
Community values: Ethics Impact Review3
Community values: Environmental Justice C. Outside of

Parameters of
Community values: Open space, conservation and habitat protection Identified Issues
Community values: Sustainable Economy
3
This section of Ms. Hofmanns testimony discusses environmental justice issues that are to be discussed in the CEQA and NEPA environmental review track.
8
56238670.v2
Community values: Community Participation

19 Citizens for Community Values: Best practice scientific research A. Environmental
Hofmann The subsurface ocean intake via slant wells has not been successfully implemented Addressed in
Page 19. anywhere in the world; in todays world quest for potable water, it should be questioned Environmental
why such subsurface ocean intake via slant wells has been promoted as the preferred Impact Review4
method over reliable open ocean intake desalination. If there is some unknown and
insurmountable scientific or other challenge that has prevented its use on the world C. Outside of
market, should not the MPWSP then require the highest level of scientific scrutiny at our Parameters of
local level? In light of the MPWSP concluding that no harm will occur to an entire Identified Issues
regions sole source of water, the science backing such claims must be impeccable.
20 Citizens for Yet, the MPWSP has developed a model based upon scanty baseline data and CalAm A. Environmental
Just Water twice ignored opportunities to utilize available and affordable technologies (first the Issue to be
Hofmann Electrical Resistivity Tomography-ERT9 in which cables laid across the vast majority of Addressed in
Page 19. the Monterey Bay except that data from the Cemex area was curiously not obtained, and Environmental
then the Airborne Electromagnetic imaging-AEM10 , second generation 3D imaging that Impact Review
is helicopter assisted and adds magnetism to the apparatus). Both techniques would
have added critical information to assess the level of harm to another jurisdictions C. Outside of
groundwater basin but neither was used by CalAm. Science has been highly remiss in Parameters of
this project. As a relevant analogy, no one today would accept a physicians negative Identified Issues
declaration of cancer using a random biopsy if he/she failed to obtain an MRI (magnetic
resonance imaging) of the body. In this same way, choosing to not utilize state-of-the-art,
available, and affordable methodology that images large expanses of land to depths of
1000 feet below the surface and claim no harm is an affront to scientific principles.
21 Citizens for The Cal-Am Desalination Project proposes to drill wells into Marinas groundwater A. Environmental
Just Water aquifers and pull out groundwater right next to the ocean. This is a real threat to our Issue to be
Hofmann precious groundwater resource by depleting the groundwater and increasing the inland Addressed in
Page 20. movement of saltwater from the ocean. It is this new science that will disprove the utterly Environmental
4
This section of Ms. Hofmanns testimony improperly presents Best practice scientific research as a community value under Public Utilities Code Section 1001.
This interpretation is contrary to Commission practice and should be stricken. To the extent that such testimony touches on environmental impacts of the MPWSP,
then that testimony is to be presented in the CEQA and NEPA environmental review track, not here in the CPCN phase of this proceeding.
9
56238670.v2
false conclusions of CalAms science. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
22 Citizens for The Marina Coast Water district (MCWD) completed a groundwater study with Stanford A. Environmental
Just Water University in August, 2017 using the AEM imaging (airborne electromagnetics). The Issue to be
Hofmann Basin is MCWDs sole source of water for its customers but Cal-Am claims it will do no Addressed in
Page 20. harm to our groundwater Basin. Here are some important discoveries that state-of-the- Environmental
art science has very recently shown (from preliminary data on the AEM by MCWD): Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
23 Citizens for 1. The AEM study confirms freshwater in the Marina area in a freshwater layer (called the A. Environmental
Just Water Dune Sand aquifer) that was completely overlooked by Cal-Am in its assessment of our Issue to be
Hofmann groundwater Basin! This means that CalAms desalination plant will not only be pumping Addressed in
Page 20. our groundwater and NOT ocean water as they misled us to believe, but this water is not Environmental
even brackish groundwater (mix of fresh and seawater) and actually also includes Impact Review
freshwater! An extremely expensive experimental subsurface ocean intake
desalination plant that intends to pump and process freshwater and groundwater is C. Outside of
illogical and illegal. Parameters of
Identified Issues
24 Citizens for 2. This Dune Sand fresh aquifer also provides a valuable function of keeping seawater A. Environmental
Just Water intrusion at bay by not only replenishing the next underlying water layer (called the 180 Issue to be
Hofmann aquifer) but also pushing back on the ocean movement landward, thereby slowing Addressed in
Page 21. saltwater intrusion into the Basin. Environmental
Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
25 Citizens for 3. The Cal-Am Slant Well Project is proposed on the Cemex site, and the one slant well A. Environmental
10
56238670.v2
Just Water that is being used as a test is right near the sand mining plant. What wasnt factored in Issue to be
Hofmann the test results was that the sand mining operation collects, washes sand and holds Addressed in
Page 21. water from the ocean in ponds on that property. The test well draws in this water, as well. Environmental
This has created false readings in the test well because this manmade inland saltwater Impact Review
body falsely results in more seawater intake and less groundwater intake. In essence,
CalAm is taking even more of our groundwater than they reported! (MCWD presentation C. Outside of
by Curtis Hopkins, August 7, 2017; http://www.mcwd.org) Parameters of
Identified Issues
26 Citizens for The cautionary relevancy of any scientific groundwater modeling is documented in the A. Environmental
Just Water DEIR statement: The applicability or usefulness of the model depends on how closely Issue to be
Hofmann the mathematical equations approximate the physical system being modeled. 11 Thus Addressed in
Pages 21- we see that CalAms conclusion of no harm to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Environmental
22. was generated from applying a super model that was based upon 8 random vertical Impact Review
wells. Looking at the same subsurface and expanding beyond in total area surveyed and
to depths of 1,000 feet, the Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) imaging is indisputably a C. Outside of
superior approximation of the physical system being modeled. Already preliminary data Parameters of
suggests fundamental flaws in CalAms data and the AEM data is vital to disproving the Identified Issues
theory of no harm to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin with the discovery of
freshwater reserves in Marinas subsurface.
27 Citizens for It is distinctly clear that areas in the region of interest have a significant volume of A. Environmental
Just Water freshwater in the near subsurface. In the Marina area, the thickness of freshwater grows, Issue to be
Hofmann which corresponds to previous water quality measurements in the MPWSP wells, as well Addressed in
Page 22. as a 2016 report by Curtis Hopkins. The AEM data furthermore show the extension of the Environmental
isolated freshwater beyond the area formerly thought to contain freshwater in the near Impact Review
surface (in the Dune Sand Aquifer), likely up until near the Salinas River.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
28 Citizens for The seriousness of the no harm determination merits inclusion of this new AEM data to A. Environmental
Just Water meet the standard of a valid scientific inquiry. Without valid science, all is conjecture. This Issue to be
Hofmann is a value that our local community and our state should embrace in the advancement of Addressed in
Page 22. any new technology or to resolve technical groundwater issues. This AEM will rapidly Environmental
become the fundamental, standard tool in all responsible groundwater management. Impact Review
11
56238670.v2
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
29 Citizens for Even beyond the application of science is the question of the integrity of the scientists A. Environmental
Just Water reviewing the data. No amount of accuracy of data can be upheld if the test analysis is Issue to be
Hofmann guided by human bias or even intentional misrepresentations of the data. It is imperative Addressed in
Pages 22- to bring transparency and double checks on data analysis to ensure this integrity. The Environmental
23. current Hydrogeology Working Group fails to ensure this integrity on two accounts: 1) at Impact Review
least 50% of the small group of four are favorable to Cal-Am, one Dennis Williams
owning a patent for the Slant Well technology, and 2) lack of regional urban water user C. Outside of
perspective that will consider potable water needs versus agriculture demands. To Parameters of
normalize this imbalance or minimize this significant omission is to turn a blind eye to Identified Issues
ensuring that data analysis is objective.
30 Citizens for Community Value: Environmental Justice A. Environmental
Hofmann The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as Addressed in
Page 23. follows: Environmental
Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people Impact Review5
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA C. Outside of
has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation [sic]. It will be achieved Parameters of
when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health Identified Issues
hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment
in which to live, learn, and work.
31 Citizens for Other definitions of environmental justice include: equitable distribution of A. Environmental
Just Water environmental risks and benefits; fair and meaningful participation in environmental Issue to be
Hofmann decision-making. Addressed in
5
This section of Ms. Hofmanns testimony improperly presents environmental justice as a community value under Public Utilities Code Section 1001. This
interpretation is contrary to Commission practice and should be stricken. As stated above, environmental justice is to be considered under the CEQA and NEPA
environmental review track.
12
56238670.v2
Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
32 Citizens for The 2010 U.S. Census Bureau statistics indicate the racial makeup of the city of Marina A. Environmental
Just Water is: 45.2% White, 7.5% African American (as compared to 6.2% for CA), 0.7% Native Issue to be
Hofmann American, 19.9% Asian alone (as compared to 13.0% for CA), 2.8% Pacific Islander (as Addressed in
Page 24. compared to 0.4% for CA), 27.2% Hispanic or Latino, and 10.0% from two or more races Environmental
(as compared to 4.9% for CA). These minority percentages in Marina that are Impact Review
significantly higher than CA percentages, may be attributable to the U.S. Army relocation
to Marina of G.I.s with inter-racial marriages, especially those from Asian wars (W.W. II, C. Outside of
Korean War, Vietnam War). Additionally, persons in Marina below the poverty level was Parameters of
15.3% as compared to CA averages of 14.3%. These demographics qualify Marina as Identified Issues
susceptible for environmental injustice.
33 Citizens for To exemplify environmental injustice, Marina has borne the responsibilities for several A. Environmental
Just Water regional projects i.e. Monterey Regional Environmental Park (sewage disposal) operated Issue to be
Hofmann by Monterey Regional Waste Management District; Pure Water Monterey, a regional Addressed in
Pages 24- water recycling project, and the Monterey Peninsula Landfill (MPL) with 315 acres for Environmental
25. solid waste disposal. Neighbors in Marina often complain of unpleasant smells in the air Impact Review
of unknown origins. Marina has also been assigned the second to the highest affordable
housing requirements in the region, attesting to, once again, the consequences of C. Outside of
environmental injustice. Parameters of
Identified Issues
34 Citizens for [California American Water moves to strike the entirety the table shown on page 26, titled A. Environmental
Just Water Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: 2014-2023] Issue to be
Hofmann Addressed in
Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
13
56238670.v2
35 Citizens for With a highly diverse, socio-economically challenged population who has historically A. Environmental
Just Water been subjected to accepting regional projects that benefit or relieve the more affluent, Issue to be
Hofmann less diverse communities in the region, the MPWSP reflects an even more blatant Addressed in
Pages 26- environmental injustice. Water will be drawn from Marinas groundwater aquifer, its only Environmental
27. source of potable water. The resultant desalinated water will then be illegally transported Impact Review
to the Peninsula for exclusive benefit of the Peninsula customers of CalAm, risking
overdraft of Marinas water supply with absolutely no benefits directed to Marina, C. Outside of
whatsoever. To further add injury to injustice, the MPWSP plans to sell some of this Parameters of
desalinated water to Castroville, some nine miles from where the source water was Identified Issues
extracted. This will allow a new development project in Castroville to proceed with an
additional water source now available but sold under the guise of return water to
Marina. There is, to date, no effort by Cal-Am to prove that there would be any migration
of the return water from Castroville back to the Marina Coast Water District service
area.
36 Citizens for The social and economic injustice is clear. In search of a new water supply beyond its A. Environmental
Just Water area of service, Cal Am has opted to take advantage of a poorer community that it Issue to be
Hofmann perceives as financially weak, politically unsupported, and unable to rigorously defend its Addressed in
Page 27-28. groundwater resources. We will not receive an equitable distribution of environmental Environmental
risks and benefits if this project is approved. Marina and Ord Lands are served by a small Impact Review
but efficient public water agency (that, incidentally, has been sued by CalAm in the past);
Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) has done an admirable job of conserving water C. Outside of
resources, and delivering safe and affordable drinking water for its residents. Recently, Parameters of
Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) was noted as a leader in statewide conservation Identified Issues
efforts by the California Water Board in their June 2017 Fact Sheet. Cal Am has been
awarded recent notoriety as charging the highest water rate as one of the 500 largest
water systems in the U.S. for 2017. In fact, since 2015 Cal Am has raised water rates by
68%
36 Citizens for [California American Water moves to strike the entirety the figure shown on page 28, A. Environmental
Just Water titled Top Ten Most Expensive Water Providers in the County: 2017 Update] Issue to be
Hofmann Addressed in
Impact Review
C. Outside of
14
56238670.v2
Parameters of
Identified Issues
37 Citizens for Cal-Ams actions do not inspire confidence in developing true regional water solutions. A. Environmental
Just Water The significant omissions in this DEIR cannot look like anything else but a calculated Issue to be
Hofmann take-over campaign of water resources. The DEIR does not offer any accounting of Addressed in
Pages 28- current or future water needs in our community. It does not offer a fair unbiased analysis Environmental
29. of real risks to Marinas groundwater. Instead, a reassuring conclusion is promoted that Impact Review
pumping 24.1 million gallons a day of source water at full build-out will somehow
reverse seawater intrusion in the over drafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. This C. Outside of
runs contrary to all current science on how to mitigate or reverse seawater intrusion. It is Parameters of
not unexpected that the recent AEM data raises questions about the veracity of data Identified Issues
used to support the MPWSP.
38 Citizens for Community Values: Ethics C. Outside of
Just Water Parameters of
Hofmann The definition of Ethics: Identified Issues6
Page 29.
1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
2. Synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals,
standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience.
39 Citizens for There are three significant breaches in ethics, as defined above, that relate to the C. Outside of
Just Water MPWSP i.e. 1) the promotion to the public by Cal-Am of a certain kind of project then Parameters of
Hofmann switching to and concealing a dramatically different and harmful project in its stead, 2) the Identified Issues
Pages 29- duty of public trust to be noticed for things that directly affect people can be applied to
30. some communities but not to others, 3) the expectation that laws are to be followed by all
yet can also be ignored or transgressed by a select few.
Ethics breach: The promotion by Cal-Am to the public of a certain kind of project then
switching to and downplaying a dramatically different and harmful project in its stead.
40 Citizens for CalAm portrayed this project as a subsurface ocean intake that would safely extract C. Outside of
6
This section of Ms. Hofmanns testimony improperly presents ethics as a community value under Public Utilities Code Section 1001. This interpretation is
contrary to Commission practice and should be stricken.
15
56238670.v2
Just Water seawater from under the ocean floor, filtering water through sand and gravel substrates Parameters of
Hofmann and sparing the marine life and plankton. A CalAm rendering17 (not drawn to scale) Identified Issues
Page 30. visually demonstrates the intended deception for unsuspecting audiences i.e. a very long
pipe far out into the ocean with a significant depth below the ocean floor.
41 Citizens for [California American Water moves to strike the entirety the figure shown on page 31, C. Outside of
Just Water titled Figure 4. Slant Test Well Representative Illustration (Not to Scale)] Parameters of
Hofmann Identified Issues
Page 31.
42 Citizens for In reality, the slant wells will terminate near the beach where surface groundwater meets C. Outside of
Just Water the ocean water such that the pipes will extract mostly 180 aquifer groundwater. Parameters of
Hofmann Amendments to the original application went unnoticed by the public and the document Identified Issues
Pages 31- did not fully explain the impact of moving the pipes 200 further inland, focusing instead
32. on the technical aspects that do not properly raise alarm.
43 Citizens for [California American Water moves to strike the entirety the figure shown on page 32, C. Outside of
Just Water titled Illustrative Cross-Sectional View of Subsurface Slant Wells] Parameters of
Page 32.
44 Citizens for Further, in PUCs own codes, the very idea of the wrongness of doing another public B. Impermissible
Just Water entity harm and attempting to provide for a sense of just actions is clearly documented Legal
Hofmann in California Legislative Information, Public Utilities Code-PUC. Division 1. Regulation of Conclusions
Page 33. Public Utilities [201-3260]20 (highlights added):
C. Outside of
If any public utility, in constructing or extending its line, plant, or system, interferes or is Parameters of
about to interfere with the operation of the line, plant, or system of any other public utility Identified Issues
or of the water system of a public agency, already constructed, the commission, on
complaint of the public utility or public agency claiming to be injuriously affected, may,
after hearing, make such order and prescribe such terms and conditions for the location
of the lines, plants, or systems affected as to it may seem just and reasonable. (Amended
by Stats 1982, Ch. 573, Sec 2.)
The very unfairness inherent in the MPWSP defies PUCs own mandates.
45 Citizens for Ethics breach: The duty of public trust for people to be noticed for things that will directly C. Outside of
16
56238670.v2
Just Water affect them can be applied to some communities but not to others. Parameters of
Page 33. In evidentiary hearing direct testimony, Ian Crooks testimony dated September 15, 2017,
questions (Q53 and Q56) were posed to CalAm concerning community values that reflect
some obligation of CalAm to inform their customers of the project progress and current
status. Further, in the asking of whether CalAm has community support for their project,
the inherent assumption is made that public opinion is important and matters... that there
is a duty to report and a duty to assess public sentiment.
46 Citizens for Q53. What efforts has Cal--Am made to address the need for the project with the C. Outside of
Just Water community? (pg. 34) Parameters of
Page 34. A53. ...In addition to the required application notifications, Public Participation Hearings
and public meetings and notifications related to the project EIR, Cal-Am has engaged in
additional outreach activities to keep its customers informed of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project, its progress and current status.
It includes frequently asked questions, multi-media features, important

documents including test well data, general descriptive information on the project
including budget and schedule, and a contact page.
After work on the Monterey pipeline was approved, Cal-Am presented in televised public
meetings to the City Councils in its service territory about the planned construction.
47 Citizens for Q56. Is there support in the community for the project? (pg. 36) C. Outside of
Just Water Parameters of
Hofmann A56. Yes. Although a portion of the community has been vocal in its opposition to the Identified Issues
Page 36. project, there is also significant segment of the community that does support the project,
evidenced by the Settlement Agreements reached in this matter by a broad coalition of at
least 16 parties representing diverse interests ranging from environmental to business
stakeholders, public to private entities, utilities to ratepayers all of which have
requested that, with certain conditions, the Commission grant Cal-- Ams application.
48 Citizens for The most curious matter is that a large commercial plant is being proposed in the City of C. Outside of
Just Water Marina jurisdiction but only the service territory of CalAm customers are included in this Parameters of
Hofmann public noticing. It is almost incredulous that Marina and Ord communities which are Identified Issues
17
56238670.v2
Page 36-37. directly impacted both by the actual construction, as well as the theft of their precious
groundwater, is under no duty to be noticed! The Marina residents have been kept in the
dark by CalAm. If CalAm were asked to pose the same question Is there support in the
community for the project? in relation to Marina residents and not the Peninsula
customers, there would likely be a resounding No. If the intent of community values is to
properly update the public, then there must be a mandatory requirement that the Marina
and Ord communities be likewise entitled to information, updates and opinion polls. In
such absence, impermissible bias exists.
49 Citizens for Ethics breach: the expectation that laws are to be followed by all yet may be ignored or C. Outside of
Just Water transgressed by a select few. Parameters of
Page 38. Groundwater rights are established and implemented through various legal agreements,
ordinances and settlements. CalAm intends to build a large desalination facility to pump
groundwater from an identified critically drafted basin without any identified water rights,
completely ignoring the legal rights of MCWDs water source. All water users in the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin have obeyed the laws and legal agreements with
regards to water allocations, but CalAM is not required to?
50 Citizens for In attempting to craft another way of obtaining water rights since they historically and A. Environmental
Just Water legally have none in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, CalAm attempts to Issue to be
Hofmann circumvent the issue by claiming that the brackish nature of the groundwater allows Addressed in
Pages 38- appropriative rights; current AEM data demonstrates that, in fact, more fresh water is Environmental
39. present than previously known. The approval of the project will have a significant legal Impact Review
challenge on two counts i.e. no existing water rights and the inability to claim
appropriative rights. Armed with new AEM data, anticipated litigation on water rights will B. Impermissible
surely be bolstered in a compelling challenge using new AEM data. Science can outstrip Legal Conclusion
CalAms attempt to claim an appropriative right. The letter of the law must be followed
i.e. the groundwater in question is not useless and in fact, contains areas of freshwater C. Outside of
and does not qualify as reason for appropriative rights. Parameters of
Identified Issues
51 Citizens for Community Values: Open space, conservation and habitat protection B. Impermissible
Just Water Legal Conclusion
Hofmann The community regional value of open space and conservation has been verified in the
18
56238670.v2
Page 39. recently approved global agreement involving the CA Coastal Commission, the City of
Marina and State Lands Commission to stop the Cemex sand mining operations in
Marina, the very same site for the proposed MPWSP. In the CCC settlement
agreement24, the Cemex property post sand mining operations in three years is to be
reserved for conservation with a deed restriction to protect the access and the habitat at
the site in perpetuity. This was a regional value that is expressed by CCC and affirmed by
various environmental groups (Save Our Shores, Surfrider, Dr. Ed Thorton, many Marina
citizens and the City of Marina). This represents a high priority for preservation of a
natural habitat in Marina through restoration and conservation. This goal represents an
exact opposite stance to allowing the construction of a $350M commercial desalination
plant with 10 slant wells on the shoreline of Marina, extending through the Cemex
property with ongoing maintenance of infrastructure every five years with continued
disruption and destruction of shoreline and inland habitats.
52 Citizens for Specific references in the Cemex global settlement agreement attest to the importance B. Impermissible
Just Water and primacy of these community values that: Legal Conclusion
Hofmann
Page 40. a) requires CEMEX to undertake restoration and reclamation activities to restore the C. Outside of
habitat values of the Property, b) provides an additional three year period to wind down Parameters of
operations on the upland portion of the property and to begin reclamation and restoration Identified Issues
activities, and c) requires CEMEX to transfer the Property, at a reduced purchase price,
to a non-profit or governmental entity approved by the Commission; and d) requires as
part of any sale, a deed restriction be put in place to protect the property and limit the
potential uses of the property to conservation related purposes, including but not limited
to public access, conservation, low-impact passive recreation, and public education,
which will improve public access and habitat on the site in the future.
53 Citizens for According to the 2017 City of Marina response to the DEIR the full construction impact A. Environmental
Just Water area of the MPWSP would be disturbed anew every five years when slant well heads Issue to be
Hofmann would need maintenance and this would amount to a permanent loss of habitat for the Addressed in
Page 42-43. special-status species of the Western Snowy Plover not to mention the incremental Environmental
construction of each of 9 more proposed slant wells. (Ecosystem Impacts, Chapter 4.5, Impact Review
Section: Mitigation Measure 4.61d is Inadequate) This presents a basic insult to the
community values across the region that have been long established here and B. Impermissible
memorialized in the CCC Cemex Settlement Agreement. In such a key tourist area where Legal Conclusion
visitors and residents alike have been drawn by this connection to a special natural
19
56238670.v2
setting, the presence of MPWSP must be considered an outrage. C. Outside of

Parameters of
Identified Issues
54 Citizens for So, it is unconscionable that the Monterey Regional Water Supply Project, proposes to B. Impermissible
Just Water site this industrial, self-serving private corporation project in the heart of the open space Legal Conclusion
Hofmann and coast line that voters and residents have fought to preserve. Recently, there was
Page 51. rigorous citizen action to close the CEMEX sand mining operations, the last remaining C. Outside of
coastal California sand plant, because of growing awareness of coastal erosion that had Parameters of
been documented by Professor of Oceanography, Ed Thornton, from the Naval Identified Issues
Postgraduate School. We cannot allow this project to swap one destructive commercial
use for another, when it is clear that the regional community values a natural coastal
environment and is committed to a completely different vision than construction of the
MPWSP. During last years El Nino storms in 2016, CalAms out fall pipe from the test
slant well was exposed on the beach, creating an eyesore that later had to be removed.
How does CalAm propose to build a project that is in clear conflict with the land transfer
agreement on land it does not own even with a previous shoreline easement agreement
with Cemex, and in defiance of the regions collective voice of the desires of its residents
and the Coastal Act?
20
56238670.v2
City of Marina PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BRUCE CARLOS DELGADO AND LAYNE P. LONG FOR THE CITY OF
MARINA
55 City of Q.2. What testimony can you offer on these subjects from the viewpoint of the City of A. Environmental
Marina Marina? Issue to be
Delgado/ Addressed in
Long A.2. In his testimony (Exhibit MNA-2), Dr. Lon House, an expert in the areas of water Environmental
Page 2, lines demand and supply, evaluated all available information regarding the current realistic Impact Review
9-21. water demand for the Project. As you will see from his testimony, he believes that, with
the 3,500 afy of water supply from the Pure Water Monterey Project, CalAm only has at C. Outside of
most a need for approximately 1,500 afy of water beyond its current anticipated future Parameters of
water supplies. Identified Issues
Based on that testimony, it is clear that the Projects true water demand, which is
dramatically less than CalAm has been requesting, does not justify building a desalination
plant and all of the associated facilities in and around Marina. As we explain further in the
Community Values section of our testimony, this Project as proposed will significantly
impair Marinas community values, and it also will have the wide range of adverse
environmental impacts identified in our comments on the Draft EIR/EIS.
56 City of Q.3. Have there been any recent legal developments involving the City that bear on this A. Environmental
Marina subject and, if so, can you describe them? Issue to be
Long A.3. Yes. In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Environmental
Page 2, line Management Act (SGMA), which is the first law that comprehensively regulates Impact Review
22 to Page groundwater in the State. The law began to be implemented in 2015. The 180/400 foot
3, line 3. subbasin within our Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) has now been officially B. Impermissible
identified as critically overdrafted and it therefore is receiving expedited management Legal
treatment under SGMA. One key feature of SGMA is that it is predicated on local Conclusions
management and local decision-making regarding aquifer management, which will be
accomplished through a series of steps involving the identification of a Groundwater C. Outside of
Sustainability Agency, conduct of needed research activities, and adoption of a Parameters of
Groundwater Sustainability Plan to manage the Basin groundwater. Identified Issues
57 City of Q.4. Why is this development relevant to Project water demand/supply? A. Environmental
21
56238670.v2
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.4. We are very concerned that, if the CPUC approves this Project as proposed by Addressed in
Long CalAm and CalAm starts extracting water from the Basin as planned, this activity will Environmental
Page 3, lines fundamentally subvert the new legally mandated and locally managed SGMA process for Impact Review
4-14. this Basin. It is clear from the Draft EIR/EIS that the Project proponents believe that the
enactment of SGMA will have no impact whatsoever on the Project. However, in our B. Impermissible
view, the plans by CalAm to begin pumping and extracting groundwater from the Basin Legal
will hinder and obstruct the responsibility of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) Conclusions
under SGMA to protect and improve groundwater quality.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed7
58 City of Q.2. Do you have a view on whether the proposed desalination plant or its slant wells A. Environmental
Marina should be constructed in increments or whether the full plant should be built but operated Issue to be
Delgado/ at a lower level for a period of time? Addressed in
Long Environmental
Page 4, lines A.2. We do not support these alternatives for several reasons. They would increase the Impact Review
7-18. environmental impacts of Project construction on Marina by spreading them out over a
longer time period. This approach would also create significant planning and other C. Outside of
uncertainties for the City. However, most importantly, given the wide range of substantial Parameters of
Project impacts on Marinas environment and community values, it is unwise to embark Identified Issues
on such a huge and expensive Project without knowing whether or to what extent it is
necessary, particularly when other potential sources of water appear to be available.
59 City of Q.10. When did this groundwater withdrawal restriction for the property become B. Impermissible
Marina effective? Legal
Delgado/ Conclusions
7
This was previously raised in environmental review process, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 2.6, C (The Implementation of Californias New
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Will Likely Prevent Establishment of Project Water Rights), pp. 16-17; see also p. 4.
22
56238670.v2
Long A.10. We believe that it became effective in 1996 when the Agreement was executed by
Page 8, lines the parties. Section 7.2 of the Agreement specifically provides: Commencing on the
3-10. effective date of this Agreement and Framework, Lonestar shall limit withdrawal and use
of groundwater from the Basin to Lonestars historical use of 500 afy of groundwater.
60 City of Q.11. What are the implications of this Agreement for CalAms Project? B. Impermissible
Marina Legal
Delgado/ A.11. There are two implications for present purposes. First, it does not appear that Conclusions
Long CalAms future easement right includes any right to extract groundwater from the Basin.
Page 8, lines Rather, pursuant to Section 5.1.1.3, once annexation occurs, MCWD will succeed to the D. Covers Issues
11-22. 500 afy withdrawal right of Lonestar. We have also not seen any evidence that the Previously
permanent easement agreement between CEMEX and CalAm includes any provision Addressed8
regarding rights to extract water. Second, if CalAm exercises its option, executes the
permanent easement document and installs its slant wells on the CEMEX property,
CalAm will be bound by the 500 afy groundwater extraction limitation that applies to the
CEMEX Site, if it even has any groundwater extraction rights.
61 City of Q.12. Is this groundwater pumping limitation a constraint on the Project? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.12. Yes. The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Addressed in
Long (Draft EIR/EIS) issued in January 2017 for the Project forecasts that the Project will Environmental
Page 8, lines draw up to 3,226 afy of groundwater from the Basin. The State Board Report prepared in Impact Review
23-33. 2013 predicted a range of 762-3,250 afy of groundwater. Recent expert analyses,
including the analysis summarized in the testimony of Dr. Robert Abrams, indicate that B. Impermissible
the amount of groundwater extracted will likely be much greater than these amounts. Legal
However, any quantity extracted greater than 500 afy by all authorized users on that Conclusions
property would be prohibited by, and a violation of, the Agreement with Marina and the
other agencies. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
8
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 2.6, E (The Project Is Inconsistent with the
CEMEX Property Annexation Agreement), pp. 19-21.
23
56238670.v2
62 City of Q.13. What action, if any, do you believe the Commission should take in response to B. Impermissible
Marina these concerns relating to the Annexation Agreement? Legal
Delgado/ Conclusions
Long A.13. We believe the CPUC should not even consider approval of the Project until CalAm
Page 9, lines affirmatively bears its burden to demonstrate that it complies in all respects with the
1-6. Annexation Agreement (with its binding obligations and groundwater extraction
limitations).
63 City of Q.11. What specific areas of the Citys community values are you going to address in A. Environmental
Marina your testimony? Issue to be
Long A.11. We will address the following City community values: Environmental
Page 13, line Impact Review9
12 to Page Groundwater Supply: Protection of the Citys groundwater resource, which provides a
14, line 2. clean, local, reliable and affordable source of drinking water, is a key community value C. Outside of
from resource, economic and social viewpoints. Parameters of
Identified Issues
Coastal Ecosystem: The protection and enhancement of the Citys unique coastal
ecosystem, including its special sand dunes, habitats and species and the important
visual and scenic values that accompany it, is a vital community value.
Air Quality and Climate Change: The protection of the City from air emissions and
greenhouse gas that impair its air quality (in the short term) and that cause and contribute
to global climate change impacts including sea level rise (in the long term) are a particular
and important concern to Marina.
Environmental Justice: Marina is a racially diverse community and a relatively low-income

community under various government standards. Every state agency has a strong duty to
ensure that such communities are not subjected to disproportionate impacts from projects
9
The testimony in this section of the City of Marinas testimony discusses what it purports to be certain community values. With the exception of the Vibrant
Business Environment community value, the issues described here do properly not fall within the Commissions interpretation of community values. Moreover,
they relate to environmental issues more appropriately addressed in the CEQA and NEPA environmental review track (including the discussion of the cumulative
regional impacts).
24
56238670.v2
to its cultural, social, environment, occupational, historic and economic values, and this is
very important for Marina.
Vibrant Business Environment: Marina has been targeting protection and further
development of its business community, which is an important key to the Citys economic
and social vitality.
Cumulative Regional Impacts to Values: In recent years, Marina has been surrounded by
a series of projects for the region that continue to cause cumulative adverse impacts to
the City including offensive odors, truck traffic, noise and greenhouse gas emissions.
Marina needs to protect itself from future such impacts which degrade its quality of life.
64 City of Q.12. Can you explain in more detail why the Citys groundwater resource is an important A. Environmental
Marina community value? Issue to be
Long A.12. The Citys entire drinking and potable water supply comes from the Salinas Valley Environmental
Page 14, Groundwater Basin. MCWD provides water service from this Basin for the entire City. The Impact Review
lines 6-19. water service charges to City residents and businesses are affordable when compared to
water rates for nearby Peninsula communities and this is an important community value C. Outside of
given the economic profile of many City residents. This source water is currently Parameters of
threatened by seawater intrusion impacts and pumping overdrafts, so it is absolutely Identified Issues
critical that it be carefully protected from any further impacts that could diminish water
supply, cause water quality degradation, interfere with ongoing restoration efforts or
cause other undesirable effects. If this supply suffered these issues, it could cause a
huge rise in water rates because of the much greater cost of alternative water sources.
65 City of Q.13. Do you believe that the Project will interfere with or adversely impact this A. Environmental
Marina community value? Issue to be
Long A.13. This is an extremely serious and fundamental issue for Marina. The best scientific Environmental
Page 14, information available indicates that the subsurface slant wells which CalAm would Impact Review
lines 20-28. construct could significantly deplete our groundwater supply, degrade our groundwater
quality and impair our water storage. We engaged an expert consultant, Dr. Robert C. Outside of
Abrams, who is submitting testimony in this proceeding that details the potential threats to Parameters of
25
56238670.v2
this resource. Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed10
66 City of Q.14. Why do you characterize these as serious issues for Marina? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.14. There are many cities and communities in California and throughout the West Addressed in
Long which have lost a water supply or have never been able to develop a reliable water Environmental
Page 14, line supply, and these are fundamental structural problems that can destroy the social fabric Impact Review
29 to Page and economic viability of a city. For example, Layne spent 11 years managing other cities
15, line 11. that owned and operated their own water utilities and he knows how critical water is to C. Outside of
sustaining of life in a community. It is very important to have long-range water master Parameters of
plans that will ensure a sustainable, cost-effective and reliable water source for future Identified Issues
generations. Allowing this Project to move forward potentially could have a catastrophic
effect on Marinas future water source, particularly given the critical overdrafts that are
already present. MCWD was created as the publicly owned and operated water utility for
Marina and the former Fort Ord service area; its water planning efforts should not be
superseded by an investor-owned private water utility that intends to extract groundwater
for export outside the Basin. From our viewpoint, it is absolutely essential for our
economic and social survival that the Project not impair our water supply or quality in any
way.
67 City of Q.15. Are you aware that the Draft EIR/EIS concludes that the Projects impacts on A. Environmental
Marina groundwater will be less than significant? Issue to be
Long A.15. Yes. However, based on Dr. Abrams testimony and analyses and those of other Environmental
Page 15, experts, we believe that the CPUC is not using the best scientific techniques and Impact Review
lines 12-23. information available. New two- and three- dimensional data and analyses of
groundwater quality in our Basin have been prepared by the team led by Professor C. Outside of
Rosemary Knight of Stanford University. This data and analysis should be used to Parameters of
10
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.4 (Groundwater Resources), pp. 32-43; see
also pp. 4-5.
26
56238670.v2
analyze Project impacts on our groundwater basin. The groundwater modeling being Identified Issues
relied upon in the Draft EIR/EIS, according to Dr. Abrams, also is not state-of-the-art.
Given the critical importance of this issue, it is essential that the best data and modeling D. Covers Issues
be used. Previously
Addressed11
68 City of Q.16. How do you think the Commission should address this issue? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.16. The potential imminent threat of the Project to the integrity of the Citys sole water Addressed in
Long source and to our associated community values is a critical issue that needs to be Environmental
Page 15, completely addressed and resolved with a credible no adverse impact finding by the Impact Review
lines 24-29. Commission before the Project is allowed to move forward.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
69 City of Q.17. Can you explain how and why coastal ecosystem preservation is a key community A. Environmental
Marina value? Issue to be
Long A.17. Our coastal ecosystem is an integral part of Marinas identity. Much of Marinas Environmental
Page 16, quality of life is associated with proximity to beautiful and relatively undeveloped beaches. Impact Review
lines 3-18. Marina recently adopted the Snowy Plover, a protected bird often observed along
Marinas shoreline, as the Citys official mascot. As described in the General Plan goal C. Outside of
quoted earlier, the Citys dunes and coastal habitats are the scenic entry point to the Parameters of
Monterey Peninsula. This ecosystem is an important driver for the Citys economy Identified Issues
because of the visitors it attracts, and it is a special and beautiful resource for the Citys
residents, who use it for recreation purposes. One of the primary goals established by the
City Council over the last few years is connectivity of the beach (with its dunes, habitats
and species) to our neighborhoods and parks, connectivity of the beach to the Fort Ord
National Monument, and connectivity of an uninterrupted stretch of beach from north to
south in Marina.
11
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.4, F (The Groundwater Modeling Used by
the Draft EIR/EIS Is Inadequate to Determine the Potential Harm to the Wells that Serve Marina and its Citizens), p. 41; see also p. 5 ([T]he modeling that the
Draft EIR/EIS relies upon to support its no significance finding for groundwater impacts is not state-of-the-art).
27
56238670.v2
70 City of Q.18. Why is Marinas beach and dune ecosystem special? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.18. Marinas beaches are unique when compared with other beaches on the Monterey Addressed in
Long Bay. Other beaches, particularly on the Peninsula itself, are connected to and a part of Environmental
Page 16, civilization. In many places, roads, cars, lights, noise, homes, businesses, and biking and Impact Review
lines 19-30. walking paths are features that are adjacent to the beaches. In contrast, if you walk along
a Marina beach, you immediately notice a startling difference you dont see, hear or feel C. Outside of
an intense connection to civilization. Rather, since we have continuous beaches backed Parameters of
by sand dunes that are not developed and are separated from busy suburban life, Marina Identified Issues
creates a unique sense of place and identity in which our residents and visitors to the
area take pride.
71 City of Q.19. What steps has Marina taken to protect this community value? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.19. Our Local Coastal Program and associated Implementation Plan contain robust Addressed in
Long protections for these sensitive coastal resources. We have been very proactive in Environmental
Page 16, line protecting our beach, dune and coastal habitat areas, with all of their protected species, Impact Review
31 to Page from degradation, as witnessed by our successful multiple-year effort, with the
17, line 16. cooperation of the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, C. Outside of
described earlier to end the CEMEX sand mining operations and return this area to public Parameters of
access, conservation and recreation purposes. As stated above, Marinas General Plan Identified Issues
states the following: A city physically and visually distinguish-able from the other
communities of the Monterey Bay region, with a sense of place and identity in which
residents can take pride. This sense of identity exists because Marinas beaches are
more wild and have more solitude than the rest of Monterey Peninsula beaches. Marina
businesses (such as Sanctuary Beach Resort), hotels, and restaurants in the area
capitalize on their proximity to these near-pristine beaches. This more wild and natural
beach setting which supports endangered species and sensitive habitat is something the
City requires as a community value and intends to expand upon moving north when the
CEMEX property is restored for conservation and passive beach access in the near
future.
72 City of Q.20. Why and how do you believe the Project will affect this community value? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
28
56238670.v2
Delgado/ A.20. The slant wells for the Project would be constructed in the middle of this special Addressed in
Long dune and coastal habitat. The slant wells and associated facilities and uses threaten to Environmental
Page 17, line destroy the sense of place and pride that our plans and actions have created for this Impact Review
17 to Page area. It is ironic that after years of taking action to end the current sand mining operation
18, line 2. that has had so many impacts on Marina that we are now faced with the prospect of C. Outside of
another industrial use using slant wells and their extensive above-ground infrastructure Parameters of
(including concrete block wellheads and access roads that are being proposed or would Identified Issues
be needed) at this exact same location. All of the involved agencies have agreed, and the
new conservation easement on the property guarantees, that this area will be used for D. Covers Issues
beach access, conservation and recreation purposes. The Projects proposed industrial Previously
use will degrade the visual, dune and habitat values of the area, contribute to coastal Addressed12
erosion, and undermine the Marina communitys values relating to this site.
73 City of Q.21. Would the Projects impacts to coastal ecosystems have any further direct A. Environmental
Marina economic or social impacts on the City? Issue to be
Long A.21. Yes. We will address the economic impacts in the section regarding Marinas Environmental
Page 18, business environment. These Project facilities will also have impacts on our nearby Impact Review
lines 3-12. neighborhoods. The location where the slant wells would be built is the only beach
access point for north Marina. This becomes even more critical in the future because this C. Outside of
area is planned as a development area for the City. The slant wells will significantly Parameters of
impact this critical access point and impair the attractiveness and residential values of Identified Issues
this new development.
74 City of Q.22. Can you provide more detail regarding the Citys community value relating to A. Environmental
Marina climate change and air quality? Issue to be
Long A.22. Yes. Marina is of course a city located along the coast of California. It needs to be Environmental
Page 18, particularly attuned to the individual and cumulative effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) Impact Review
12
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.6 (Terrestrial Biological Resources), pp. 49-60;
see also p. 5 (Coastal Ecosystem Impacts), p. 30 (the Draft EIR/EIS never discusses whether the Project slant wells and other facilities located in this coastal
strip will accelerate or exacerbate coastal erosion or dune retreat, or otherwise damage nearby beaches and properties.); p. 86 (The Projects slant wells would be
sited in Marinas sensitive coastal habitat and would likely accelerate coastal erosion); see also Chapter 4.14 (Aesthetic Resources), pp. 75-77.
29
56238670.v2
lines 15-30. emissions because sea level rise, one of the major global climate change consequences
of such emissions, can have a devastating impact on coastal cities. Marina has taken C. Outside of
many steps to address this issue. Thus, in 2009, in partnership with AMBAG Energy Parameters of
Watch, Marina created the Marina 2005 Community Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Identified Issues
Inventory using state-of-the-art greenhouse gas inventorying tools. In 2011, this process
was completed for a 2010 Inventory. The City is also one of the founding members of the
Monterey Bay Community Power JPA. One reason we joined was to give our citizens a
choice to purchase their electric power from sources that are 100% renewable. The City
has implemented a wide variety of other measures that have succeeded in significantly
reducing its energy use and also reduced community-wide GHGs.
75 City of Q.23. Has the City participated in any broader GHG programs? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.23. Yes. The City Council voted in 2017 to join the Institute for Local Governments Addressed in
Long Beacon Program, which is an ongoing achievement recognition program that awards Environmental
Page 18, line participating agencies for accomplishments as they work to achieve long term Impact Review
31 to Page greenhouse gas reductions, energy savings and sustainability goals. This is just one
19, line 5. instance of Marina leading by example by adopting innovative sustainability programs C. Outside of
and policies, including working with community residents, businesses and others. Parameters of
Identified Issues
76 City of Q.24. Why do you believe the Project will impact this community value? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.24. Our residents expect clean air and a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas Addressed in
Long emissions that cause climate change impacts. Desalination plants are well known for Environmental
Page 19, being a highly intensive use of electricity, which is generated all or in part (depending on Impact Review
lines 6-17. the sources) by activities that cause very significant greenhouse gas emissions. The
Projects Draft EIR/EIS acknowledges this issue and concedes that these Project impacts C. Outside of
are inconsistent with an Executive Order by the Governor and other laws addressing Parameters of
climate change. However, instead of addressing these impacts, which are deemed Identified Issues
significant and unavoidable, the Draft EIR/EIS proposes that the impacts be authorized
as is rather than mitigated. D. Covers Issues
30
56238670.v2
Previously
Addressed13
77 City of Q.25. How does that impair this community value? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.25. The authorization of significant new greenhouse gas emissions for facilities within Addressed in
Long and immediately adjacent to our City borders is antithetical to our long-established Environmental
Page 19, climate change ethic. The Citys orientation with respect to the ocean makes us Impact Review
lines 18-24. vulnerable to sea rise, which could cause significant, long-term impacts to our economy,
safety and way of life. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
78 City of Q.26. What impact would the Project have on Marinas air quality community value? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.26. Climate change analyses focus on long-term impacts. In the shorter term, the Draft Addressed in
Long EIR/EIS has determined that the adverse air quality impacts of the Project during the Environmental
Page 19, line construction period will also be significant and, once again, this document proposes that Impact Review
25 to Page these unhealthy emissions be deemed significant and unavoidable so that no serious
20, line 2. mitigation to reduce them needs to be undertaken. Since most of the construction for the C. Outside of
Project will be occurring either in Marina or immediately next to it, Marinas community Parameters of
value for clean air will be significantly impaired. Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed14
79 City of Q.27. Can you explain Marinas environmental justice community value in greater detail? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.27. The City of Marina values its ethnic and economic diversity and the fact that it is a Addressed in
Long relatively affordable City that provides a high quality of life. Because of its racial and Environmental
Page 20, economic profile, our community has the protection of laws that require public agencies to Impact Review
13
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.11 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), pp. 67-69;
see also pp. 5-6.
14
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.10 (Air Quality), pp. 64-67.
31
56238670.v2
lines 5-12. closely scrutinize the individual and cumulative disproportionate impacts of any
development project on the City residents. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
80 City of Q.28. What environmental justice impacts do you believe are posed by this Project? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.28. As recited elsewhere in our testimony, this Project is anticipated to have a Addressed in
Long disproportionally huge impact on the City and its residents in many environmental areas Environmental
Page 20, without providing the City with any corresponding benefit. Although the most prominent Impact Review
lines 13-23. threatened impact is the depletion and/or degradation of the groundwater supply on
which Marina is 100% dependent, the coastal ecosystem, global warming, clean air and C. Outside of
other impacts addressed here are also very significant and will degrade our way of life. Parameters of
This is a classic case of a diverse and relatively disadvantaged community potentially Identified Issues
being forced to suffer the environmental impacts of a Project not designed for its benefit.
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed15
81 City of Q.29. Do you believe these impacts have any economic, cultural or social impacts on A. Environmental
Marina Marina? Issue to be
Long A.29. Yes. If Marinas sole water source is impaired, the costs of replacement water Environmental
Page 20, line would be very large and very difficult financially for our residents. In addition, even if Cal Impact Review
24 to Page Am were to pay for bottled water or other form of replacement water, it would be forever
21, line 4. damaging to Marinas reputation and attraction for future business and residents if our C. Outside of
15
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.20 (Socioeconomics and
Environmental Justice), p. 86 (Marina is burdened with a major share of the short and long-term environmental impacts of the Project without
receiving any corresponding benefit.); (Most significantly, the groundwater basin that is currently the sole source of Marinas water could be
significantly adversely impacted by the Project. ) (Ibid.); (Had [the Draft EIR/EIS] done a proper analysis, it would have determined that Marina is
bearing a disproportionate brunt of the environmental impacts now and indefinitely into the future, particularly in regard to the potential depletion
and contamination of its water supply, the potential destruction of its coastal ecosystem, and the traffic, noise and aesthetic impacts.) (Id. at 87.);
([T]he Draft EIR/EIS does not take environmental justice impacts into account in selecting the environmentally superior/preferable alternative and
fails to adopt a single mitigation measure to reduce their impacts.) (Id. at 87.).
32
56238670.v2
once clean and potable groundwater was no longer so and needed to be replaced forever Parameters of
with imported water. The degradation of our coastal ecosystem and air quality will Identified Issues
fundamentally affect core values of our way of life and likely would adversely affect our
economy, which depends on the availability of these resources. It is also important to
realize that Marina already provides less dollars per resident for services than all cities
within the CalAm service area and Marina is least able to afford to bear or mitigate the
burdens caused by the Project.
82 City of Q.30. Do you see a lack of fairness to Marina? A. Environmental

Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.30. As a City, we see that a double-standard is applied for projects in and next to Addressed in
Long Marina. Many Marina citizens are aware that, if roles were reversed and Marina was Environmental
Page 21, attempting to place a desalination plant in CalAms service area, it would be a non-starter Impact Review
lines 5-19. and would never be approved. Imagine Marina telling the other cities around Monterey
that, to solve Marinas water problems, the City of Marina will be constructing slant wells C. Outside of
on their beaches, installing a desalination plant in their backyard, disrupting their roads Parameters of
for pipes leading to Marina, and potentially degrading their groundwater, while delivering Identified Issues
all the water to Marina but excluding them from receiving any. Yet, for this Project, it
seems that many people in the CalAm service area are not aware of and do not
appreciate the adverse impacts to Marinas community values. And, of course, these
impacts to Marina and its residents are not appreciated or directly addressed in the Draft
EIR/EIS. This case appears to be a poster child for environmental injustice.
83 City of Q.31. Has the City experienced similar impacts from other large projects from your A. Environmental
Marina viewpoint? Issue to be
Long A.31. The quality of life in the City of Marina is adversely affected by nearby sewage Environmental
Page 21, line treatment and landfill facilities serving the region including the City of Marina and those Impact Review
20 to Page cities within the Cal Am/Monterey Peninsula Water Management District service area. In
22, line 5. the attempt to meet Marinas state-mandated, fair share affordable housing goals and C. Outside of
regional housing demand, the ability for Marina to grow to the north will likely be Parameters of
adversely affected by no-residential buffers required to separate impacts such as odors, Identified Issues
dust, and noise coming from industrial facilities into Marinas residential areas . Already,
residents in Marina closest to these industrial facilities frequently complain of odors so
33
56238670.v2
strong that even when doors and windows are closed, residents cant escape the foul
smelling odors.
Cumulatively, the addition of the Project intake wells and the new desalination plant to the
existing regional industrial facilities around and in Marina will likely result in a further
reduction in the quality of life community values for Marina.
84 City of Q.34. Has the City been the location of or immediately adjacent to large regional or
Marina industrial projects with adverse community value and/or environmental impacts?
Delgado/
Long A.34. Yes.
Page 22,
lines 28-30.
85 City of Q.35. Can you identify these projects and their impacts? A. Environmental
Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.35. In addition to the CEMEX sand mining operation described earlier, these projects Addressed in
Long include a large regional landfill for Monterey County, the regional sewage treatment plant, Environmental
Page 23, a large outdoor regional composting facility, and an anaerobic digester facility. There is Impact Review
lines 1-10. currently a proposal to increase deliveries to the regional landfill. These facilities
continually cause a wide range of truck traffic, odor, noise and other impacts on the City. C. Outside of
We sometimes feel that we have been the final resting place of polluting or Parameters of
environmentally burdensome projects that other cities would not accept. Identified Issues
86 City of Q.36. Why is that history relevant to this Project? A. Environmental

Marina Issue to be
Delgado/ A.36. The CalAm Project is the latest proposal to site a project in Marina that will add Addressed in
Long substantially to the already extensive environmental impacts that our community suffers Environmental
Page 23, from such projects, without any consultation with, or accurate analysis done of the Impact Review
lines 11-21. burdens it puts on, the community. This Project would expand far beyond the existing
types of impacts by threatening Marinas precious groundwater supply and placing a far- C. Outside of
ranging industrial use in the midst of its unique coastal and dune ecosystem. To make Parameters of
matters worse, Marina will experience all of this for the benefit of other communities while Identified Issues
being excluded from receiving any of the extracted water.
34
56238670.v2
87 City of Q.37. Can you explain what you mean by the cumulative regional impacts to community A. Environmental
Marina values that you mentioned earlier? Issue to be
Long A.37. We want to make sure that, when talking about community values, we dont Environmental
Page 23, compartmentalize the discussion too much and lose sight of the larger picture. Marinas Impact Review
lines 22-33. range of community values are really another way of articulating Marinas quality of life. In
our experience, Marina has always offered a high quality of life, in a beautiful and special C. Outside of
physical setting, with all of the ingredients for a thriving business community. Each of the Parameters of
different areas we have testified about today is an integral part of our way of life. The Identified Issues
combined threats of the Project in these areas degrades those values and makes our
community less attractive to residents, businesses and tourists.
88 City of Q.40. What is your overall conclusion regarding the Projects impact on the community A. Environmental
Marina values of Marina? Issue to be
Long A.40. This project severely impacts Marina core community values; it is an environmental Environmental
Page 24, and social injustice. Marina is now and will continue to be the city along the Monterey Bay Impact Review
lines 23-31. coastline where the largest economic and population growth will occur. Whereas most of
the CalAm service communities are built out and will not experience growth, because of C. Outside of
Marina's future growth, it will have the most to lose if this Project is built. Parameters of
Identified Issues
89 City of Q.42. Do you anticipate that the Project will impact Marinas historical or aesthetic D. Covers Issues
Marina values? Previously
Delgado/ Addressed16
Long A.42. Yes, we believe the Project will have particularly large adverse impacts on our
Page 25, aesthetic values. As described earlier, Marina is the visual gateway to the Monterey
lines 12-21. Peninsula and its coastal dunes and visual panorama are an integral part of our identity
and economy. The adverse impacts relating to this have been discussed earlier. The
16
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.14 (Aesthetic Resources), pp. 75-
77 (arguing the Draft EIR/EIS should be revised to account for potential impacts of the MPWSP on the sites visual characteristics and qualities).
35
56238670.v2
Project also would completely change access to, and the use and enjoyment of, these
wonderful beach areas and undermine our successful efforts to end the CEMEX sand
mining operation.
36
56238670.v2
City of Marina - PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ABRAMS FOR THE CITY OF MARINA17
90 City of Application (A.) 12-04-019 is the application of California-American Water Company A. Environmental
Marina - (CalAm) for approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP or Issue to be
Abrams Project) and related cost recovery. My testimony addresses the issues of the impacts on Addressed in
Page 1, lines the community values of the City of Marina by the Project, which includes a desalination Environmental
3-11. plant, slant wells, pipelines and associated facilities. This issue is included within the Impact Review
Scope of the further evidentiary hearings in the Assigned Commissioner and
Administrative Law Judges Ruling Setting Issues and Schedule for Further Evidentiary C. Outside of
Hearings and Requiring Submission of Supporting Documents issued in Application (A.) Parameters of
12-04-019 on August 28, 2017. Identified Issues
91 City of As supported by Exhibit MNA-1, the testimony of the Mayor and City Manager of the City A. Environmental
Marina - of Marina (Marina), it is my understanding that one of Marinas key community values is Issue to be
Abrams the existence of a clean, local, reliable, affordable and safe source of drinking water. Addressed in
Page 1, lines Based on my technical expertise and on my previous work reviewing the studies and Environmental
12-20. model prepared to support the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Impact Review
Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) regarding the potential impacts of the MPWSP on the
groundwater basin, which is the sole source of Marinas drinking water, my testimony will C. Outside of
cover the following six topics in evaluating the impact of the MPWSP on this key Marina Parameters of
community value and on the environment: Identified Issues
92 City of 1) Recent and ongoing scientific (geophysical) investigations in the Project vicinity related A. Environmental
Marina - to seawater intrusion, which have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, Issue to be
Abrams were briefly mentioned in the Draft EIR/EIS, but their findings and conclusions were not Addressed in
Page 1, lines considered in the impact analysis. Environmental
21-25. Impact Review
17
California American Water moves to strike the entirety of Dr. Abrams prepared testimony. The entirety of this testimony solely concerns environmental issues
that are to be addressed in the CEQA and NEPA review track, not in the CPCN phase of the proceeding here. This testimony also fails to fall within the
parameters of any of the Identified Issues in the August 28 Ruling. More specifically, the City of Marina improperly attempts to characterize environmental
impacts into the community value factor of Public Utilities Code Section 1001. This testimony should therefore be stricken. Specific portions of that testimony
are shown here for illustrative purposes.
37
56238670.v2
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed18
93 City of 2) Ongoing seawater intrusion control efforts in the area could have a significant effect on A. Environmental
Marina - the feedwater source area for the proposed MPWSP slant wells. As a result, a much Issue to be
Abrams greater percentage of feedwater for the Project may be extracted from inland areas of the Addressed in
Page 1, line local aquifers than CalAm has assumed. Environmental
26 to Page Impact Review
2, line 2.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed19
94 City of 3) Potential impacts to the 900-Foot Aquifer, the primary water source for the City of A. Environmental
Marina - Marina, were not adequately evaluated or discussed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
18
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at pp. 5, 38-39 (referring to geophysical
studies by Professor Knight); see also p. 39 ([D]espite the public availability and widely shared information regarding this research work, it was not
carefully analyzed and incorporated into the Draft EIR/EIS. The Draft EIR/EIS [] devotes only three sentences to Professor Knights study.).
19
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.4, G (The Draft EIR/EIS
Analysis Fails to Take Into Account the Anticipated Future Impact of Ongoing Seawater Intrusion Mitigation Efforts on Groundwater Flow
Directions), pp. 42-43; (As a result, the calculations of the amount of inland groundwater captured by the Plant could be significantly higher and, as
Dr. Abrams describes, the continued success of these projects could potentially strand the MPWSP desalination plant from its source of seawater.)
(Id. at p. 42.).
38
56238670.v2
Page 2, lines Environmental

4-6. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
95 City of 4) Alignments of proposed slant well casings appear to be mostly within the city limits of A. Environmental
Marina - Marina and not substantially beneath the seafloor, as was assumed in the studies and Issue to be
Abrams model that formed the basis for the evaluation in the Draft EIR/EIS. Addressed in
8-11. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
96 City of 5) The groundwater modeling effort conducted for the Project, and reflected in the Draft A. Environmental
Marina - EIR/EIS, is insufficiently designed to adequately evaluate the potential impacts of Issue to be
Abrams feedwater pumping on water quality in the 180-Foot, 400-Foot, and 900-Foot aquifers, Addressed in
Page 2, lines and the modeling approach used does not consider cumulative impacts. Environmental
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
97 City of 6) A three-dimensional airborne electromagnetic (AEM) survey was conducted in 2017 A. Environmental
Marina - that covered 50-55 square miles in the area around the MPWSP site, surrounding the Issue to be
Abrams City of Marina, and extending east to Salinas and north to Elkhorn Slough. Preliminary Addressed in
Page 2, lines results reveal detailed information about seawater intrusion in this area that was not Environmental
19-25. previously available, and which should be considered in connection with assessing Impact Review
MPWSP impacts.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
39
56238670.v2
98 City of Q.1. Can you provide some background on the location and hydrogeology of the A. Environmental
Marina - groundwater basin in which the MPWSP would be located? Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 2, line A.1. Yes. The proposed slant wells for the MPWSP would be located in the 180/400 Foot Environmental
29 to Page Aquifer Subbasin. The wells that provide drinking water to the City of Marina are located Impact Review
3, line 20. in the Monterey Subbasin. Both of these subbasins are located in the Salinas Valley
Basin and are directly connected hydrologically. In the area of the wells that provide C. Outside of
drinking water to the City of Marina, the boundary between these two subbasins is a Parameters of
groundwater divide and not a geologic boundary. The aquifers present in the 180/400 Identified Issues
Foot Aquifer Subbasin are also present in, and connected with, the Monterey Subbasin.
The groundwater divide between the two subbasins is not fixed in space; it can move as
hydrologic conditions change in the subbasins.
Knowledge about the aquifers in the 180/400 Foot Aquifer and Monterey subbasins,
including the potential extent and pathways of seawater intrusion, comes primarily from
point data from wells, and the aquifer properties in the areas between wells are
interpolated using professional judgement. Because of the uncertainty associated with
interpolation and professional judgement, conditions in the areas between wells are open
to interpretation, with many possible geological/hydrogeological outcomes that fit the
observed data. However, two-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) has
recently been used in the MPWSP and City of Marina vicinity by Stanford University
researchers and others to provide a continuous profile of seawater intruded groundwater
and aquifer heterogeneity between wells.
Two principal conclusions of the ERT work are that the subsurface geology is more highly
variable and spatially heterogeneous than was previously understood, including the
continuity of aquitards that could impede or facilitate the vertical flow of saline water
between and into the aquifers, and that the distribution of seawater intrusion in these
aquifers is also highly variable horizontally and vertically. There are numerous locations
where pathways exist for migration of seawater and seawater-impacted groundwater
from shallower to deeper levels of the aquifer system, as well as locations where such
pathways do not appear to exist and fresh water is present at depth.
99 City of Q.2. Is either of these two subbasins considered critically overdrafted by the California
40
56238670.v2
Marina - Department of Water Resources (DWR)?

Abrams
Page 3, lines A.2. DWR has designated the 180/400 Foot Aquifer subbasin as critically overdrafted.
21-26. The DWR designates basins as critically overdrafted when they are subject to
undesirable impacts which can include seawater intrusion, land subsidence, groundwater
depletion, and/or chronic lowering of groundwater levels.
100 City of Q.3. Is seawater intrusion a documented problem in the vicinity of the MPWSP and the A. Environmental
Marina - City of Marina? Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 3, line A.3. Seawater intrusion has been well-documented in Monterey County since at least the Environmental
29 to Page 1940s, including in the MPWSP and City of Marina area. The wells that provide drinking Impact Review
4, line 3. water to the City of Marina are vertically and/or horizontally proximal to the seawater-
intruded area and potentially vulnerable to seawater intrusion if conditions in the area C. Outside of
change. Parameters of
Identified Issues
101 City of Q.1. Do you believe that the potential impacts of the MPWSP to groundwater quality and A. Environmental
Marina - supplies have been completely and adequately studied? Please explain. Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 4, lines A.1. No, I do not believe that the potential impacts of the MPWSP to groundwater quality Environmental
5-10. and supplies have been completely and adequately studied. The reasons why I hold this Impact Review
belief are listed above in the Introduction and Overview section and discussed in detail
below in A2-A6. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed20
20
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.4 (Groundwater Resources), pp.
32-43; see also pp. 4-5.
41
56238670.v2
102 City of A. Environmental Issue to be Addressed in Environmental Impact Review A. Environmental

Marina - Issue to be
Abrams C. Outside of Parameters of Identified Issues Addressed in
Page 4, line Environmental
5, line 19.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
103 City of Q.3. What is your opinion regarding the evaluation of potential impacts of the MPWSP A. Environmental
Marina - slant wells to the 900 Foot Aquifer? Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 5, lines A.3. The studies and model utilized to evaluate the Project in support of the Draft EIR/EIS Environmental
23-31. did not adequately evaluate potential impacts to the 900 Foot Aquifer. The Draft EIR/EIS Impact Review
does not discuss the 900 Foot Aquifer in detail, nor does it adequately address the
impact of downward vertical flow observed in the MPWSP area. Impacts to groundwater C. Outside of
flow and quality and the potential response in the 900 Foot Aquifer from pumping at Parameters of
shallower levels are not discussed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Furthermore, there is no Identified Issues
discussion of mitigation measures to prevent potentially degrading or reducing the
potable water supply in the 900 Foot Aquifer. D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed21
104 City of Q.4. What observations do you have regarding the alignments of the proposed slant A. Environmental
Marina - wells? Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 6, lines A.4. The alignments of the proposed slant wells, as shown on Figure 3-3a of the Draft Environmental
1-13. EIR/EIS, are under the beach and not the seafloor. The proposed slant wells would be Impact Review
completed in the Dune Sand Aquifer and the 180 Foot-Equivalent Aquifer, largely within
the city limits of Marina, and not substantially beneath the seafloor. The percentage of C. Outside of
21
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at p. 5 (the Draft EIR/EIS fails to analyze
impacts to the 900 Foot Aquifer); see also Chapter 4.4, D (The Draft EIR/EIS Is Inadequate Because It Completely Fails to Analyze the Potential
Impacts of the Project on Groundwater in the 900 Foot Aquifer), p. 38.
42
56238670.v2
casing of individual wells seaward of the projected 2020 mean high water (MHW) line Parameters of
ranges from 0 percent to 29 percent, with an average of 18 percent. Therefore, an Identified Issues
average of 82 percent of the individual well casing lengths of the proposed MPWSP slant
wells would be landward of the projected 2020 MHW line. D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed22
105 City of Q.5. What are your views regarding the groundwater models that have been used to A. Environmental
Marina - assess the impacts of the MPWSP on the 180/400 Foot Aquifer and Monterey Issue to be
Abrams subbasins? Addressed in
14-21. A.5. The groundwater modeling effort conducted for the Draft EIR/EIS is not sufficiently Impact Review
detailed or documented to evaluate potential impacts from proposed MPWSP pumping
on the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, the aquifers in the adjacent Monterey Subbasin, C. Outside of
or existing groundwater users in the City of Marina: Parameters of
Identified Issues
106 City of The following stated/implied modeling objectives are insufficiently defined or addressed: A. Environmental
Abrams Delineate the area where drawdown is 1 foot or greater in response to proposed Addressed in
Page 6, line MPWSP pumping: Insufficiently defined because of an overly generalized Environmental
23 to Page hydrogeological conceptual model and no evaluation of cumulative impacts to the Impact Review
7, line 10. critically overdrafted 180/400 Foot Aquifer (e.g., seasonal trends, municipal and
agricultural pumping, and droughts); C. Outside of
Parameters of
Determine the source area(s) from where feedwater for the proposed MPWSP Identified Issues
desalination plant would be extracted: Incompletely addressed and does not consider 1
projects intended to reverse the flow of groundwater near the Project (see answer A5, D. Covers Issues
above); Previously
Addressed23
22
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter, Appx. 1, 2.4.
23
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter at Chapter 4.4, F (The Groundwater
Modeling Used by the Draft EIR/EIS Is Inadequate to Determine the Potential Harm to the Wells that Serve Marina and its Citizens), p. 41; see also
p. 5 ([T]he modeling that the Draft EIR/EIS relies upon to support its no significance finding for groundwater impacts is not state-of-the-art).
43
56238670.v2
Determine if proposed MPWSP pumping would exacerbate seawater intrusion in the

SVGB: Insufficiently addressed because subsurface seawater flow and intrusion into
fresh or brackish groundwater cannot be simulated with the model used (i.e., the models
mathematical formulation does not included density-dependent seawater or brackish
water flow), and the representation of the aquifer in the current model is too generalized
to simulate the effects of heterogeneity that has been demonstrated by existing scientific
studies.
107 City of The model construction and design is too simplistic to evaluate the potential or probability A. Environmental
Marina - of adverse impacts to water quality: Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 7, lines Subsurface seawater flow and intrusion into fresh or brackish groundwater cannot be Environmental
11-28. simulated with current model, because the models mathematical formulation does not Impact Review
included density16 dependent flow;
C. Outside of
The zoned approach used throughout most of the current model for defining aquifer Parameters of
parameters is not capable of adequately characterizing the known aquifer heterogeneity. Identified Issues
Additionally, the variable hydraulic conductivities in model layers 5 and 6 are not linked to
statistical properties of the aquifers or aquitards. D. Covers Issues
Previously
The superposition approach used in the current model does not resolve the model Addressed24
deficiencies identified by the authors of Appendix E2, thus the true model performance on
which the forecast scenarios are based is actually unknown. Furthermore, the
superposition approach cannot be used to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the
MPWSP and the above listed projects, which should have been considered, or the impact
of possible exacerbated seawater intrusion.
108 City of The boundary and initial conditions of the current model were based on output from an A. Environmental
Marina - obsolete and conceptually limited regional model. A newer, more robust model of the Issue to be
24
44
56238670.v2
Abrams Salinas Valley Basin is now available from the U.S. Geological Survey and Monterey Addressed in
Page 8, lines County. Environmental
1-4. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed25
109 City of The following aspects of model calibration are not well-documented and are not A. Environmental
Marina - discussed in detail: Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 8, lines The overall calibration procedure; Environmental
5-10. Impact Review
Improvements to model performance during calibration;
C. Outside of
Uncertainties associated with the data used to build the model, the hydrogeological Parameters of
conceptual model, and parameter estimates. Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed26
110 City of Because of these limitations, potential impacts to the 180/400 Foot Aquifer, related A. Environmental
25
26
45
56238670.v2
Marina - aquifers in the Monterey subbasin, and to existing groundwater users in the City of Issue to be
Abrams Marina, cannot be effectively evaluated with the model in its current form. Addressed in
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed27
111 City of A. Environmental Issue to be Addressed in Environmental Impact Review A. Environmental
Abrams C. Outside of Parameters of Identified Issues Addressed in
Page 8, line Environmental
9, line 8.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
112 City of In conclusion, and based on my expert analysis of these issues, I make the following A. Environmental
Marina - recommendations to the Commission: Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Page 9, lines 1. I recommend that the Commission conduct an evidentiary hearing or other fact finding Environmental
11-30. proceeding to obtain and evaluate the latest geophysical data and investigative work Impact Review
available regarding the potential impact of the Project on the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin, including the latest ERM and AEM work by Stanford University summarized C. Outside of
above. Parameters of
27
46
56238670.v2
Identified Issues
2. I recommend that the Commission use an updated and state-of-the-art groundwater
model that includes density-dependent flow to evaluate the Projects groundwater
impacts.
3. I recommend that the Commission determine more precisely the amount of

groundwater that the Project is now expected to extract from the Basin and how it is
expected to impact groundwater in the 900 Foot Aquifer.
4. In my opinion, the failure to use best available data and a well-designed model means
that the current conclusions regarding the Projects groundwater impacts have not been
fully and properly studied and there is a significant risk of unanalyzed and serious
impacts to Marinas groundwater source and associated community value. I recommend
that the Commission, based on the latest research, modeling and analysis, take a close
and updated look at these impacts
113 City of [California American Water moves to strike the entirety of the City of Marinas Exhibit A. Environmental
Marina - MNA-3 Attachment -- MARCH 27, 2017 MEMORANDUM] Issue to be
Abrams Addressed in
Exhibit MNA- Environmental
3 Attachment Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed28
28
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see City of Marina Comment Letter, Appx. 1.
47
56238670.v2
MCWD - FURTHER DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CURTIS HOPKINS (SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY)

114 MCWD - Q8. What is the purpose of your current direct testimony? A. Environmental
Hopkins Issue to be
Page 2, lines A8. This testimony is intended to summarize the results of a report that HGC was Addressed in
16-24. retained to provide for Marina Coast Water District ("MCWD") updating HGC's January Environmental
22, 2016 report (Ex. MCD-20) regarding the MPWSP's return water proposal based on Impact Review
new information, including preliminary results from recent airborne electromagnetic Alternative
("AEM") data collection, undertaken for MCWD by a team from Stanford University led by Projects
Dr. Rosemary Knight. A true copy that report, dated September 29, 2017, is attached
hereto as Exhibit MCD-57. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
115 MCWD - Q9. What was the subject of HGC's September 29, 2017 report to MCWD regarding A. Environmental
Hopkins the proposed MPWSP? Issue to be
Page 2, line Addressed in
25 to Page A9. Since HGC's January 22, 2016 report and my prior testimony referenced above was Environmental
3, line 22. presented, California American Water Company's ("Cal-Am") and certain other parties Impact Review
have also entered into a Return Water Settlement Agreement that proposes to deliver up
to 865 AFY of desalinated water north of the Salinas River as satisfaction of its assumed C. Outside of
"return water" obligation. (Return Water Settlement, 2.b (175 AFY to CSIP), 2.e (690 Parameters of
AFY to Castroville Community Services District).) We provide our professional opinion Identified Issues29
regarding Cal-Am's revised return water volume estimate of seven percent of the
project's feedwater, as referenced on page 14 of Mr. Crooks' September 15, 2017 D. Covers Issues
testimony. Our September 29, 2017 report also explains why the Return Water Previously
Settlement Agreement does not address the concerns raised in our prior report. As Addressed
explained in our prior memorandum and expanded upon herein, providing return water
north of the Salinas River may beneficially affect groundwater in the aquifers in that area,
but it will not mitigate the project's primary adverse groundwater impacts caused by the
project in the North Marina Area of the 180-400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin within the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin ("SVGB"). Our report further addresses new evidence,
29
Part of Mr. Hopkinss testimony in this section discusses the Return Water Settlement Agreement, but does properly provide information regarding necessary
modifications to that testimony as contemplated by the August 28 Ruling. Instead, MCWD seeks simply to reintroduce its criticisms of the Return Water
Settlement Agreement. Therefore, this testimony should be stricken.
48
56238670.v2
including the recent airborne electromagnetic ("AEM") data collection by a team from
Stanford University led by Dr. Rosemary Knight and the preliminary report on the data,
which supports our original analysis regarding the extensive groundwater resources in
the shallow aquifers along the coastline around the CEMEX site that would be adversely
impacted by the MPWSP. This new evidence also confirms the importance of preserving
and protecting the groundwater resources in these coastal aquifers.
116 MCWD - Q10. How does your further testimony today relate to the subject categories set forth in C. Outside of
Hopkins the August 28, 2017 ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned Parameters of
Page 3, line Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding? Identified Issues
23 to Page
4, line 17. A10. My testimony today relates to assumptions concerning the quality of groundwater in D. Covers Issues
the proposed project area, which affects the calculation of any "return water" obligation Previously
as a component of overall demand, as well as the total volume of required brackish Addressed
feedwater, and so it informs the topic of supply as well. Both demand and supply were
topics set forth in the August 28, 2017 ruling.
My testimony also informs the issue of cost, as the volume of "return water" Cal-Am is
obliged to return to the basin will likely affect the cost of the water that may be produced
by the proposed MPWSP, which is addressed in the concurrently-served testimony of
MCWD's General Manager, Keith Van Der Maaten.
My testimony also addresses topic number 8, settlements. The Return Water Settlement
Agreement will not satisfy Cal-Am's return water obligations and does not mitigate the
MPWSP's adverse groundwater impacts to the Coastal aquifers in the project area.
Finally, my testimony explains the importance of the preservation and protection of

groundwater resources in the coastal aquifers in the project area, which relates directly to
the "community values" aspect of Public Utilities Code section 1002, topic number 9,
which is addressed by Mr. Van Der Maaten's testimony as well as the concurrently-
served testimony of Vera Nelson.
117 MCWD - Q11. What were the results of HGC's January 22, 2016 report to MCWD regarding the C. Outside of
Hopkins proposed MPWSP? Parameters of
49
56238670.v2
Page 4, line Identified Issues

18 to Page A11. In our January 2016 report, HGC concluded that monitoring data available as of that
5, line 1. date from the test slant well for the proposed MPWSP confirmed that Cal-Am's previous D. Covers Issues
modeling and its estimates regarding the percentage of fresh groundwater that would be Previously
pumped by the full MPWSP were not accurate. Based on the findings of our review, we Addressed30
concluded that it is unquestionable that the MPWSP feedwater will contain a substantial
portion of fresh groundwater, much higher than the 875 acre-feet per year that Cal-Am
estimated. This information goes to projecting both the volume of desalination feedwater
that would have to be extracted (supply) as well as the volume of "return water" that
would be required (demand) for the MPWSP.
118 MCWD - Q12. Does HGC have an update to the conclusions in its January 22, 2016 report or any A. Environmental
Hopkins other new information? Issue to be
2 to Page 6, A12. Yes. As explained in our September 29, 2017 report, it is likely that MPWSP's return Environmental
line 9. water obligation is significantly understated. In addition, Cal-Am's Return Water Impact Review
Settlement Agreement does not consider or address the adverse impacts to the Northern
Marina Subarea aquifers that would result from the MPWSP's source wells. Specifically, C. Outside of
providing return water to the Castroville area as proposed in the Return Water Settlement Parameters of
Agreement will not address or mitigate the adverse groundwater impacts caused by the Identified Issues
project in the North Marina Area of the 180-400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin within the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB). Unless the return water method ensures that the D. Covers Issues
protective conditions discussed in our report in our report are not harmed, the MPWSP Previously
will induce seawater intrusion into the Dune Sand Aquifer (and will exacerbate seawater Addressed31
intrusion in the 180-Foot Aquifer and 400-Foot Aquifer through vertical leakage) in the
Northern Marina Subarea and will likely result in cumulative impacts to aquifers and wells
30
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see MCWD Comment Letter at 56-60; see also, e.g., id. at Ex. 1 at 2 [The intake system will
induce seawater flow vertically through the ocean floor by using facilities that extend beyond the coastline at sufficiently shallow depths to virtually eliminate the
production of groundwater from the overdrafted SVGB, and in particular the Marina Subarea. As explained in Comment Nos. 2, 6, 9, 11, 14, 22, and 23 below,
this assertion is not accurate. . . . The shallow aquifers along the coastline around the CEMEX site are fully intruded by seawater and the groundwater in the
project area of SVGB consists almost entirely of highly saline seawater that extends up to 8 miles inland. As explained in Comment Nos. 3, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19,
20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 33, 36, and 37 below, this characterization ignores contrary information, is a gross misrepresentation of the aquifers in the Marina Subarea, and
is simply not accurate.].)
31
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see, e.g., MCWD Comment Letter, Ex. 1 at 16-19; 28.
50
56238670.v2
much further inland. It will further delay (or eliminate benefit from) efforts to reverse the
trend of seawater intrusion in the Northern Marina Subarea and throughout the SVGB.
The MPWSP intake facilities as designed will also undercut extensive efforts by MCWD
and others to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition and to respond to the serious
existing drought conditions.
As indicated in our prior January 22, 2016 memorandum, updated modeling using
information developed from the Test Slant Well field investigations and available from
other studies in the North Marina Subarea must be used to refine the MPWSP modeling
to accurately simulate aquifer conditions. Analysis regarding a method for returning
groundwater pumped by the proposed MPWSP source wells that demonstrates the
protective conditions that currently exist in the Northern Marina subarea are not
adversely impacted to the detriment of the groundwater users in and inland of the
subarea still has not been performed, and it is still necessary. In fact, without this updated
modeling and additional analysis, it is impossible for the public and public agencies to
provide meaningful testimony regarding Cal-Am's return water proposal. Nonetheless, it
is clear that Cal-Am's Return Water Settlement Agreement will not mitigate the MPWSP's
groundwater impacts to the groundwater aquifers within the North Marina Area where the
fresh water conditions have been identified.
119 MCWD - Q13. Do the preliminary results of the AEM study impact the conclusions you reached in A. Environmental
Hopkins your January 22, 2016 report? Issue to be
Page 6, lines Addressed in
10-25. A13. Yes. The preliminary results of the AEM study supports our original analysis Environmental
regarding the extensive groundwater resources in the shallow aquifers along the Impact Review
coastline around the CEMEX site that will be adversely impacted by the MPWSP. This
new evidence also confirms the importance of preserving and protecting the groundwater C. Outside of
resources in these coastal aquifers. While these freshwater recharge mechanisms in the Parameters of
North Marina Area have not been thoroughly investigated to date, the AEM data indicate Identified Issues
that they provide a key source of protection to the aquifers in the groundwater basin
located inland of the Marina Subarea. The magnitude of pumping proposed by the project
will disrupt the natural balance that has controlled seawater intrusion and limited it to its
present location. It is clear that the modelling preformed for the MPWSP to date, does not
predict the presence of these freshwater recharge mechanisms in the North Marina Area,
51
56238670.v2
the protective head they provide, or the impedance to seawater intrusion they provide.
120 MCWD - Q14. Does HGC have an update to the conclusions in its January 22, 2016 report A. Environmental
Hopkins regarding Cal-Am's estimated return water obligation? Issue to be
26 to Page A14. Yes. As explained in our report, there are no supporting data and no explanation for Environmental
8, line 4. the 7% return water estimate included in Cal-Am's updated demand number. The 7% Impact Review
estimate does not appear to be based on the DEIR/EIS or any other information that has
been made available. Even the NMGWM2016 calibrated model, which likely C. Outside of
underestimates the slant wells' production of groundwater as explained in our comments Parameters of
on the DEIR/EIS, which we attached to our report, predicts up to 22% of groundwater will Identified Issues
be produced from the Dune Sand Aquifer and another 3.5% of groundwater will be
produced from the 180-FTE Aquifer during the initial time step. D. Covers Issues
Previously
As shown in Table 1 in our report, approximately 13.3 to 14.4 percent of the MPWSP's Addressed32
Test Slant Well (TSW) feedwater was groundwater shortly after pumping was initiated.
While higher salinity feedwater was produced by the TSW in December 2016 and
January 2017, the concentration declined by June and July 2017 where approximately
13.2 to 14.3 percent of the groundwater produced would need to be returned. As also
explained in the report, the feedwater for the proposed MPWSP slant wells will likely be
higher than the TSW due to the water quality bias of the TSW that results from the
dredge pond location and the salt water discharges that occur inland of the TSW location.
This bias is unlikely to exist at the proposed slant well locations further south of the
current MPWSP test well or continue at the current test well location after CEMEX
ceases operations.
As explained in our original report, our comments on the DEIR/EIS, and our September
29, 2017 report, until updated modeling is correlated with actual datarather than
unproven assumptionsfrom the MPWSP TSW and monitoring well data from the
32
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see MCWD Comment Letter at 3, 32 (The limited exploration and testing to date sufficiently
validates the assumptions in the DEIR/EISs groundwater model(s) used to simulate impacts of the proposed project and additional modeling based on actual
conditions identified through recent fieldwork and laboratory testing is not necessary to disclosure of the projects potential groundwater impacts or evaluate of
project alternatives. As explained in Comment Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 15, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, and 39 below, this is not accurate.); see also id. at Ex. 1 at
9-12; see also id. at Ex. 2 at 61-64.
52
56238670.v2
aquifers within the Northern Marina Subarea affected by the project, there can be no
reasonable estimate to inform Cal-Am's return water obligation, and thus its estimated
demand numbers are speculation. Please note that our testimony regarding Cal-Am's
estimated return water obligation should not be interpreted to suggest the return of all
groundwater to the SVGB as proposed under Cal-Am's Return Water Settlement
Agreement would mitigate the project's impacts to the North Marina Subarea or would
satisfy other legal requirements. The inadequacy of the Cal-Am Return Water Settlement
Agreement, as noted above, is also addressed in our report.
121 MCWD - [California American Water moves to strike the entirety of MCWDs Exhibit MCD-57 -- A. Environmental
Hopkins Memorandum of Hopkins Groundwater Consultants to Marina Coast Water District, Issue to be
Exhibit MCD- Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Return Water, dated September 29, 2017, Addressed in
51 attaching March 29, 2017 Letter from Hopkins Groundwater Consultants to Marina Coast Environmental
Water District, Cal-Am MPWSP DEIR/DEIS for CPUC and MBNMS, January 2017] Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed33
33
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see MCWD Comment Letter, Ex. 1.
53
56238670.v2
MCWD - DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ROSEMARY KNIGHT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT -
SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY34
122 MCWD - Q9. What is the purpose of this direct testimony? A. Environmental
Knight Issue to be
Page 2, lines A9. This testimony is intended to summarize the preliminary results of my teams analysis Addressed in
6-13. of recently collected and previously unavailable airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data Environmental
regarding the subsurface in and near the area of the Marina Coast Water District Impact Review
(MCWD) service territory, including the distribution of fresh and salt water in the
underlying aquifers. A true copy of that preliminary report, dated June 16, 2017, is C. Outside of
attached hereto as Exhibit MCD-51. Parameters of
Identified Issues
123 MCWD - Q10. How does your testimony relate to the subject categories set forth in the August 28, A. Environmental
Knight 2017 ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned Administrative Law Judge in Issue to be
Page 2, line this proceeding? Addressed in
14 to Page Environmental
3, line 12. A10. My testimony relates directly to the Applicants assumptions concerning the quality Impact Review
of groundwater in the proposed project area, which informs both the topics of demand
and supply, which were set forth in the August 28, 2017 ruling. C. Outside of
Parameters of
If the percentage of freshwater deemed to be extracted by the proposed projects source Identified Issues
wells will determine the minimum volume of any desalinated return water that would be
returned to the basin by the Applicant over the life of the project, the groundwater quality
revealed by the AEM data would be an important tool in evaluating and refining projected
volumes of return water needed.
The information provided in our preliminary analysis of the AEM data could also affect
estimates for the cost of the desalinated water proposed to be produced by the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project or MPWSP, a topic that is addressed in the concurrently-
served testimony of MCWDs General Manager, Keith Van der Maaten.
34
California American Water moves to strike the entirety of Dr. Knights prepared testimony. The entirety of this testimony solely concerns environmental issues
parameters of any of the Identified Issues in the August 28 Ruling. Specific portions of that testimony are shown here for illustrative purposes.
54
56238670.v2
Finally, the protection of groundwater resources capable of beneficial use relates directly
to the community values aspect of Public Utilities Code section 1002, topic number 9,
which is addressed in Mr. Van der Maatens testimony and is also addressed in the
concurrently-served testimony of Vera Nelson.
My testimony also relates to the validity of the groundwater modeling for the proposed
MPWSP. I understand that MCWD therefore has made or will make both the preliminary
and final results of our AEM data analysis available to the Commissions environmental
review team.
124 MCWD - Q11. Why was the AEM data you have described not available previously? A. Environmental
Knight Issue to be
Page 3, lines A11. There is a lack of familiarity in California with the use of AEM for groundwater Addressed in
13-23. mapping; but it has been widely used in other parts of the world. I previously conducted a Environmental
ground-based survey along the local beach area, utilizing electrical resistivity tomography Impact Review
(ERT) technology. This provided information about electrical resistivity changes along a
2D slice beneath the ground that can also be interpreted to map out freshwater and C. Outside of
saltwater. In order to map out electrical resistivity in 3D, and farther inland in the area of Parameters of
interest, AEM was the best method to use. Working with MCWD on the AEM study Identified Issues
provided an excellent opportunity to apply AEM to a specific real-world need for this type
of subsurface information.
125 MCWD - Q12. Why is your report preliminary and not final? A. Environmental
Knight Issue to be
Page 3, lines A12. My team is still in the process of compiling our final report. Assembling a final report Addressed in
24-27. in this complex area with the tremendous volume of data we acquired will take another Environmental
six months. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
126 MCWD - Q13. Although your report is preliminary at this time, are you confident that it adequately A. Environmental
Knight conveys the results of the data collection? Issue to be
55
56238670.v2

28 to Page A13. Yes Environmental
4, line 2. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
127 MCWD - Q14. Please describe in laypersons terms the results of the AEM data collection as set A. Environmental
Knight forth in your preliminary report. Issue to be
3-25. A14. AEM maps out electrical resistivity beneath the ground. The electrical resistivity Environmental
changes when the type of geological material changes, for example from sand to clay, Impact Review
and also when the salinity of the contained water changes. The challenge is unraveling
those two effects. We have started this work using information from wells in the area and C. Outside of
there are some straightforward conclusions that can be made. At this stage, we are Parameters of
confident that the least resistive areas contain saltwater; there is no other explanation for Identified Issues
these low resistivity values. We can similarly draw conclusions about the most resistive
areas. If a region is below the water table, we are confident that the most resistive areas
contain freshwater; again, based on the well data in the area, there is no other
explanation. Because of this, we were able to conclude that the AEM data we collected in
May of this year indicates the presence of a sizable lens of freshwater in what is
referred to as the Dune Sand Aquifer, as well as the 180 Foot/180FTE Aquifer, where
there was previously a presumption that those areas were fully intruded with salt water.
Based on the AEM data we collected in May of this year, the presumption concerning salt
water intrusion in the area appears to be incorrect. In between two extreme end members
of least resistive and most resistive, electrical resistivity can change due to changes in
salinity and due to changes in the type of geological material. This is work ahead of us;
but our conclusions, that the end-members are saltwater and freshwater when saturated,
will not change.
Knight Preliminary Interpretation of SkyTEM Data in the Marina Coast Water District, June 16, Issue to be
Exhibit MCD- 2017] Addressed in
51 Environmental
56
56238670.v2
Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
D. Covers Issues
Previously
Addressed35
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see MCWD March 29, 2017 Comments on Draft EIR/EIS (MCWD Comment
35
Letter), Ex. 1 at pp. 41-42 (disagreeing with the EIR/EIS discussion of baseline seawater intrusion).
57
56238670.v2
MCWD - DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KEITH VAN DER MAATEN SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT -
SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY
129 MCWD Q13. Why does MCWD still believe Cal-Ams projected volume of return water required A. Environmental
Van Der is significantly understated? Issue to be
Maaten Addressed in
Page 5, line A13. MCWD previously submitted testimony expressing its concern that Cal-Ams Environmental
12 to Page estimate at the time of 875 AFY as the amount of groundwater pumped by a 6.4 mgd Impact Review
6, line 14. MPWSP that would have to be returned to the basin according to Cal-Ams return water
proposal was understated. (See Direct Testimony of Thomas P. Moore, Ex. MCD-16, p. B. Impermissible
8, lines 3-7; Direct Testimony of Curtis G. Hopkins, Ex. MCD-18, pp. 2-3, Q&A 9 and Legal
attached Ex. MCD-20, II at pp. 2-7; Revised Rebuttal Testimony of Curtis G. Hopkins, Conclusions
Ex. MCD-27, pp. 3-5, Q&As 9, 10, 11, 12 and Figures 1, 2 and 3.) In stating its position,
MCWD does not concede that any return water proposal can lawfully mitigate Cal-Ams C. Outside of
withdrawal of groundwater from the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Parameters of
Groundwater Basin, which subbasin has been designated by the State of California as a Identified Issues
Critically Overdrafted Basin, without possessing water rights allowing it to do so.
D. Covers Issues
Since MCWDs testimony referenced above was presented, Cal-Am and certain other Previously
parties have entered into a Return Water Settlement Agreement that proposes to deliver Addressed36
up to 865 AFY of desalinated water north of the Salinas River as satisfaction of any
return water obligation. (Return Water Settlement, 2.b (175 AFY to CSIP), 2.e (690
AFY to Castroville Community Services District).)
However, the concerns raised by the prior testimony of MCWDs hydrogeology expert,
Curtis Hopkins, have so far not been addressed. Cal-Ams return water volume estimate
of 865 AFY, or in the alternative seven percent of sourcewater as described on page 14
of Mr. Crooks September 15, 2017 testimony, continue to be based on faulty
assumptions concerning the groundwater in the Dune Sand and 180FTE Aquifers
underlying the project area and influence from the CEMEX dredge pond. The
36
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see MCWD Comment Letter, Ex. 3 (harm to MCWD system); id., Ex. 1 at 71-72
(impacts to groundwater cleanup efforts at Fort Ord). Other portions of this testimony were offered earlier in this proceeding, as shown by the
citations in this testimony. Therefore, this testimony should be stricken.
58
56238670.v2
concurrently-served testimony of Rosemary Knight and Curtis Hopkins on behalf of

MCWD will provide further detail supporting MCWDs position that even if the current
return water proposal were considered to be viable and lawful mitigation for harms to
the basin and its current groundwater users, including MCWD the amount of return
water projected by Cal-Am as a component of its demand is still significantly
understated.
130 MCWD - Van Q22. You mentioned two ready supply options that MCWD is offering. Are those two A. Environmental
Der Maaten proposals viable alternatives for Cal-Ams pursuit of additional supply options to reduce Issue to be
Page 10, line Carmel River pumping and comply with orders of the State Water Resources Control Addressed in
25 to Page Board? Environmental
A22. Yes. MCWD is prepared to make certain supplies of MCWDs GWR/Pure Water Alternative
Monterey recycled water available for sale to Cal-Am through MPWMD and certain Projects37
supplies of MCWDs potable water to the Seaside Basin Watermaster for Cal-Ams
benefit. MCWDs proposals are described in Exhibits MCD-43 and MCD-44 attached C. Outside of
hereto. The two proposals set forth in Exhibits MCD-43 and MCD-44 have been approved Parameters of
in concept by MCWDs Board of Directors and offers have been conveyed to the Identified Issues
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Seaside Basin Watermaster,
respectively. Both of these proposals would make water supplies available to Cal-Ams
Monterey District sooner and at a significantly lower cost per acre-foot than the MPWSP.
MCWD understands that the current projected cost of desalinated water from the
MPWSP will be well over $4,000 per acre-foot if combined with Pure Water Monterey
supplies, according to information presented in the testimony of Mr. Linam on behalf of
Cal-Am (see, e.g., Attachment 2 to Linam Direct Testimony). The Seaside Basin
Watermaster Board (of which Cal-Am is a member) has determined the cost of MPWSP
water alone to be $6,147 per acre-foot per year as reflected in the Seaside Basin
Watermasters chart of Anticipated Unit Costs of Water for water year 2017 (see
attachments to Exhibits MCD-45 and MCD-46). True copies of the Seaside Groundwater
Basin Watermasters 2016 and 2017 agenda items for approval of Unit Cost for Water
Year, as MCWD obtained them from the Watermasters website, are attached hereto as
Exhibits MCD-45 and MCD-46, respectively.
37
The testimony in this section of Mr Van Der Maatens testimony concerns project alternatives not being considered within the scope of the CPCN phase of this
proceeding. Project alternatives outside of the scope of the CPCN phase are to be considered in the CEQA and NEPA environmental review track.
59
56238670.v2
In addition, MCWD is exploring development of groundwater recharge projects to be

located on MCWD property in the Armstrong Ranch area. The potential value to the
community of these recharge projects is addressed herein and in the concurrently-served
testimony of Vera Nelson on behalf of MCWD.
131 MCWD - Van Q23. Has MCWD presented its two ready supply option proposals to MPWMD and the A. Environmental
Der Maaten Seaside Basin Watermaster, respectively? Issue to be
27 to Page A23. Yes. The formal proposals were sent in writing on September 27, 2017. However, Environmental
12, line 3. MCWD has maintained communications with both entities for a number of months to Impact Review
refine the details of these two proposals. Alternative
Projects
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
132 MCWD - Van Q24. Has MCWD presented its two ready supply option proposals directly to Cal-Am? A. Environmental
Der Maaten Issue to be
Page 12, A24. Not at this time. However, Cal-Am is a member of the Seaside Watermaster Board Addressed in
lines 4-6. of Directors, so it should be informed of at least one of the proposals. Environmental
Impact Review
Alternative
Projects
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
133 Page 12, Q25. Why has MCWD not presented its proposals directly to Cal-Am? A. Environmental
lines 7-16. Issue to be
A25. Communications have been strained between MCWD and Cal-Am since the Addressed in
demise of the Regional Desalination Project. However, in MCWDs view, it would be Environmental
possible for Cal-Am and MCWD to work together cooperatively if Cal-Am were open to Impact Review
60
56238670.v2
considering water supply solutions, or desalination feed water intake proposals, that do Alternative
not threaten to destroy MCWDs water supply. Mr. Crooks testimony at pages 16-17 also Projects
mentions ongoing litigation related to the Regional Desalination Project. In MCWDs view,
that matter could easily be resolved if Cal-Am were willing to come to the table. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
134 MCWD - Van Q26. Please describe briefly the proposals for supply alternatives that are attached in A. Environmental
Der Maaten Exhibits MCD-43 and MCD-44. Issue to be
17 to Page A26. Certainly. Environmental
First, the GWR/Pure Water Monterey, or PWM, Project already has two phases. In phase Alternative
1, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), now renamed Projects
Monterey One Water (MOW) is entitled to 3,700 AFY of project output and MCWD is
entitled to 600 AFY of project output. In phase 2, MCWD is entitled to an additional 827 B. Impermissible
AFY of project output for a total entitlement of 1,427 AFY. MCWD is prepared to sell to Legal
MPWMD 500 AFY of MCWDs 600 AFY GWR/PWM phase 1 entitlement, currently Conclusions
estimated to be available in 2019, for an initial term of ten (10) years. The price would be
$2,200 per acre-foot, with the potential for annual adjustments based upon percentage C. Outside of
increases in MCWDs recycled water cost to serve its Ord Community customers. This Parameters of
proposal is set forth in a letter from me to MPWMDs General Manager, David Stoldt, Identified Issues
dated September 27, 2017. A true copy of my letter to Mr. Stoldt is attached hereto as
Exhibit MCD-43, without the voluminous technical memorandum enclosure.
In addition, MCWD would be willing to sell to MPWMD the amount of its 827 AFY Pure
Water Monterey phase 2 entitlement that MCWD currently projects would not be needed
for service to its Ord Community for some time. This phase 2 proposal is currently
estimated to provide an additional 500 AFY for purchase, and it would also be for an
initial term of ten (10) years. The price would be the same as for MCWDs 600 AFY
phase 1 entitlement. Based upon previous estimates from MOW, a two-and-a-half year
lead time would be required to bring the phase 2 supply on line. Presumably, that could
still be accomplished well in advance of Cal-Ams December 31, 2021 CDO deadline.
MOWs witness may provide additional testimony concerning phase 2. It is important to
note that environmental review for phase 1 has already been completed.
61
56238670.v2
Second, MCWD is prepared to sell to the Seaside Basin Watermaster 700 AFY of
MCWDs potable water supply as Replenishment Water under the Seaside Basin
allocation decision, for an initial term of six calendar years, 2018-2023, which could then
be extended by agreement. The proposed price would be based on the Watermasters
Over Production Replenishment Assessment Rate, which is currently $2,872 per acre-
foot. This proposal could begin satisfying Cal-Ams pay-back obligations to the Seaside
Basin Watermaster of 700 AFY for 25 plus years. More importantly, this proposed sale
could potentially prevent the scheduled 2018 and 2021 rampdowns of Cal-Ams Seaside
Basin groundwater allocation pursuant to the Seaside Basin adjudication decision and
enable Cal-Am to continue to extract 1,474 AFY from the Seaside Basin. This proposal is
set forth in a letter from me to the Board of Directors of the Seaside Basin Watermaster,
dated September 27, 2017. A true copy of my letter to the Watermasters Board is
attached hereto as Exhibit MCD-44.
There would be a restriction on the use of water provided by MCWD under this second
proposal, due to the Agency Acts prohibition on the export of groundwater outside the
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin or SVGB. The water provided under the proposal to
the Watermaster would only be available for use within the portion of the Ord Community
that overlies the Seaside Basin (a sub-basin of the SVGB).
135 MCWD - Van Q27. Are these two supply proposals temporary? A. Environmental
Page 14, A27. No. As I mentioned, the MPWMD proposal would be a ten-year agreement and the Addressed in
lines 11-14. Seaside Basin Watermaster proposal would be a six-year agreement. Each agreement Environmental
would include an option for ongoing renewals. Impact Review
Alternative
Projects
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
136 MCWD - Van Q28. Can the Commission rely on these proposals to serve the present and future A. Environmental
Der Maaten convenience and necessity of Cal-Ams customers? Issue to be
62
56238670.v2
Page 14, Addressed in

lines 15-22. A28. For the foreseeable future, yes. In contrast, in MCWDs view, it would not be Environmental
reasonable to certificate a 6.4 mgd desalination project to serve present and speculative Impact Review
future needs that would likely be a mere fraction of 6.4 mgd, even in ten or twenty years. Alternative
The evidence offered by Cal-Am does not support a reasoned finding that the future Projects
public convenience and necessity will require a 6.4 mgd desalination project.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
137 MCWD - Van Q29. Do you wish to add anything related to the topic of supply? A. Environmental
Page 14, A29. Except for phase 1 GWR or Pure Water Monterey supply, both of these proposals Addressed in
lines 23-27. would require completion of appropriate environmental review and compliance with the Environmental
California Environmental Quality Act before final approval and implementation. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
138 MCWD - Van Q30. Does MCWD wish to provide information to the Commission concerning costs for A. Environmental
Der Maaten the MPWSP? Issue to be
2 to Page A30. Yes. MCWD is deeply concerned that if the Commission were to approve and Environmental
16, line 6. certificate the MPWSP with a slant well intake system at the CEMEX site as proposed, Impact Review38
the harm to MCWDs existing water supply will be significant, if not catastrophic. The cost
of litigation with MCWD and/or any mitigation required for harm to MCWDs water supply C. Outside of
would be extremely high, and damages or mitigation costs could amount to the cost of Parameters of
replacing MCWDs water supply in its entirety. MCWD does not wish to litigate, but it Identified Issues
cannot afford to lose its water supply.
The threat of loss is particularly keen considering the years of effort and millions of dollars
38
The testimony in this section of Mr. Van Der Maatens testimony is about costs for MCWB based upon the need to construct replacement supply, not costs
associated with the MPWSP. Therefore, this testimony is outside the parameters of the Identified Issues and instead concerns environmental impacts from the
MPWSP, which are more properly addressed in the CEQA and NEPA environmental review track.
63
56238670.v2
already invested by MCWD and others in a number of ongoing projects in the community,
including but not limited to the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Program (C-SIP), the
Salinas Valley Water Project, and the ongoing groundwater cleanup efforts by the Army
in the Fort Ord area as ordered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure
the basin continues to be a drinking water source as defined in the basin plan. Detailed
information regarding the current status and future plans for Ord cleanup are discussed in
EKI Environment & Water, Inc.s June 22, 2017 memorandum to MCWD, a true copy of
which is attached as Exhibit MCD-47, without the exhibits, which are voluminous.
MCWD estimates that the cost of providing MCWD a replacement supply, if its current
groundwater sources were contaminated by the MPWSPs slant well system, could be as
much as approximately $54 million per year, to replace MCWDs full groundwater supply.
MCWD has 9,075 AFY of groundwater supplies. (See Ex. MCD-6, p. 6, 5.1.1, 5.1.1.1.)
This $54 million estimate is based on:
Cost to produce replacement desal water: $6,147/af3

Less cost of pumping groundwater: $200/af
Net increase replacing groundwater with desal: $5,947/af
$5,947/af x 9,075/year = $54 million/year in increased water supply costs.
This cost of mitigating damage to MCWDs water supply should be included in

assessment of costs for the MPWSP desalination proposal.
139 MCWD - Van Q31. Does MCWD have additional information for the record related to costs? A. Environmental
Page 16, line A31. Yes. In order to convey any MPWSP product water to the Monterey Peninsula, Cal- Addressed in
7 to Page Am must use MCWDs 30-inch water pipeline for its routing on General Jim Moore Environmental
16, line 10. Boulevard in Seaside, which connects to the new Monterey Pipeline. Cal-Am does not Impact Review
show MCWDs pipeline in its MPWSP drawings submitted to the Commission.4 MCWD Alternative
constructed the pipeline to serve future MCWD customers south of Eucalyptus Road Projects
(South Ord service area) although no development requiring water service has yet
occurred. Cal-Am leases capacity in that pipeline solely for the Aquifer Storage and C. Outside of
Recovery (ASR) project to convey Carmel River water to and recovered water from the Parameters of
ASR project under a Potable Water Wheeling Agreement dated April 8, 2009. A true copy Identified Issues
64
56238670.v2
of that Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit MCD-48. MCWD and Cal-Am are in
dispute resolution under the Agreement over Cal-Ams right to wheel MPWSP water
through MCWDs pipeline given MCWDs priority of use as the pipelines owner, such as
to convey the proposed GWR/PWM water sale through MPWMD described above. There
are many technical issues yet to be resolved between the parties. The bottom line could
be that there is insufficient capacity in MCWDs pipeline after MCWDs priority uses for
Cal- Am to convey the product water from a 6.4 mgd plant and Cal-Am would need to
build its own parallel pipeline assuming that is feasible given the existing infrastructure in
General Jim Moore Boulevard. Cal-Am has failed to explain how it intends to use the
pipeline when Carmel River water is being conveyed north through MCWDs pipeline to
the ASR wells at the same time that MPWSP water is proposed to be moving south
through the same pipeline. All of these MPWSP costs have not been considered thus far
in the proceeding. If Cal-Am is required to construct a new increment of pipeline to
transport MPWSP product water (instead of using the MCWD wheeling pipeline), a
possibility that Cal-Am has not made known to the Commission or to the parties, it should
include the cost of such a pipeline in its MPWSP cost analysis.
140 MCWD - Van Q32. Does MCWD have a position concerning whether a down-sized MPWSP, i.e., a A. Environmental
Der Maaten project sized at less than 6.4 mgd, should be considered? Issue to be
12 to Page A32. Yes. MCWD does not support such an approach for several reasons. Putting aside Environmental
18, line 21. MCWDs concerns with the likely adverse impacts to its water supply that would arise Impact Review
from operation of any version of the MPWSP with slant well intake located at the CEMEX Alternative
site, MCWD believes that approval of a downsized desalination project, or the Projects
construction of a downsized project with incrementally expanded components being
added over time, is inconsistent with the Commissions CPCN duties and contrary to law. C. Outside of
MCWD believes that the Commissions approving a downsized project with expansibility Parameters of
is functionally equivalent to approving the full project with delayed implementation. Identified Issues
MCWD believes that such approval is unlawful unless the Commission determines that
construction of the full project is required by the present or future public convenience and
necessity as provided in Public Utilities Code section 1001.
If the Commission were to approve, for example, a 3.2 mgd MPWSP without a revised
project description (and revised environmental review), the Commission would effectively
65
56238670.v2
be approving at least the 6.4 mgd project that Cal-Ams application seeks and that the
DEIR/DEIS studied. Attendant costs of a smaller project would appear to include
necessary infrastructure such as pipelines and plant, and perhaps even a well field, sized
to accommodate a full 6.4 mgd project.
If the Commission believes that a down-sized MPWSP sized at less than 6.4 mgd is
economically viable, the Commission should require Cal-Am to realistically assess its
demand volume and amend its application, or submit a new application. If Cal-Am were
to pursue a new or amended application for a smaller project, MCWD would also
encourage the Commission to require Cal- Am to explore alternative intake technologies
and alternative intake locations, which it might find well-suited to a 2.0 or 3.2 mgd project,
and which may not risk the potentially enormous adverse impacts to the groundwater
basin that are attendant to the slant well intake as proposed.
However, in light of the potential up-sizing of the GWR/PWM project for which the
Commission has already approved a Water Purchase Agreement, and the additional
incremental supply alternatives that MCWD and others are offering, MCWD continues to
take the position that Cal-Ams demand volume is insufficient to justify approval of the
MPWSP as proposed and studied, and in light of the many reasonable, feasible and less
costly alternatives that are available.
141 MCWD - Van Q34. Does MCWD have information to offer regarding the three (out of four) Public A. Environmental
Der Maaten Utilities Code section 1002 factors listed in the August 28, 2017 Ruling?5 Issue to be
16 to Page A34. Yes. The focus of MCWDs 1002 testimony is Community Values. First of all, Environmental
21, line 1. MCWD is committed to preserving a sustainable, safe and affordable water supply for its Impact Review
customers, which our community strongly values and has reaffirmed in a customer survey
MCWD performed in 2016. This includes continuing to support sustainable development B. Impermissible
of the former Fort Ord area with the same safe, sustainable and affordable water supply Legal
that MCWDs current customers enjoy. MCWD is also willing to work with neighboring Conclusions
communities toward their similar goals.
C. Outside of
As I mentioned in discussing supply alternatives, MCWD is currently exploring Parameters of
development of groundwater recharge projects to be located on MCWD property in the Identified Issues
Armstrong Ranch area. The potential value to the community of these recharge projects
66
56238670.v2
is addressed in more detail in the concurrently-served testimony of Vera Nelson on behalf

of MCWD. However, it is important to note that implementation of the MPWSP with slant
well intake at the CEMEX site as Cal-Am proposes would greatly impair or prevent
entirely any beneficial use by the community of the groundwater aquifers in the
Armstrong Ranch area. Please see the concurrently-served testimony of Vera Nelson for
more detail regarding this subject.
Furthermore, in MCWDs view, the Legislature in enacting the Sustainable Groundwater

Management Act or SGMA, recently confirmed that the preservation and protection of
groundwater resources is a matter of particularly local concern. MCWD has become a
groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) in both the Monterey and 180/400 subbasins
(subbasins as defined in DWR Bulletin 118), in response to our Ord and Marina
Communities valuing and demanding protection of sustainable groundwater supplies.
MCWD is in the process of developing a groundwater sustainability plan as a GSA. The
proposed MPWSP, which would pump considerable amounts of groundwater from both
the 180/400 subbasin and the adjacent Monterey subbasin, would eliminate all possibility
of implementing an effective groundwater sustainability plan.
In addition, MCWD believes that the prohibition on private ownership of desalination

facilities expressed in the Monterey Desal Ordinance (Monterey County Code of
Ordinances, section 10.72.030(B)) reflects the strong community value of Monterey
County citizens not to place precious groundwater resources in the hands of private
corporations responsive only to the control of profit-seeking out-of-state corporations
such as Cal-Ams sole shareholder, American Water Works Corporation, Inc.
142 MCWD - Van [California American Water moves to strike the entirety of MCWDs Exhibit MCD-47 -- A. Environmental
Der Maaten June 22, 2017 memorandum from EKI to MCWD, Groundwater Remedial Actions and Issue to be
Exhibit MCD- Establishment of Remedial Goals at Fort Ord, without exhibits] Addressed in
47 Environmental
Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
67
56238670.v2
MCWD - DIRECT TESTIMONY OF VERA NELSON SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT -
SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY39
143 MCWD - Q9. What is the purpose of this direct testimony? A. Environmental
Nelson Issue to be
Page 2, line A9. This testimony is intended to summarize the results of EKIs analysis of how Addressed in
14 to Page implementation of groundwater recharge projects planned by Marina Coast Water District Environmental
3, line 7. (MCWD) for the Armstrong Ranch area, which is in close proximity to the proposed Impact Review
slant well intake location for the proposed desalination project, would likely be impacted
by the proposed desalination projects slant well intake system if the system were located C. Outside of
at the CEMEX site as planned by California-American Water Company. Parameters of
Identified Issues
EKIs analysis of this topic was first presented to MCWD in a March 28, 2017
memorandum to MCWDs general manager and chief engineer, and we understand that it D. Covers Issues
was submitted to the Commission as one of several attachments to MCWDs comments Previously
on the Commissions draft EIR/EIS. A true copy of EKIs March 28, 2017 memorandum is Addressed40
attached hereto as Exhibit MCD-54.
Since 2008, MCWD has been considering and planning for the development of
groundwater recharge projects at the Armstrong Ranch. Recently, EKI has been assisting
MCWD with plans to move forward with such projects, which could utilize reclaimed
surface water, advance treated wastewater, or both. The concurrently-served direct
testimony of MCWDs General Manager, Keith Van der Maaten, in this proceeding will
address the potential for use of water stored by such MCWD projects by other suppliers
of potable water in adjacent communities.
144 MCWD - Q10. How does your testimony relate to the subject categories set forth in the August 28, A. Environmental
Nelson 2017 ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned Administrative Law Judge in Issue to be
Page 3, lines this proceeding? Addressed in
8-17. Environmental
39
California American Water moves to strike the entirety of Ms. Nelsons prepared testimony. The entirety of this testimony solely concerns environmental issues
parameters of any of the Identified Issues in the August 28 Ruling. Specific portions of that testimony are shown here for illustrative purposes.
40
This was raised in the environmental review process previously, see MCWD Comment Letter, Ex. 3.
68
56238670.v2
A10. My testimony relates directly to the community values aspect of Public Utilities Impact Review
Code section 1002, topic number 9. Information concerning realistic potential beneficial
uses of a community asset the aquifers underlying the Armstrong Ranch area by the C. Outside of
surrounding community, and to which the Applicant seems to assign no value, will inform Parameters of
the Commissions consideration of the proposed project and its likely impacts on Identified Issues
communities in the area.
145 MCWD - Q11. You mentioned the Armstrong Ranch area. Have you provided a map showing this A. Environmental
Nelson area in relation to the proposed project? Issue to be
18-24. A11. Yes. Please refer to Figure 1, page 20 of Exhibit MCD-54, the March 28, 2017 Environmental
memorandum. MCWDs Armstrong Ranch property is shown with an orange border in Impact Review
figures 1-7 and 9-13. The proximity of MCWDs Armstrong Ranch property to the
proposed slant well desalination intake location at the CEMEX property is shown in C. Outside of
Figures 1 and 2. Parameters of
Identified Issues
146 MCWD - Q12. Please describe in laypersons terms the conclusions EKI reached in its March 28, A. Environmental
Nelson 2017 memorandum concerning potential beneficial uses of the aquifers underlying the Issue to be
Page 3, line Armstrong Ranch area. Addressed in
25 to Page Environmental
5, line 9. A12. We concluded that the Applicant mischaracterizes the quality of groundwater in the Impact Review
Dune Sand Aquifer and 180-Foot Aquifer, through which the slant wells at the CEMEX
site will be screened. The Applicant states that groundwater in these aquifers is directly C. Outside of
influenced and controlled by seawater and that these impacts extend for miles inland Parameters of
within the 180-Foot Aquifer. This conclusion is based on incomplete data, including water Identified Issues
quality data from Fort Ord, where over 300 monitoring wells in the Dune Sand Aquifer
and 180-Foot Aquifer have been installed.
Water level and water quality data obtained at Cal-Ams recently installed monitoring well
clusters MW-5, MW-6, MW-7 and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
wells 1 and 2, indicate that salinity levels (i.e., chloride and TDS concentrations) in the
Dune Sand Aquifer and upper portion of the 180-Foot Aquifer meet State Water
Resources Control Board Resolution No. 88-63 criteria as a potential drinking water
source (<3,000 mg/L TDS) and California Secondary Drinking Water Standards for these
69
56238670.v2
constituents. Maps depicting TDS and chloride concentrations detected in groundwater

samples most recently collected from Fort Ord and Cal-Am wells screened in these zones
over the last 10 years (i.e., 2006 through 2016) are presented on Figures 3 and 4. These
figures show that, outside of the immediate area of the CEMEX Site, groundwater in
these aquifer zones is not brackish as characterized by the Applicant.
Furthermore, we concluded that construction and operation of the projects slant well
intake location at the CEMEX property as planned will (a) limit recharge of fresh water
from the Dune Sand Aquifer into the upper 180-Foot Aquifer, (b) influence the natural
hydraulic barrier created as water from the Dune Sand aquifer recharges the 180-Foot
Aquifer and (c) decrease the existing freshwater zone within a portion of MCWDs service
area and sphere of influence. The estimated area of impact from the Projects proposed
intake system on the Dune Sand and 180- Foot Aquifer is presented on Figures 9 and 10.
These figures show that the zone of influence extends anywhere from 1.5 miles to 4.5
miles inland based on modeled results. As shown in these figures, withdrawal of
groundwater from the proposed slant wells will draw fresh water from Dune Sand Aquifer,
which in turn will decrease recharge of such water into the 180-Foot Aquifer. Proceeding
with the projects slant well intake location at the CEMEX property as planned would likely
severely degrade water quality in these aquifer zones, preclude their designated
beneficial use as a potential drinking water source, and preclude selected groundwater
recharge projects that MCWD is exploring at Armstrong Ranch.
147 MCWD - Q13. Have you reviewed Exhibit MCD-51, the June 6, 2017 Preliminary Interpretation of A. Environmental
Nelson SkyTEM Data in the Marina Coast Water District, attached to the concurrently-served Issue to be
Page 5, lines testimony of Rosemary Knight? Addressed in
10-13. Environmental
A13. Yes. Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
148 MCWD - Q14. Do the conclusions of the June 6, 2017 Preliminary Interpretation of SkyTEM Data A. Environmental
Nelson in the Marina Coast Water District, Exhibit MCD-51, change any of the conclusions of Issue to be
Page 5, lines EKIs March 28, 2017 memorandum? Addressed in
70
56238670.v2
14-26. Environmental
A14. No. The collection and analysis of airborne electromagnetic or AEM data provided in Impact Review
the June 6, 2017 preliminary report, Exhibit MCD-51, further confirms our conclusions.
This report identifies the presence of fresh groundwater (<3,000 mg/L TDS) at elevations C. Outside of
consistent with Dune Sand Aquifer and the 180-Foot Aquifer inland within MCWDs Parameters of
service area, sphere of influence and Armstrong Ranch. The estimated extent of fresh Identified Issues
groundwater is shown on Figures 9a, A1a, and A1b of the June 6, 2017 Preliminary
Interpretation of SkyTEM Data. This information confirms that groundwater within the
180-foot Aquifer is not brackish for miles inland as concluded by the Applicant.
Nelson March 28, 2017 EKI Memorandum Comments for Marina Coast Water District] Issue to be
Exhibit MCD- Addressed in
54 Environmental
Impact Review
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
71
56238670.v2
Water Plus - PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF RON WEITZMAN (Errata Version Served October 4, 2017)
150 Water Plus - Q. If you have such high regard for their work, then what have you to offer in your A. Environmental
Weitzmann testimony that differs from theirs? Issue to be
1-9. A. Their cost testimony, as well as the testimony of Ian Crooks, leads to the conclusion Environmental
that, cost-wise, the best supply option is the combination of the desalination plant having Impact Review
the capacity to produce 6.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water and the Pure Alternative
Water Monterey recycling project (PWM), which can produce 3,500 acre-feet per year Projects
(AFY) of potable water. Other supply options may be better, as I plan to argue in my
testimony on supply. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
151 Water Plus - Q. In contrast to cost and demand, which appear to be cerebral issues involving A. Environmental
Weitzmann sometimes-arcane estimation methods, supply involves alternative concrete scenarios or Issue to be
Page 14, line options. What do you identify as the most realizable among them? Addressed in
6-15. Environmental
A. In addition to Cal Ams preferred supply option, a combination of 6.4 MGD desalination Impact Review
and PWM recycling (PWM 6.4), parties to this proceeding are considering PWM alone, Alternative
(PWM Only) a PWM expanded by 1,400 AFY (PWM 1,400), a combination of PWM Projects
and a 4.8 MGD desalination plant (PWM 4.8), and a regional open-ocean-intake
desalination plant at Moss Landing (Moss Landing). C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
152 Water Plus - Q. What do you believe gave rise to options alternative to Cal Ams? A. Environmental
Weitzmann Issue to be
Page 14, line A. At this point, I believe it is a good idea to take time out to review generally how we got Addressed in
16 to here. History is a story about people over time, and in the past four decades three people Environmental
Page 17, line have played critical roles in this story: politicians Henry Mello and Fred Keeley and Impact Review
9. developer Nader Agha, all powerhouses in their fields. Observing increasing demand Alternative
from population growth and a limited supply of water in the Carmel River, Mello in 1977 Projects
created the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (the district) with powers
72
56238670.v2
both to increase supply and to reduce demand. In the next 25 years, the district proved C. Outside of
much better at decreasing demand than increasing supply, a proclivity shared by Cal Am, Parameters of
as amply evidenced since then Cal Am, being a private company, by raising prices and Identified Issues
the district, being a government agency, by regulation. These proclivities have made both
entities increasingly unpopular over the years, their unpopularity manifested in specific
actions. After a number of prior unsuccessful attempts, ratepayers are actually now in the
process of making yet another attempt to replace Cal Am by a public agency, and in
2002 Monterey Peninsula residents voted by an almost super-majority to eliminate the
district, a move quashed by Keeley likely because he viewed the district as a valuable
vehicle to project political power on our local water problem. In fact, as a consequence of
the districts demonstrated inadequacy, particularly for failing to develop an adequate
new water supply, Keeley had earlier, in 1998, produced legislation that directed the
CPUC to develop plans for a new water supply to augment the Carmel River, and in 2002
the CPUC issued its Plan B Project Report recommending an open-ocean-intake
desalination plant at Moss Landing. Cal Am responded by applying to the CPUC for a
modification of its 1997 application, which was either to create a new dam on the Carmel
River (Plan A) or to develop a desalination plant at Moss Landing (Plan B). The
modification excluded Plan A, possibly because it lacked popular support and might not
be able to get federal approval. In any case, Cal Am dropped Plan A in favor of Plan B
and in 2004 received CPUC approval for its Coastal Water Project/ Plan B. This is the
point at which Nader Agha stepped into the picture. Moss Landing had been the site of a
desalination plant designed to remove impurities from seawater
16 not for the water but for some of the impurities in the seawater that had commercial
value. At the time, that plant, together with its 200-acre industrial site, was on the market.
Both Cal Am and the Marina Coast Water District were considering whether to acquire
the site, but before they could make up their minds Agha purchased it. That purchase
determined the future course of events. The Coastal Water Project morphed into the
Regional Desalination Project, Cal Ams application to pursue it approved by the CPUC
in 2010. That project made three critical changes to Plan B. It moved the desalination
plant from Moss Landingfrom Nader Aghato North Marina., it replaced open ocean
intake by sub-surface intake, and it changed the plant ownership from Cal Am to the
Marina Coast Water District (Marina Coast), changes which created the ongoing
dispute between Cal Am and Marina Coast and which led to the replacement of Marina
Coasts Regional Desalination Project by Cal Ams current Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project, the subject of this proceeding. Today, this proceeding has been going on
73
56238670.v2
for over five years and, as parties to it have during this time become increasingly aware
of the onerous cost burden its proposed PWM 6.4 project could impose on already
drastically over-burdened ratepayers, they have also become increasing alert to less
costly alternatives that do not face the serious legal challenges arising from the current
projects sub-surface intake. That is how, at least to a large extent, alternatives to PWM
6.4 have now come under scrutiny.
153 Water Plus - Q. How do you propose to choose among the alternatives? A. Environmental
Page 17, A. For each one, I would first see if its implementation could supply sufficient safe and Addressed in
lines 10-13 reliable water to satisfy the CDO. Then, among those that could, I would rank them by Environmental
cost. Impact Review
Alternative
Projects
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
154 Water Plus - Q. Could you show how you would do that, with the PWM Only option as an example? A. Environmental
Page 17, line A. PWM Only was likely the first one of the alternatives currently under scrutiny to come Addressed in
14 to Page to mind. That option appears to have everything going for it. Its cost is low ($1,720 per Environmental
18, line 11. AF), it is obviously environmentally friendly, and it appears not to challenge any laws or Impact Review
proclivities of permitting agencies. To determine sufficiency, I would begin with short-term Alternative
demand and then see if the project can supply enough water to meet the demand. To Projects
estimate that demand, I would use the cost to customer obtained by summing $5,831
(2016 actual cost per AF) and $1,720 per AF (project cost): $7,551 per AF. For that cost, C. Outside of
the graph in Appendix 1 shows the demand to be about 8,200 AFY. Then, I would look at Parameters of
supply: 3,376 AFY the CDO allows Cal Am to take from the Carmel River (CDO Identified Issues
allowance) plus 3,500 AFY provided by PWM Only. The total, 6,876 AFY, is short of the
demand of 8,200 AFY by 1,324 AFY, which could fail to make the project a contender.
Cal Am, however, has identified other supply sources that together can produce 2,168
AFY. That is more than enough to make up the shortage of 1,324 AFY, in fact 844 AFY
74
56238670.v2
more than enough.
155 Water Plus - Q. Why would anyone consider other options, if this one would work? A. Environmental
Page 18, A. This one would not work if we used 1 Cal Ams 12,350 AFY short-term demand Addressed in
lines 12-17. estimate. The 9,044 AFY supply obtained by summing 3,376 AFY (CDO allowance) and Environmental
3,500 AFY (PWM Only) and 2,168 AFY (other supply sources) falls 3,306 AFY short of Impact Review
that demand estimate. Parties using it would have to rule out this option and explore Alternative
others. Projects
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
156 Water Plus - Q. But why would you do that? A. Environmental
Page 18, line A. Though financed and under construction, as well as having a CPUC authorized water- Addressed in
18 to Page purchase agreement with Cal Am, PWN has not obtained all of its required permits. Environmental
19, line 6. While the project appears to meet Californias Title 22 requirements for recycled sewer Impact Review
water, the state has yet to develop standards for highly toxic pesticides present in the Alternative
projects source water. Until the state develops those standards and testing shows PWM Projects
meets them, every day, the project may and, I believe, should remain in limbo, its product
water not having been demonstrated to be safe and reliable. B. Impermissible
Legal
Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
157 Water Plus - Q. What about the other alternatives? A. Environmental
Page 19, A. Because I am most familiar with it, I would like to discuss only the Moss Landing Addressed in
lines 7-9. option. Cal Am and other parties will no doubt discuss the others. Environmental
Impact Review
Alternative
75
56238670.v2
Projects
158 Water Plus - Q. Go ahead. A. Environmental

Page 19, line A. Because its planned supply of 13,200 AFY 1 exceeds Cal Ams short term demand Addressed in
10 to Page estimate of 12,350 AFY and, coupled with the 2,168 AFY from other available sources, Environmental
20, line 7. also exceeds the companys long-term demand estimate (14, 355 AFY), the Moss Impact Review
Landing s project can become a viable one following the circulation of its EIR/EIS, Alternative
currently in preparation by the Aspen Environmental Group (Aspen). The project meets Projects
the all-important sufficiency criterion. Because of economies of scale, its 13,200 AFY
capacity is also likely to rank it better in cost per AF than any of the other desalination C. Outside of
options under scrutiny. Its use of open-ocean intake makes it less prone to litigation Parameters of
challenges than any desalination option that uses sub-surface intake, and its plan to Identified Issues
power its plant with solar energy can not only lower its operational costs, as demonstrated
by Christopher Cook in his testimony, but also reduce the projects carbon footprint. That
is important locally because the low demand for water produced by its high cost and its
stringent regulation also has the unfortunate consequence of increasing our communitys
carbon footprint by decreasing the greenery in its gardens.
159 Water Plus - Q. You have implied a number of times now that sub-surface intake exposes a B. Impermissible
Weitzmann desalination project to litigation. Why? Legal Conclusions
Page 20, line
8 to Page 21, A. It especially does so locally. That is because the state Agency Act prohibits the C. Outside of
line 2. exportation of Salinas Valley groundwater from the valley. Cal Am had originally proposed Parameters of
to circumvent that prohibition by planning to draw its source water from under the Identified Issues
seafloor, but in 2016 it changed its plan to draw its source water now from aquifers near
the shoreline. That change is what exposes it to litigation, not only because it violates the
Agency Act but also because Cal Am has no groundwater rights in the Salinas Valley. To
address these problems, Cal Am has developed a return-water proposal but, as I am
going to show later in this testimony, that proposal is fraught with problems that expose it
to litigation, which Water Plus plans to pursue if necessary
160 Water Plus - Q. Hasnt Water Plus already brought this issue to court and, if so, what was the B. Impermissible
Weitzmann outcome? Legal Conclusions
Page 21,
76
56238670.v2
lines 3-13. A. Yes, we have, in Monterey County Superior Court. The petition had two causes of C. Outside of
action. The judge dismissed both. Return Water was one of the causes. The judge ruled Parameters of
against it not on its merits but on procedural grounds: jurisdiction and ripeness. I believe Identified Issues
the judge was wrong on the first but right on the second. The Agency Act explicitly gives
jurisdiction to the superior court. The issue had not become ripe because the CPUC had
not yet decided to approve the agreement proposing it (Return Water Settlement
Agreement) or certify the EIS/EIR dependent upon it. Water Plus plans to return to court if
the CPUC makes either of these decisions.
161 Water Plus - Q. The last two questions diverted you from your discussion of the Moss Landing project. A. Environmental
Weitzmann Would you like to go on with that discussion? Issue to be
14 to Page A. Yes. Cal Ams proposed project (like PWMs) closely follows the book, particularly Environmental
22, line 8. meaning extant permit requirements, antiquated or inadequate though they may Impact Review
sometimes be. Championed by the Coastal Commission, one of those requirements is to Alternative
use sub-surface intake if feasible. I have indicated why it is not feasible where Cal Am is Projects
planning it, in the Salinas Valley. Some environmentalists believe sub-surface is superior
to open-ocean because open-ocean poses a threat to sea life. Modern technology, C. Outside of
however, has reduced that threat to miniscule. Open-ocean also has an advantage over Parameters of
subsurface now that the federal government may allow drilling for oil in Monterey Bay. Identified Issues
Dependence on the bay for our local water supply can go a long way to prevent that from
happening. State intake policy, therefore, is likely to change.
162 Water Plus - Q. Does that complete what you have to say now about the Moss Landing option? A. Environmental
Page 22, A. No, I have one more observation 1 to make about it. Although the CPUC has Addressed in
lines 9-17. abandoned Plan A, it has not, at least yet, abandoned Plan B, a desalination plant having Environmental
open-ocean intake at Moss Landing. The Moss Landing option is the CPUCs opportunity Impact Review
now to put that plan into action. As soon as the project has a certified EIR/EIS, I urge the Alternative
CPUC to take advantage of the opportunity by authorizing Cal Am to enter into a water- Projects
purchase agreement with the projects developers, just as it has done with PWM.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
163 Water Plus - Q. You may think you are done with this issue, but you are not. What if the Moss Landing A. Environmental
77
56238670.v2
Weitzmann projects developers are private individuals and not a public agency, which a county Issue to be
Page 23, ordinance requires a desalination-plant owner to be? Addressed in
lines 1-12. Environmental
A. That is a good question. One of the developers of the Moss Landing project, as noted Impact Review
earlier, is Nader Agha, a private individual. Despite the county ordinance, that is not a Alternative
problem, for two reasons. The first is that Cal Am could buy the project from its owners, Projects
and the CPUC has already asserted that Cal Am, as a private company, can build, own,
and operate a desalination plant in the county despite the ordinance. If Cal Am can do B. Impermissible
that, then why cant any other private company or individual? The second reason is that a Legal Conclusions
public agency like Marina Coast could also buy the project, and that would be in strict
compliance with the county ordinance. C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
164 Water Plus - Q. How is that so? A. Environmental
Page 25, A. As noted earlier, Cal Am had originally proposed to draw its source water via slant Addressed in
lines 4-12. wells from under the seafloor. The company has since then altered that proposal so that Environmental
now it plans to draw its source water from aquifers near the shoreline. The change in Impact Review
plans has exposed the company to litigation because it has no water rights in the Salinas
Valley and because the state Agency Act prohibits the exportation of groundwater from B. Impermissible
the valley. The company came up with the return-water proposal to avoid the legal Legal
problem created by its change of plans. Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
165 Water Plus - Q. Is that the end of the story about return water? B. Impermissible
Weitzmann Legal
Page 27, A. No. The basic question is whether returning water that is illegal to export can make the Conclusions
lines 5-7. exportation legal?
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
166 Water Plus - Q. What is your answer to that Question? B. Impermissible
78
56238670.v2
Weitzmann Legal
Page 27, A. I believe the answer to that question is the same answer most people would give to Conclusions41
lines 8-12. the question, If you return a portion of the money you embezzled from your company,
would that make your embezzlement legal and erase your felony from the books? C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
167 Water Plus - Q. That answer is rather 1 damning. Why do you believe the projects proponents made A. Environmental
Weitzmann what appears to be a preposterous proposal on its face? Issue to be
Page 27, Addressed in
lines 13-19. A. Either they dont themselves believe it is preposterous or they believe they can get by Environmental
with it because the proponents of the Regional Desalination Project got by with a similar Impact Review
proposal to circumvent the Agency Acts prohibition of groundwater exportation from the Alternative
Salinas Valley. Or looming CDO milestones may simply have made them desperate. Projects
B. Impermissible
Legal
Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
168 Water Plus - Q. Are those the best answers you can give? C. Outside of
Weitzmann Parameters of
Page 28, A. No. Shortly after this proceeding launched, the CPUC received an invited report from Identified Issues
lines 1-8. the state Water Resources Control Board opining that drawing water from aquifers might
be all right if project proponents could show it would do no harm, reminiscent of the oath
medical doctors take. This is just a laymans opinion, not a legal one. Even if it were a
legal opinion, Cal Am has yet to show that extracting and exploring water from Salinas
Valley aquifers would do no harm, and it has not done that, at least yet.
169 Water Plus - Q. Havent I read in the EIR/EIS that modeling has shown that the use of Cal Ams A. Environmental
41
Moreover, the language in this portion of the testimony is unnecessarily argumentative and prejudicial it should additionally be stricken for that reason.
79
56238670.v2
Weitzmann proposed slant wells would actually reverse rather than exacerbate groundwater intrusion Issue to be
Page 28, in the Salinas Valley? Addressed in
lines 9-13. Environmental
A. Yes, I have seen that statement, and it brings up an issue beyond the scope of this Impact Review
testimony.
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
170 Water Plus - Q. What issue is that? A. Environmental
Page 28, line A. The validity of Cal Ams modeling of the groundwater impacts of its project is the Addressed in
14 to Page issue. Evaluation of that modeling is compromised by a conflict of interest deriving from Environmental
29, line 5. the involvement of a slant-well promoter in project evaluation and by corruption of the Impact Review
data used to validate the model. As a statistician, I identified that corruption and can and
do testify to its existence. Perhaps acknowledging the problem, project proponents have C. Outside of
suggested a replacement model, but this one is solely a descriptive, not a predictive, Parameters of
model and, as such, is useless for prediction. For our issue here, use of modeling results Identified Issues
to show no harm from Cal Ams proposed desalination project is a nonstarter.
171 Water Plus - One of Water Pluss attorneys provided the following helpful analogy. The rain B. Impermissible
Weitzmann falling into your neighbors water-containment barrels belongs to your neighbor. Even Legal
Appendix 2, though the water comes from the sky, you cannot use it later on to water your garden. Conclusions
Page 36 It is not your water. It belongs to your neighbor. Likewise, even though much of the
water in the 180-foot aquifer may come from the sea, it is not water you can use C. Outside of
because it belongs to the 180-foot aquifer, which captured it and which the Agency Act Parameters of
prohibits you from using. Identified Issues
172 Water Plus - Reason 3. The MPWSP EIR/EIS failed to cite the 26 May 2016 memorandum to A. Environmental
Weitzmann the Marina Coast Water District by hydrogeologist Curtis Hopkins in which he Issue to be
Appendix 2, showed that none of the water in the test well comes directly from the sea. That being Addressed in
Page 37 the case, all the fresh water in the well must come from the Salinas Valley groundwater Environmental
basin. The meaning is clear: All the fresh water extracted and exported from that Impact Review
basin must be returned to it to avoid violation of the Agency Act. Equally clearly,
80
56238670.v2
without its return-water foundation, the MPWSP cannot work. B. Impermissible

Legal
Conclusions
C. Outside of
Parameters of
Identified Issues
81
56238670.v2

Appendix A CAW 10-12-17

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

Appendix A CAW 10-12-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

Basis for Motion

(a) The legislature finds and declares as follows:

(5) Failure to manage groundwater to prevent long-term overdraft infringes on

If approved, this project will incur litigation costs.

If approved, this project will incur litigation costs.

Community values: Environmental Justice C. Outside of

Community values: Sustainable Economy

Community values: Community Participation

false conclusions of CalAms science. Impact Review

It includes frequently asked questions, multi-media features, important

setting, the presence of MPWSP must be considered an outrage. C. Outside of

Environmental Justice: Marina is a racially diverse community and a relatively low-income

this resource. Identified Issues

82 City of Q.30. Do you see a lack of fairness to Marina? A. Environmental

86 City of Q.36. Why is that history relevant to this Project? A. Environmental

Page 2, lines Environmental

Marina - Department of Water Resources (DWR)?

102 City of A. Environmental Issue to be Addressed in Environmental Impact Review A. Environmental

Determine if proposed MPWSP pumping would exacerbate seawater intrusion in the

3. I recommend that the Commission determine more precisely the amount of

MCWD - FURTHER DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CURTIS HOPKINS (SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY)

Finally, my testimony explains the importance of the preservation and protection of

Page 4, line Identified Issues

Page 3, line Addressed in

concurrently-served testimony of Rosemary Knight and Curtis Hopkins on behalf of

In addition, MCWD is exploring development of groundwater recharge projects to be

Page 14, Addressed in

Cost to produce replacement desal water: $6,147/af3

This cost of mitigating damage to MCWDs water supply should be included in

is addressed in more detail in the concurrently-served testimony of Vera Nelson on behalf

Furthermore, in MCWDs view, the Legislature in enacting the Sustainable Groundwater

In addition, MCWD believes that the prohibition on private ownership of desalination

constituents. Maps depicting TDS and chloride concentrations detected in groundwater

more than enough.

158 Water Plus - Q. Go ahead. A. Environmental

without its return-water foundation, the MPWSP cannot work. B. Impermissible

You might also like