tac mprwa minutes 01-27-16

8/18/2019 Tac Mprwa Minutes 01-27-16

1/5

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

Special Meeting12:00 pm, Wednesday, January 27, 2016

COUNCIL CHAMBER

580 PACIFIC STREETMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Huss, Narigi, Van Der Maatten, Stoldt, Scuito, Riley, Cullem Members Absent: Riedl

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Executive Director Jim Cullem called the meeting to order at 12:03pm.

ROLL CALL

TAC Members Riedl and Stoldt were absent.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Executive Director Cullem opened public comments:

• Tom Rowley, representing Monterey Peninsula Taxpayer Association (MPTA) spokeabout California American Water’s (Cal Am) proposed 8% water rate increase. Headded that the citizens need help lobbying on water rates and it’s time for the TAC andMPRWA (Monterey Peninsula Regional Authority) to look into this.

• Gary Cursio, co-Chair of Monterey County Hospitality Government Affairs Committee(MCHA), supports the Collation of Peninsula Businesses and voiced concerns aboutbuilding proper size desal plant and said MCHA is worried that it will be undersized.

With no further requests to speak Executive Director Cullem closed public comments.

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Executive Director Cullem stated the Authority has taken action to co-apply with Cal Am andthe Water Management District and extension on the Cease and Desist Order (CDO). Headded that many of the major players on board have agreed and the milestones seem

reasonable.

Member Stoldt arrived at 12:11pm.

Member Narigi said the Coalition will be submitting a letter disputing the starting point of 8,310acre-feet per year(afy) as the acceptable Effective Diversion limit as proposed by theCommunity in the CDO extension apllication. Executive Director Cullem continued that theMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) had a very significant meeting on Jan.10th. He reported that MPRWA gave support to Ground Water Replenishment (GWR), gave


2/5

MPRWA TAC Minutes Wednesday, January 27,2016

2

support to the Castroville Community Services District receipt of return water from the SalinasBasin, and gave support to the Surfrider’s memo regarding brine disposal. He said that what isfacing MPRWA now is the revised California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) schedulewhich directs that rebuttal testimony be submitted by March 22nd and settlement discussionscommence, hopefully bringing Cal Am closer to the desalination (desal) project.

Member Narigi said that he is concerned that major decisions by the MPRWA were madewithout involvement from the TAC. He stated there are a lot of unanswered questions, such ascost, sustainability, environmental value of GWR, and the MPRWA did a disservice to theratepayers by pushing the GWR Water Purchase Agreement (WPA) forward.

Member Riley agreed with Member Narigi that he was surprised at the lack of involvement ofthe MPRWA with the TAC. He said he was concerned that the current lab composition of thetest well water was not posted and doesn’t think Cal Am is meeting the feasibility criteria.

Member Huss said he agrees with Riley’s concerns and wants to see the data from thehydrologist.


• Tom Rowley, representing Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, said thepresentation given at the recent Director’s meeting gave a start date of July 1, 2019, forthe desal plant. He said he wants to know if we are going to have a small desal andGWR as backup.

• A member of the public said he wished to speak to Dave Stoldt after the meeting.

With no further requests to speak Executive Director Cullem closed public comments.

Member Sciuto responded to the question about the schedule for GWR, and said that GWRshould be ready in the 4th quarter of 2017, and Cal Am can start extracting and put it in thesystem in mid February, 2018.

Member Stoldt said that Water Purchase Agreement (WPA) has a performance start date andthe delivery start date for CalAm for immediate use.

Don Freeman directed the TAC back to the agenda items.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On a motion by Member Narigi, seconded by Member Riley, and carried by the following vote,the Technical Advisory Committee approved the November 16, 2015 minutes:

AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Narigi, Stoldt, Riley, Cullem

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: RiedlABSTAIN: 3 MEMBERS: Huss, Vandermaaten, SciutoRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

1. Approve Minutes from November 16, 2015 – MiltonAction:Approved


3/5


3

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive Schedule of Technical Advisory Committee Meetings for CY 2016 - Cullem

Action:Approved

Executive Director Cullem said in regards to the schedule of meetings, if a meeting is notneeded it will be cancelled.

On a motion by Member Narigi, seconded by Member Riley, and carried by the following vote,the Technical Advisory Committee approved the Schedule of Technical Advisory CommitteeMeetings for 2016:

AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Huss, Narigi, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt, Vandermaaten,Cullem

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Riedl

ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

3. Receive Report, Discuss, and make Recommendations on the Cal Am Net Present Value (NPV)Cost Comparisons between the 6.4 and 9.6 MGD Desal Plants – CullemAction: Received report; Discussed

Ian Crooks from Cal Am gave a presentation on the Net Present Value (NPV) Comparisonbetween 6.4 MGD desal and a 9.6 MGD desal project.

Member Vandermaaten asked about the economies of scale. Ian Crooks responded that thebids came in at about $3 million per well, and the 6.4 MDG plant requires 8 wells, and the 9.6MDG plant requires 10 wells. Member Vandermaaten said he expected to see an equivalent sizeand cost increases.

Executive Director Cullem agreed with Member Vandermaaten that the numbers don’t matchand could be questioned. Ian Crooks responded that he is confident in the numbers and theeconomies of scale.

Executive Director Cullem opened public comment:

• Tom Rowley said that the public is becoming more concerned with water rates, timing ofthe Water Supply Project (WSP) and CDO deadline. He said there is public confusion

and in order to gain community support the MPRWA needs to give clear information.

Receiving no further comments Executive Director Cullem closed public comments.

Member Narigi said that in regard to the sizes of the desal plant, he said the larger desalappears to be more efficient.

Member Riley said the risk of litigation will be high after the EIR is completed, and in theprocess of seeking water rights.


4/5


4

4. Receive Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations on the Draft NPV Cost Comparisonsbetween a 6.4 Desal plus GWR vs 9.6 Desal Project, as Well as on the Draft ExternalitiesStudy – CullemAction: Received Report; Discussed

Member Stoldt gave a presentation on the Draft Net Present Value (NPV) comparisonsbetween a 6.4 desal plus GWR versus 9.6 desal project and the Draft Externalities Study. Hesaid there are realistic financial scenarios that benefit the ratepayer, and some do not. Headded that we have a Water Supply Project that could be economic and beneficial based on thecosts alone, and meets policy objectives. Mr. Stoldt continued that the Water Supply Projecthas received support from State Water Resources Control Board, Legislative Delegation, andAssembly Members. He stated there is a positive net present value to the social andenvironmental items and the externalities are favorable although the externalities are notincluded in the cost comparison.

Executive Director Cullem invited questions of the Board on Member Stoldt’s presentation.

Member Huss said that over the long term he favors the 9.6 desal facility plus GWR.

Member Narigi said on behalf of the Coalition, they favor the 3 prong approach to the WaterSupply Project but remain concerned about the cost to the ratepayer. He said that GWR is not aguarantee and it’s not a sustainable water source. He questioned if the Peninsula ratepayerswill be on the hook for paying for the unseen costs. He said the cost comparison numbers favorthe larger size desal facility with GWR as a backup and that is the direction the Authority shouldgo in.

Member Huss echoed his colleague’s concern about the cost of the project. Member Sciutosaid that his testimony will discuss sustainability.

Member Narigi said that Cal Am’s rate design is going to become an issue with residents, ontop of the additional costs of the Water Supply Project.

Member Riley questioned what is the 20 year cost replacement plan when the data showspump inefficiency over 18 months of testing.


• Tom Rowley, representing MPTA, said the community has a different set ofcircumstances now than in 2013. He voiced his concern about the ratepayers being onthe hook for the cost Water Supply Project and Monterey County should not becompared to Orange County. He urged the Authority and the TAC to lobby for State

bond money to pay for the project and not the ratepayers.

Receiving no further requests to speak Executive Director Cullem closed public comments.

5. Receive, Discuss, and Make Recommendations as Necessary on a CPM Schedule forPermits and Approvals for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) –CullemAction: Received Report; Discussed


5/5


5

Ian Crooks gave a presentation on Cal Am’s schedule for the required permits and approvals forthe Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). He spoke about the critical pathtimeline for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Coastal Commission Approval Process.

Executive Director Cullem said the City of Marina permit approval process could take 4 months

and doubted whether the Marina City Council would aid in speeding up the process.

Member Narigi asked Mr. Crooks if progress has been made with the City of Monterey on thepipeline issue and Mr. Crooks responded that it is progressing.

Member Riley questioned if EIS is merged with EIR if the approval process timeline wouldchange. Mr. Crooks responded that EIR and CPCN have to be approved before the EIS.

Executive Director Cullem opened public comments and receiving none closed publiccomments.

ADJOURNMENT

Executive Director Cullem adjourned meeting at 2:08pm.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Nova Romero, Committee Clerk President MPRWA

tac mprwa minutes 01-27-16

Documents