tac mprwa minutes 05-06-13

7/28/2019 Tac Mprwa Minutes 05-06-13

1/5

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

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, May 6, 2013COUNCIL CHAMBER

FEW MEMORIAL HALLMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Alternate Member Bob Holden, Narigi, Riley

Members Absent: Huss

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Executive Director, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Chair Burnett announced that Member Siegfried has stepped down from the TAC and hethanked him for his service.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and had no requests to speak. He thenreported that the California Public Utilities Commission hearings had concluded and he wouldpresent a more detailed report later in the meeting. He also requested that items 4, 5, and 6 bediscussed simultaneously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chair Burnett invited comments on agenda items one and two. Member Riedl requested onecorrection to the minutes of April 15, 2013.

1. April 1, 2013Action: Approved


2/5

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, May 6, 2013

2

2. April 15, 2013Action: Approved

On a motion by Member Stoldt, seconded by Member Narigi, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority TAC approved the minutes of April 1, 2013

and April 15, 2013 as amended.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Narigi, Riley

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: HussABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: HoldenRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report on California Public Utilities Commission Settlement Conference (Burnett)Action: Received Report

Chair Burnett reported on a workshop preceding the initial CPUC Settlement meeting on April25, 2013 hosted by the Authority and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Allparties that submitted intervening applications for the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) application A1204019 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) wereinvited to attend as well as the public. He indicated this meeting was to precede the formalsettlement meetings and to engage on the full range of topics which will be under negotiationprior to being bound by CPUC rules requiring confidentiality of discussions. Chair Burnett noteda productive discussion, including the issue of brine discharge which the Authority has nottaken a position on. Chair Burnett then opened the discussion to comments from others thatattended the Workshop.

Member Stoldt acknowledged a productive meeting and spoke to the identification of 15 issues.Member Riley commented that most of the issues were the same which were discussed duringthe evidentiary meetings.

Chair Burnett opened the item to public comment. Nelson Vega questioned the current status ofthe confidential negotiations and requested feedback if the Authoritys positions would prevail.He then asked what the process will be for reconsideration of items in a public venue beforefinal action is taken. Dale Heckhuis expressed concerns about formulating a settlementagreement in the absence of critical information. He also expressed concern that the project isoperating on state imposed deadlines, and encouraged engaging or advocating for the publicinterest now, or risk being less relevant. With no further requests to speak, Chair Burnett closedpublic comment and responded to Mr. Vega's comments. He indicated he would only advocatefor the Authority adopted policy decisions and if there was a need to take a position on an itemoutside of the policy agreement, he would bring it back before the Authority.

4. Discuss Ground Water Replenishment Draft Criteria (Stoldt/Israel)Action: Discussed with Items 5 & 6

Member Stoldt introduced items 4, 5 and 6 and spoke to the need to develop draft criteria for


3/5


3

the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project prior to the CPUC hosted GWR workshop inJune of 2013. He reported that the CPUC has requested a more defined criteria for inclusion ofhow the GWR project would interact in the overall Monterey Peninsula water supply solution.The signed Memorandum of Understanding for the Governance Committee includes the needfor development of specific GWR criteria and the Authority has indicated that Cal Am is not theright party to develop or evaluate the criteria but that it should be left in the hands of the public

agencies.

He noted that the TAC reviewed the draft criteria at the April 15, 2013 meeting, the GovernanceCommittee then evaluated and approved, and additionally the MPWMD Water SupplySubcommittee also reviewed and revised the criteria. Member Stoldt then spoke to the draft listprovided in the packet and outlined the changes from the previous version. He noted that aqualification regarding debt equivalence should also be included. Member Stoldt answeredquestions from the TAC.

Cal Am Representative Catherine Bowie commented that Cal Am is amenable to amending theGovernance Committee agreement to allow the public agencies authority to make the decisionfor GWR to proceed.

Member Narigi questioned who would be conducting the cost benefit analysis of theenvironmental policy externalities and if there was a timeline update to GWR progress.Alternate Holden projected that GWR is projected to be online by the end of 2016. MemberStoldt reported on the feasibility work which is expected to be completed in six to eight weeks.

Member Narigi questioned the status of conversations with the Agricultural Community.Alternate Member Holden reported that there have been recent meetings with the City ofSalinas to discuss opportunities for utilization of their produce wash water and storm water.Discussions are also occurring with the Marina Coast Water District regarding their wastewater. Chair Burnett followed up by reporting on a meeting with Salinas Mayor Gunter, CityManager Corpus and the Director of Public Works and indicated they are scheduled to come

and talk to the Authority in the near future. Salinas Representatives understand impacts fromwater shortages on the Peninsula will impact Salinas as well. They that the partnership willbring jobs and stability to the region. They are also looking for a more cost effective process fortheir waste water, which will benefit the agricultural opportunities.

Member Riley agreed that the subject of debt equivalency, should be included within the criterialist.

Chair Burnett opened public comment on items 4 5 or 6. Nelson Vega spoke to the lack ofanswers but instead justifications for not requesting an extension for the cease and desist

order. He then questioned why Salinas would give away their waste water rather than processand utilize in their own region to minimize the salt water intrusion. Last, he questioned waterrights and the logic between ownership of sewer water and salt water and crossing jurisdictionallines. Tom Rowley spoke representing the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association spoke tothe Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report and to potential lawsuits and heurged the Authority to petition for an extension due to the potential roadblocks and delays thataffect the time table. Having no more requests to speak, closed public comment on items 3, 4,and 5.


4/5


4

Member Stoldt responded to Mr. Vegas previous requests for the cost to the average ratepayer. He directed the public to visit the website www.watersupplyproject.org, select thedownloads tab, then under presentations select April 2012. He indicated that there is a Cal Ampresentation that evaluated both a large and a small desalination facility and which projects theimpact to residential water bills.

Chair Burnett indicated it was important to ensure that the CPUC EIR team has adequatelyevaluated the GWR project. He questioned if the TAC was comfortable recommending theproposed criteria.

On a motion by Member Stoldt, seconded by Member Narigi, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority TAC approved forwarding the proposed draftcriteria as presented to the Authority Directors for consideration and to direct its representativesto forward to the CPUC for inclusion in the June 12, 2013 Ground Water Replenishmentworkshop.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Narigi, Riley

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: HussABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: HoldenRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

5. Discuss and Establish Criteria for Decision on Desalination Plant Sizing (Burnett)Action: Discussed with Items 4 & 6

6. Discuss and Provide Direction on Criteria for Ground Water Recovery WorkshopRecommendation for June 12, 2012 Public Utilities Commission Workshop (Burnett)Action: Discussed with Items 4 & 5

7. Discuss and Provide Direction on Brine Discharge Systems (Cal Am Representative)Action: Discussed

Chair Burnett reported that the MPWSP proposed brine discharge system was an item ofconcern brought up at the workshop on April 25, 2013 and that the Authority does not currentlyhave a policy position for brine discharge. Cal Am is currently proposing a passive dischargesystem, with a contingency for providing pressurized diffusers. Modification to a differentdischarge system would add an estimated cost of $10 million. Chair Burnett requestedfeedback from the TAC if they would like to recommend specific a position on brine dischargesystems to the directors.

Cal Am representative Catherine Bowie spoke to the item. She indicated that several of the

intervening parties have issues with the current system and it was expected by Cal Amdesigners. There were four different options that were addressed when determining the bestsystem; 1) modification of existing outfall 2) a new outfall at Semex facility 3) a brine pipeline atMoss Landing and 4) a modified existing marine refectories outfall. Ms. Bowie noted that highvelocity diffusers also have potential impacts to marine life due to velocity of the nozzle. TheEIR will address the brine discharge impacts and will include mitigation to deal with theenvironmental change.
http://www.watersupplyproject.org/http://www.watersupplyproject.org/http://www.watersupplyproject.org/


5/5


5

Member Stoldt indicated that there is disagreement in the marine environment researchcommunity about which system would be best or least harmful. He reported that Dynagy is notsupportive of letting others use their outfall. And if they did, it would modify the conditions of theNDPS permit. The Sanctuary reiterated that it does not want any additional pipes in theSanctuary so a standalone outfall would meet resistance. Mr. Stoldt suggested allowing CEQAto work out the alternatives, as it would be difficult without brining in scientists, for the TAC to

make an informed decision.

Chair Burnett opened the item to Public Comment: Jim Cullem spoke to a current system that isworking in Ventura County, where a public agency collects and disposes of the brine. Heindicated that there are other systems out there that are currently working and this is anopportunity worth exploring and report back. Having no further requests to speak, Chair Burnettclosed public comment and requested that Mr. Cullem provide the contact info to AlternateMember Holden.

The TAC unanimously agreed that the Authority does not need to take a position on brinedisposal or brine discharge systems this item at this time, but to let the lead agencies with theexperience research and recommend appropriate action. The Authority should continue to

focus on its core mission at this time.

ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, MPRWA Clerk Chuck Della Sala, MPRW President

tac mprwa minutes 05-06-13

Documents