tac mprwa regular meeting agenda packet 04-15-13.pdf

7/28/2019 TAC MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 04-15-13.PDF

1/20

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, April 15, 2013City Council Chamber

Few Memorial HallMonterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

PUBLIC COMMENTSPUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on anysubject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA TAC and which is not on the agenda. Anyperson or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so byaddressing the Committee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to:MPRWA TAC, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriatestaff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. March 18, 2013

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Discuss and Provide Recommendation for Draft Criteria for The Ground WaterReplenishment Workshop Hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission on June 12,2013 (Stoldt)

3. Receive Update Regarding the California Public Utilities Testimony Hearings April 2012(Burnett)

4. Receive and Discuss Presentation Regarding the Salinas Valley Perspective on the Policy

Statement by the MPRWA on the Proposed MPWSP Project (Huss)

5. Receive Update Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting AuthorityAdopted Conditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Cal Am Representative)

6. Receive Governance Committee Update (Burnett)

ADJOURNMENT


2/20

Created date 04/12/2013 12:32 PM Monday, April 15, 2013

2

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all ofits services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California RelayService (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of theAuthority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend ameeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/20

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

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Regular meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, March 18, 2013COUNCIL CHAMBER

FEW MEMORIAL HALLMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,Members Absent:

Staff Present: Clerk of the Committee, Legal Counsel, Executive Director

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and staff and had no requests to speak.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. February 25, 2013Action: Approved

On motion, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes of February 25,2013:

AYES: 8 MEMBERS Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,NOES: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

2. March 4, 2013Action: Approved


4/20

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, March 18, 2013

2

On motion, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the Minutes of March 4,2013:

AYES: 8 MEMBERS Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,

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

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report on First Governance Committee Meeting (Burnett)Action: Received and Discussed

Chair Burnett reported on the first meeting of the Governance Committee and indicated the

largest agenda item was discussion of the proposed Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The RFQ will be issued by April 1, , 2013 to narrowthe field from eight to four firms. In June, 2013 the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be releasedwith a 90 day response time, and the winning firm will be selected. He then reported that hewas elected as Chair of the Governance Committee and will be working on agendamanagement to determine appropriate timing of decisions.

Cal Am representative Rich Svinland provided additional details for the RFQ process includingthe distribution date of June 15, 2013 and a return Deadline of September 15, 2013 with intentto have the firm on Board by the finalization of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Thecurrent plan is not to contract with the design-build firm before the EIR is completed. He alsoreport that permits have been submitted to the Coastal Commission, The City of Marina, the USArmy Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the State WaterQuality Control Board and the California State Lands Commission. There is a meeting beingcoordinated with all federal agencies to expedite the process.

Legal Counsel Freeman requested that to ensure the integrity of the RFQ and RFP process,that there be no ex-party contacts with any eligible firm.

Chair Burnett communicated to Cal Am three suggested changes to the RFQ from theAuthority:

1. Adding compliance history with labor laws.2. Energy efficiency with consideration of costs.3. Review of past ability for firms to design plans that are maintainable and adaptable to

new technology.

Director Burnett clarified the Authority is not requesting the project to be governed by specificlabor laws, but only ensure that firms have complied with labor laws on previous projects.

Mr. Svinland confirmed that there are currently eight firms seriously considering the project andhe discussed the firms that were eligible and capable to complete the project. He thenexplained the benefits of seeking a design build firm, and that cost us not the largest factor to


5/20


3

consider. Contractors can bid for lower initial costs, but the facility can have a high operatingcost. Chair Burnett pointed out that the RFP will not used to select the lowest bid but insteadidentify the best value proposal. Cal Am as a private entity can do that, unlike a public entity.

Member Narigi spoke to the issue of change orders and how it can impact costs outside of thecontracted work and questioned how that would be addressed. Mr. Svinland responded that Cal

Am is leaning toward lump sum prices, and that costs and finalization of costs will be flushedout through the governance committee.

Member Seigfried spoke to the need for a firm with permitting experience and questioned howan international firm would be knowledgeable about regionally required permits. Mr. Svinlandresponded that the RFQ requires providing experience with permitting processes and the RFPwill specify the exact 30 permits that will be required to obtain. He also clarified that theEngineer of Record must be a California Professional Engineer and any international team willneed to team up with local team that can manage the permits.-

Member Riedl questioned how the project will be impacted if the EIR is delayed and noted thatif SRF funding is utilized it would trigger a requirement for prevailing wage. He also noted that if

the project is built to follow the California Building Code, it will qualify for LEED Silver.

Chair Burnett also discussed the timeline for the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project,and that the Governance Committee agreed to send a letter requesting the CPUC to hold aworkshop on the issue in the future. He then opened the item to public comment and had norequests to speak.

4. Receive Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting Authority AdoptedConditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Cal Am Rep Bowie)Action: Received and Discussed

California American Water Representative Rich Svinland delivered an update report regarding

the progress to meet the Authority adopted conditions of support for the Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project.

1) Contribution of Public Funds: Cal Am Water filed their rebuttal testimony with the CPUCand is still working to find a way to make utilizing public funding mutually beneficial. Willpresent verbal arguments at the CPUC testimony hearing.

2) Agreement to form the Governance Committee. Completed.

3) Obtain Lower Electricity Rates: Cal Am does not view this as a critical path and it can beresolved later in the process. This item will be reviewed by the Governance Committee andwill include a comprehensive study of total costs. Chair Burnett reported that the goal is toreduce costs to 8 or 9 cents per kilowatt hour.

4) Limit the use of the Surcharge Understands that driving force is to limit the costs ofinterest during construction as well as the risk to the public moneys. In the rebuttaltestimony, discussed the facilities that need to be built no matter what facility is built. Therewill be an amount of tangible assess greater than that amount. The surcharge counts as acontribution to the larger pot of money and will have a net effect in the project.


6/20


4

5) Slant Wells.a) Submitted testimony that did address Durbin's testimonyb) All permits have been submitted and Cal Am is collaborating with public agencies to

expedite the permitting process.c) Clarification of NEPA - the PUC will deliver a determination if NEPA is required, and will

be determined by the permit from the US Army Corps of Engineering.

Chair Burnett requested Member Huss to look at the updated information that Mr. Svinlandprovided from a perspective from the impacted Salinas Valley residents and businesses andreport back at a future meeting.

6) Development of Alternative Intake Strategies. Cal am is focusing on solving the processof the slant well and subsurface intake system before exploring an open ocean intake,

justifying that attempting to obtain permits at the same time would cause delay. Heacknowledged that Cal Am is not perusing an alternative strategy aggressively. Mr.Svinland answered questions of the TAC regarding alternative methods consideredincluding direct push, vibrations methods and the overall efficiency needed from the slantwell.

Member Seigfried questioned if their process would invoke the Agency Act. Chair Burnettindicated that it only applies one direction. Mr. Svinland indicated that a successful GWRproject would be beneficial because the amount of water utilized from the Salinas basin wouldbe less. Chair Burnett and the TAC agreed that there has not been focused discussions on theGWR project but will be considered more in the future. He then spoke to the agreement that theCity of Marina has with the Sierra Club that might impact the permit.

7) SRF Financing. Cal Am is working to provide something in writing, but will not be eligibleuntil the release of the EIR.

8) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion. Issues with coastal erosion will be addressed by

engineering levels and by the CEQA review. Sea level rise is not a factors due to thelocation of the squash zone and how the property line will move back with the rise and wellscan been replaced over time to address if the sea level rises. The Intake pump station willhave a 150 foot barrier and be designed to handle flooding. The substation will be at thesame elevation from the MRWPCA and will not be a problem.

Chair Burnett questioned the level of coastal erosion due to the sand mining effort of Semexfacility. Mr. Svinland responded that there have been studies indicating Semex is contributing tothe degradation of beaches further south but has not seen a recent report. Member Hussquestioned at what level the water will be treated, and if there are considerations of a secondstage process and the quality that would result. Mr. Svinland responded that they plan to useboron for the main driver, but have decided to do a second pass system with the goal at trying

to keep the system at or below a partial second pass.

Executive Director Reichmuth spoke to a systematic way that the conditions could be reportedin an easy to use and understand matrix, yet provide information to judge progress on the eightconditions. Chair Burnett opened the item for public comment and had no requests to speak.

5. Receive Report From Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regarding TheGround Water Replenishment Project (Israel, Stoldt)Action: Received and Discussed


7/20


5

Member Israel spoke to progress made in the last month by the Monterey Regional WaterPollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) including approval of a project budget, the selection of anenvironmental firm to assist with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and selection of aspecial legal counsel to assist with the project definition. Currently, the project description isbeing formulated for the Notice to Proceed as well as development of a public outreach

campaign with an outside consultant. There will be a focused campaign that will need to includethe other agency partners such as the Authority and the Monterey Peninsula WaterManagement District to develop a coordinated education plan.

Member Israel provided a timeline that included receiving reports on the overall progress andthe schedule, updated through quarter four of 2014. He then reported that the MRWPCA has

joined the Western Recycled Water Coalition consisting of twenty eight agencies predominantlyin the San Francisco Bay Area, focused on obtaining funding from the federal governmentfunding for recycled water. Member Stoldt clarified the fourth quarter of 2014 is the criticaldecision point to get the project completed on time. Member Israel answered questions of theTAC.

Member Huss expressed concern that there have not been continued discussions with theSalinas Valley region for support. Member Israel responded that there would be morecommunication around June after the feasibility study is developed.

Chair Burnett explained that the timeline that is critical is that from the CPUC, as it willdetermine the quantity of water available. Member Israel indicated that the MRWPCA hasbegun trying to identify ways to bring in new sources of water including potential waterpurchase agreements with Salinas. Member Narigi urged information to be communicated tothe business community. They are very concerned about the ground water component, thereliability and how it relates to the tourism industry.

Chair Burnett opened the item for public comment and had no requests to speak.

Chair Burnett and the TAC came up with the below list of key issues that the TAC needs toengage with respect to GWR:

Review Feasibility Study and Scoping documents and make recommendation to theAuthority Directors

Address the unpleasantness factor Review Public Outreach plan, and ensure that it is targeted for both consumers and

businesses, simplified and understandableo Potential survey of public understanding

Review a matrix study of source water

6. Discuss and Review Benefits and Disadvantages of Private Investor-Owned vs. PublicOwnership of Desalination Facilities (Riley)Action: Discussed

Member Riley spoke to this agenda item and discussed the information in the packet. Hereported that his intent for the agenda item was to help inform the Authority on the differentpositions to assist with future decisions of the Authority.


8/20


6

He spoke to the principles outlined in Document 1 provided in the packet; advocating for lowestcosts and elevates public interest over corporate interest. The funding interest should beconsidered with regards to three areas: 1) State Revolving Funds (SRF), 2) Public BondFinancing and 3) Surcharge Two. He noted that SRF were established to help public agenciesand not corporate interest. Financing from the other two categories are associated with directownership opportunities andthe rate payers should have more than just a financing stake but

standing as well.

Chair Burnett requested that Member Riley speak to the 8 conditions and the degree to whichthey address or don't address the ultimate objective. Member Riley acknowledged that hesupports all the adopted conditions and thinks it does work in the interest of the ratepayers.Member Riley then answered question from the TAC.

Chair Burnett opened the item to the public and had no requests to speak.

Member Seigfried spoke to the possibility that in the future Cal Am could sell the facility if itdoes not achieve the expected revenues of 7 to 10% increase of earnings per share. ChairBurnett responded by identifying that there is a cost element and a control element involved

and said it is important to stay focused on obtaining the water, at the lowest cost, and after2017 there will be the ability to address the issue of facility control. Member Riley thanked theTAC for the opportunity to present information on both points of view.

7. Approval of Meeting Dates Through June 30, 2013 (Milton)Action: Approved

On a motion by Member Narigi, seconded by Member Israel, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the Meeting dates through June 30,2013.

AYES: 8 MEMBERS Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Seigfried, Stoldt, Burnett,NOES: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSENT: 0 MEMBERS NoneABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to come before the TAC, Chair Burnett adjourned the meeting at 4:30p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, MPRWA TAC Chair


9/20

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

Date: April 15, 2013

Item No: 2.

08/12

FROM: Prepared By: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Discuss and Provide Recommendation for Draft Criteria for The Ground Water

Replenishment Workshop Hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission

on June 12, 2013 (Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation will take place at the meeting.


10/20


11/20


Agenda Report


Item No: 3.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update Regarding the California Public Utilities Testimony Hearings

April 2012 (Burnett)

DISCUSSION:



12/20


13/20


Agenda Report


Item No: 4.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Presentation Regarding the Salinas Valley Perspective on the Policy

Statement by the MPRWA on the Proposed MPWSP Project (Huss)

DISCUSSION:



14/20


15/20


Agenda Report


Item No: 5.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update Report from Cal-Am Water Regarding Progress in Meeting

Authority Adopted Conditions for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

(Cal Am Representative)

DISCUSSION:


ATTACHMENTS:

Police Condition Status Report (Dated 4/10/13)Summary of Evidentiary Hearings


16/20

olicy Conditions Status Report FORM UPDATED: 4/

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

ondition Status Next Milestone Comment

Contribution of Public Funds:

al-Am must accept a significant contribution of public funds. Without the

terest rate advantages afforded by such approach, the costs of water from the

al-Am Project will be materially higher, and a significant contribution of public

nds will avoid unwarranted expenses to Cal-Ams rate payers.

PendingExtensive testimony at the PUC hearings regarding implications of a p

contribution. Water Authority has not defined what is meant by

"significant."

Formation of Governance Committee: Cal-Am must agree, upon mutually-

cceptable terms, to form a Governance Committee to provide publicly-

ccountable oversight of the project.Completed

June PUC workshop.

St nee to eve op crtera or t e GWR Recommen aton. Gover

Committee Chair Burnett sent letter to PUC ALJ Weatherford request

workshop. Judge has set a June PUC workshop. Parties to Governance

Committee must agree on criteria.Seek Lower Electricity Rates: Cal-Am must diligently seek to secure lower

ectricity rates for the project including an agreement to purchasing power

rough a municipal electrical utility, generation of on-site power if necessary,

her public entity or other source of low-cost power;

Pending

Proceeding on two tracks. First, Cal-Am is investigating installation of

voltage lines to reduce the unit cost of power. Second, the Governanc

Committee has engaged with the Waste Management District regard

possible Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for landfill gas power.

Limit Use of Surcharge 2: Cal-Am must agree to limit the use of revenue

om Cal-Ams Surcharge 2 to reduce risk to Cal-Am ratepayers in the event the

al-Am project does not move forward.Pending

Proposed Surcharge 2 ($103 million) is slightly less than Cal-Am only

facilities ($106 million), allowing for the possibility that the PUC could

require Cal-Am to spend Surcharge 2 revenues on and only on Cal-Am

facilities (pipelines and the like).

Address Test Well Concerns & Permitting: To promptly address concerns

ertaining to Cal-Ams proposed intake wells including: Pending

Address all issues raised in the December 2012 Tim Durbin testimony; Mr. Durbin testified at PUC hearings. CalAm and others asked questio

Mr. Durbin.

Proceed with planned test wells and other advanced geotechnical

work to su ort the ro osed intake wells Application for test wells before City of Marina, state and national.

Collaborate with local public agencies to advance permitting effortsCal-Am working with Water Authority representatives on permitting i

Seek to clarify whether the installation of Cal-Ams intake wells willrequire approval from any federal agency, which could require NEPA

Cal-Am has applied to City of Marina (CEQA), State Lands, and Army C

of Engineers (NEPA) for test wells.

Development of Contingency Plan: Fully develop a contingency plan or

ans concurrently with planning and testing of slant wells and implement those

ans for source water that do not involve wells in the Salinas Basin.Pending

Cal-Am has expressed some concerns with implementing contingenci

They state doing so may reduce their ability to successfully pursue the

preferred option.

Access to SRF Funds: Provide written documentation demonstrating ability

secure SRF financing. Cal-Am must accept a public agency partner for SRF

urposes if necessary, even if doing so results in a reduction in Cal-Ams equity

osition.

PendingAfter EIR complete (late

2013)

Cal-Am says the state is unwilling to provide written documentation u

the project's EIR is complete. Cal-Am has submitted a financing applic

to the statef for SRF purposes.

Address Environmental Challenges: Must address questions about

nvironmental factors such as sea level rise, coastal erosion, liquefacation in

eismic events, and damage from tsunami events with respect to the placement

nd longevity of their proposed slant wells.

PendingMuch of this work is being done by the EIR team. Draft EIR due Summ

2013. Final late 2013.

For more information about the Policy Conditions adopted by the MPRWA, please visit www.mprwa.org/rfp


17/20

SB 643730 v2:015621.0002

SUMMARY OF PERTINENT TESTIMONY FROM CPUC EVIDENTIARY HEARING(A.12-04-019)

Issue Pertinent Testimony

MPRWA Position Statement Issues:1. Public contribution Extensive testimony by Cal-Am financial and expert witnesses asserted various concerns concerning

proposed utility securitization (principally concerning recourse to Cal-Am, effects of consolidated debtto company credit worthiness, need for separate Cal-Am credit rating, costs and delay associated withsecuritization, and tax consequences). MPRWA cross-examined aggressively. Resulting impressionwas whether the securitization would adversely affect the company is a matter of circumstances(likely not in this case). Cal-Am acknowledged willingness to further explore acceptable publicfinancing structures. MPWMD witness, Stoldt and Larkins explained basis for opinion thatsecuritization would not be recourse to Cal-Am and would not adversely affect Cal-Am creditworthiness. Stoldt and Larkins recommended that the Commission order Cal-Am to exploresecuritization package so long as completed within six months of permanent financing, which wouldnot adversely affect Cal-Ams credit worthiness, would not require separate Cal-Am credit rating, andthe proceeds would not be treated as income to Cal-Am for tax purposes.

2. Governance Committee Svindland, Keeley and other witnesses acknowledged Governance Committee as a prudent meansfor community participation, oversight and cost scrutiny. On the matter of establishing criteria forGWR Decision, Governance Committee Chair Burnett sent a letter to PUC ALJ Weatherfordrequesting a workshop. Judge has set a June PUC workshop to explore settlement on criteria.

3. Lower cost and alternative electricity No extensive testimony: Svindland acknowledged that Cal-Am evaluating options, including potentialuse oflandfill gas power.

4. Limited use of Surcharge 2 Svindlands direct testimony explained that Surcharge 2 could be used for Cal-Am only facilities (i.e.,product water pipes, terminal reservoir and related infrastructure), but he qualified statement undercross examination that the company has not pledged to do so.

5. Intake well issues (water rights,Salinas Valley Basin impacts, andpermitting)

Extensive testimony was provided by SVCs witness, Durbin, and Cal-Ams witness, Leffler,concerning potential impacts of the source wells on the Salinas Valley Basin and the percentage ofgroundwater that will be drawn by the source wells. Principal issue is whether the site of the sourcewells includes a significant aquitard between sand dune aquifer and the 180' aquifer (i.e., is the 180'aquifer confined at the Cal-Am site?). More confinement would likely result in more impact on thebasin and greater take of groundwater as opposed to seawater. Durbin recommended that there begeotechnical studies to understand the 180' aquifer, geochemical analysis to age the water, test wellsin 180' aquifer and dunes aquifer, density effects analysis (higher density seawater causesgroundwater to move), and sensitivity analysis (consideration of different hydrogeology resulting fromfuture phases of the SVWP, future scope of seawater intrusion, etc.)

6. Develop a concurrent contingencyplan for source water

Svindland explained that Cal-Am is willing to collaborate with MPRWA with respect to source watercontingencies, but Cal-Am remains committed to only applying for permits for slant wells/horizontalwells at Cemex site until and unless the Cal-Am plan proves infeasible.


18/20

SB 643730 v2:015621.0002

7. Proof of SRF financing availability Svindland explained that the state is unwilling to provide written documentation until the project's EIRis complete, but that a financing package is complete and has been submitted.

8. Address environmental issues,including seal level rise and coastalerosion issues

Significant cross-examination of Cal-Am witness (notably Svindland) on this subject. Cal-Amexplanation that project has changed to gravity system of source wells to avoid powered infrastructurewithin/at wells and locating desalination facility at 100' above sea level. MPWMD witness, Hampson,testified that there should be further evaluation of coastal erosion and coastal flooding, includingsignificant waves during construction. Surfriders witness, Damitz, testified that barrier dams cannotextend seaward of the high tide line under the NMSs Desalination Guidelines (non-binding guidelinesonly). Cal-Ams proposed construction of slant wells in swash zone would require barrier dams thatwould be inconsistent with the guidelines.

Other issues

Project sizing Svindland testified that project sized for replacement water (Carmel River and Seaside Basin),Seaside Basin payback at 700 afy, tourism/economic bounce back, Pebble Beach water entitlement,and new service to lots of record (1,181 afy subset of general plan build-out of 4,545 afy).

Brine discharge (MRWPCA outfallcapacity)

Cal-Am witnesses were cross-examined by MCWD with respect to sufficiency of MRWPCA outfallcapacity for brine discharge. Cal-Am explained they believe there is sufficient capacity in all butoccasional winter months, in which case Cal-Am is exploring solutions, including temporary brinestorage.

Brine discharge (potential marineenvironment impacts)

Surfrider witnesses testified in written testimony that brine diffusers would be required to permit brinedischarge and cross-examined Cal Am witness, Svindland, regarding the same. Svindland testifiedthat Cal-Am believes that outfall as-is would provide sufficient brine diffusion but has contingencies forslip-lining the outfall pipeline and use of diffusers, which would require an additional cost of $9-10million.

GWR and portfolio supply approach Testimony by PCL witness, Minton, regarding the benefits of GWR, including consistency with statesupport for water reclamation, reduced brine, reliability, and diversity of supply.

Community collaboration and political

issues

Testimony by PCL witness, Keeley, regarding community division as an element in the failure of

previous water supply projects and benefits of present emerging community consensus as it relates topotential overcome political challenges to yield success for current project.


19/20


Agenda Report


Item No: 6.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Governance Committee Update (Burnett)

DISCUSSION:



20/20

tac mprwa regular meeting agenda packet 04-15-13.pdf

Documents