tac mprwa minutes 03-02-15

8/9/2019 Tac Mprwa Minutes 03-02-15

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tac-mprwa-minutes-03-02-15 1/5

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

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Regular Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, March 2, 2015COUNCIL CHAMBER

580 PACIFIC STREETMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Cullem, Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt.

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Cullem called the meeting to order at 10:36 AM.

ROLL CALLLegal Counsel Freeman was absent.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Member Riley reported that Public Water Now has invited Keith Israel to their next meeting todiscuss the Pure Water Monterey Project.

Mr. Cullem noted an item was requested to be added after the agenda was publishedrequesting the TAC to discuss opportunities in which the water authority could participate in thediscussion regarding the CDO extension. Mr. Cullem requested the item to be added as adiscussion item.

On a motion by Committee Member Riley, seconded by Committee Member Narigi and carriedby the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved adding an agendaitem to discuss possible ways the Authority can participation in the discussion regarding theCease and Desist Order extension request.

AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Cullem, Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt.NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: StoldtRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Cullem invited comments from the public for items not on the agenda.



MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, March 2, 2015

2

• Tom Rowley updated the Authority regarding the lawsuit between Monterey PeninsulaTax Payers Association vs Monterey Peninsula Water Management District regardingthe 152 water supply charge, reporting that the matter is under consideration. Heexpressed concern the item does not seem to be discussed publically regarding whatthe potential impacts could be.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. February 2, 2015

On a motion by Member Narigi, seconded by Member Stoldt and carried by the following vote,the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes from February 2, 2015 asamended:

AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Cullem, Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt.

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive Report on the Status of The Definitive Agreement for the Groundwater Replenishment / Pure Water Monterey (GWR/PWM) Project -Stoldt/Israel

Member Israel spoke to the definitive legal agreements that are still pending and provided an

update on the status of the different agreements. He noted that progress is being made on all ofthe agreements but not all will be signed by March 31st. He anticipated completion by the end ofMay 2015. Mr. Israel answered questions from the TAC.

On question, Member Stoldt explained why the targeted cost was approximately $1700-1800acre/ft and that the externality study would reveal the true costs. Member Narigi expressedconcern that the study will not define future source water quantities to which Member Stoldtindicated source water will be addressed in the agreements with the Salinas, Monterey andCounty Water Resources Agency.

Member Riedl questioned if there is any discussion with Marina Coast Water District regardingsource water to which Mr. Israel indicated that the key focus of discussion with MCWD is

pipeline, but that discussion is possible.

Chair Cullem invited public comment on the item.

• Tom Rowley indicated that the externality study will be difficult to provide data to provethat the water injected into the Seaside Basin will be in the targeted cost range, as it stillmust be treated when withdrawn. Thinks it will be hard to convince ratepayers that therewill be great benefits to the environment but the costs will be increased.




3

Member Riley responded to Mr. Rowley that the same notion could be applied to the costsbeing expended for slant wells. We are all faced with the argument of the environmentalbenefits vs the costs. Mr. Cullem reminded everyone that the reason the Authority exists is aresult of environmental issues.

3. Receive Report and Discuss the Latest Information on Public Funding, Including BondFinancing, for the MPWSP and for GWR- Stoldt

Member Stoldt reported that the public financing order application will be before the CPUC inJune. He then reported progress is being made on the SRF financing for the PWM projectwhich is being coordinated by MRWPCA. The water purchase agreement must be done to file asubstantive application with the state. Mr. Stoldt noted that the 1% interest money will expire byDecember 31st but conversations with the SRF staff to expedite the application have beenmade and if 100% financing is not received, there will have to be public debt financing. Thefinancing plan should be secured in Summer of 2015.

Mr. Cullem questioned the implementation of Surcharge 1 and 2 to which Mr. Stoldt indicated

there will be a gap between the two. Member Riley questioned if the language in the law can beapplied to a successive project to which Mr. Stoldt indicated that it cannot be transferred fromproject to project.

Chair Cullem invited comments on the item and had no requests to speak.

4. Discuss Preparations for Review of the Desal DEIR Scheduled for Release in April 2015. -Cullem

Chair Cullem introduced the item indicating the purpose was to discuss the impacts of theschedule change made by the CPUC. He spoke to the revisions made as a result of delays withregard to legal action, or extension requests. Mr. Cullem outlined the changes and the impacts

and posed the question to the TAC asking what action or preparations should be taken, if anyprior to the release of the DEIR.

The TAC discussed options including requesting consideration of mitigation measures inadvance, requesting an updated cost estimate from Cal Am, focusing on contingency plans ifthe slant wells are unsuccessful, and focus on the amended CDO proposal.

Chair Cullem questioned if the TAC would support contracting with a consultant or schedulespecial meetings to walk through the EIR to provide suggestions and input to the Directors onthe DEIR. The TAC discussed the possibility to review the DEIR versus contracting aprofessional and it is an important enough topic to contract a professional and expend funds toreview the document. Chair Cullem agreed to research qualified firms to review and be

objective, and bring back to the TAC pricing and proposals within two months to which the TACagreed.

Mr. Cullem reported that in the next several months, he intends to agendize all three of thedesal projects to make presentations to the public and to provide status updates.

Member Riedl requested consideration to peer review the EIR for the PWN/GWR project. ChairCullem agreed to identify consultants to peer review both projects.




4

Chair Cullem invited public comment on the item.

• Tom Rowley expressed concern that events are moving at a faster pace and waiting twomonths to bring a consultant on board is too long. He suggested having the Authorityconsider approval of a contract at the March 12 Director meeting.

On a motion by Member Riedl, seconded by Member Narigi and carried by the following vote,the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee recommended that the Directors authorize theExecutive Director identify and contract with a consultant to conduct a peer review of the DEIRand provide comments and suggestions to the Authority.

AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Cullem, Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt.NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

5. Receive and Discuss the Current "Detailed" MPWSP Critical Path Schedule for Permits &Approvals - Crooks

Chair Cullem briefly spoke on a concern expressed during a Monterey City Council meetingthat the construction schedule of the pipeline extends through the entire project period whichwould seem to be a critical path item. He indicated he would pose the question to Cal Amasking if anything can be done to truncate the timeline for the pipeline construction, such asobtaining permits sooner.

Chair Cullem invited the public to bring forth issues they have concerns about.

• Tom Rowley expressed thanks to be moving away from generalities into specifics.

6.

Discussion of possible ways the Authority can participate in the discussion regarding the Ceaseand Desist Order extension request

Member Narigi expressed a list of 18 concerns regarding the proposal and requested the TACreview this item in detail and bring back to their respective organizations.

Member Riley said it was the wrong direction to use rationing as leverage with the State asresidents are already performing conservation of water and suggested negotiation regarding

the level of fines, not levels of water. He disagreed that negotiations be based on Cal Am'sperformance or water production.

Mr. Narigi agreed with regard to the fine and since the fine is undefined it's difficult to analyze.He questioned if any other legal rights are waived by the agreement and then requestedclarification on the process for requesting this extension.

Chair Cullem spoke to the Authority not being party to the agreement but is assisting to definethe agreement, is trying to mediate as well as make it a transparent process. Cal Am is the




5

proposer and will sign the agreement.

Chair Cullem invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENTHaving no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley E. Milton-Rerig, Committee Clerk Executive Director/Chair Jim Cullem

tac mprwa minutes 03-02-15

Documents