TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 02-02-15

8/9/2019 TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 02-02-15

1/40

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Regular Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, February 2, 2015Council Chamber580 Pacific Street

Monterey, 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. December 1, 2014 Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive Report On The Status Of Bi-Lateral Agreements For The GWR DefinitiveAgreement (Israel).

3. Discuss Ground Water Replenishment and Desal Cost Comparison Study (Stoldt).

4. Receive Report On Comparison Of Dana Point And Marina Slant Wells (Crooks).

5. Receive And Discuss The Current "Detailed" Monterey Peninsula Water Supply ProjectCritical Path Schedule For Permits And Approvals (Crooks).

6. Consider A Recommendation To The Water Authority Directors Relative To The Vacant

Marina Coast Water District Seat (Cullem).

7. Discuss Preparations For Review Of The Desal DEIR Scheduled For Release In April 2015 (Cullem).

8. Receive Updated MPRWA Fact Sheet and Discuss Authority Expectations Relative to

Each Project Cited (Cullem).
http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79860http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79852http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79852http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79853http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79854http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79855http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79855http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79856http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79856http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79858http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79858http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79859http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79859http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79859http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79859http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79858http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79858http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79856http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79856http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79855http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79855http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79854http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79853http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79852http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79852http://../agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=79860


2/40

Created date 01/30/2015 4:38 PM Monday, February 2, 2015

2

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to including the disabled in allof its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Monterey CityClerks Office at (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Cityto make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. Forcommunication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak toCity offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial711 to use CRS to talk to the Monterey City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of adevice.

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.


3/40

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITYTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

Regular Meeting10:30 AM, Monday, December 1, 2014

COUNCIL CHAMBER580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present Cullem, Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt

Members Absent: Huss, Lee

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

No reports.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Invited comments from the public and had no requests to speak.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. November 17, 2014 Regular Meeting

Action: Continued to next meeting.

2. October 9, 2014 Special Meeting

On motion by TAC Member Stoldt and Seconded by TAC Member Israel and approved by thefollowing vote the Technical Advisory Committee approved the minutes of October 9, 2014.

AYES: 6 MEMBERS:Cullem, Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Huss, Lee

ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report on the Status of Bi-lateral Agreements for the Ground WaterReplenishment Source Water Definitive Agreement - Stoldt/Israel

Member Stoldt spoke to the hand out provided, Roadmap for a definitive agreement on sourcewaters and water recycling. He spoke to the eight definitive legal agreements that are neededand the tentative dates for the execution for these agreements. The TAC discussed the


4/40

MPRWA Minutes Monday, December 1, 2014

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, December 1, 20142

different agreements and the agencies that would be parties to them. The TAC also discussedthe sources of water included in the agreements and the total targeted acre/ft of water.

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

On question, Member Stoldt reported that the externality study contract selection should bemade this week and that staff is conducting an in-house cost analysis for a cost comparisonand feasibility study at this time. Member Israel reported that the application for SRF Fundscannot be filed until a water purchase agreement is solidified but the state is working with thePollution Control Agency to qualify for a 1% financing ability.

The TAC discussed possibilities to meet the cease and desist order for either the GWR projector the Desal facility which is anticipated to be in production near 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2017.

This item was for informational purposes and no action was taken.

4. Receive Status Report on the Test Slant Well Construction and Update on the CurrentDetailed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Critical Path Permits and ApprovalsSchedule - Crooks

Ian Crooks, Cal Am provided an update on the Test Slant Well Construction progress andpresented the updated production schedule which included the GWR project to demonstratehow the GWR will line up as compared to the Desal project approval and start up. Mr. Crooksreported that Cal Am Staff is working with the Coastal Commission to fulfill the permittingrequirements. December 15th would be the start of the big rig for the test well. On question, Mr.Crooks discussed the appeal filed against the Coastal Commission decision and reported thatpleadings will be done by declaration.


Mr. Crooks then presented the MPWSP Master Schedule which is updated through specificmilestones. He spoke to the progress anticipated to be made once the Test Well and the EIRare complete, but cited land acquisition issues, including easements that are still unresolved.

The TAC discussed the future possible interactions with the City of Marina as it relates to theCoastal Development Permit and indicated that it will be further discussed at future TACmeetings. Member Stoldt left the meeting at 11:45 AM.

Member Riley spoke to the MPWSP anticipated schedule and the 24 month data collectionperiod. He questioned how much data can and should be collected to be able to make anappropriate decision.

This item was for discussion only and no action was taken.

5. Discuss Presentations and Site Visits to Deep Water Desal and The People's MossLanding Desal on November 17, 2014 and Make Recommendations to the AuthorityBoard - TAC members


5/40

MPRWA Minutes Monday, December 1, 2014

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, December 1, 20143

Chair Cullem spoke to the site visits to both the Deep Water Desal Facility and the PeoplesMoss Landing Desal Project and invited comments from other present TAC members.

Member Riedl questioned how the Moss Landing Harbor District could be the lead agency forthe People's Moss Landing Desal EIR. He also questioned if they have the funding in place tosee the project to completion. He mentioned that they were proposing to put the intake next tothe surf zone which seemed problematic.

Member Narigi questioned if either project had produced definitive schedules, or proof ofpermits that would provide proof of progress to which it was responded that they producedaggressive schedules but may be unrealistic.


6. Discuss Current Issues of Critical Importance to the Organizations Represented byTechnical Advisory Committee Members -TAC members

This was put on the agenda to discuss the interest of the different members of the TAC, tounderstand the desires of their respective organizations and how each can benefit. Since thekey members are not present, Chair Cullem requested that this item be continued to a latermeeting.

On motion by TAC Member Narigi and Seconded by TAC Member Riedl and approved by thefollowing vote the Technical Advisory Committee tabled this item to a future meeting.

AYES: 6 MEMBERS:Cullem, Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Huss, LeeABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None

RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 12:04 pm.

ATTEST:

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


6/40


7/40

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: February 02, 2015

Item No: 2.

06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT:Receive Report on the Status of Bi-lateral Agreements for theGWR Definitive Agreement

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC receive an update on the efforts of thePollution Control Agency and the Water Management District in securing

the bi-lateral agreements necessary to secure a Definitive Agreement forsource and product water for the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR)project by March 2015.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting of December 1, 2014, the TAC received and discussed the"Roadmap for a Definitive Agreement on Source Waters and WaterRecycling". As the completion date is fast approaching, the TAC should

remain informed of its progress.

ATTACHMENTS:

Roadmap for a Definitive Agreement on Source Waters and WaterRecycling as provided December 1, 2014.


8/40

Tasks for a Definitive Agreement(October 2014March 2015)

Legal Agreements

Water Availability Financial Issues

Water R

Definitive Agreement Scoping: Timeline & Review

Public Discussion

MRWPCAMCWRA (4thAmendment)

MRWPCASalinas (Operations & Financing)

MRWPCAMCWD (Pipeline Lease)

MRWPCAMonterey (Lake El Estero)

MRWPCAMPWMDWatermaster (Water Storage Agreement)

MPWMDMRWPCA (Recycled Water Purchase Agreement)

MPWMDCal Am (Wholesale Water Purchase Agreement)

Public

Outreach

Definitive Agreement Finalized

First Draft of Definitive Agreement

circulated

Review water availability

assumptions; Discuss

operational issues; Wet year,

dry year, average year

considerations; Impact on

facilities and costs

Meet with SW

Staff, Tour

facilities, Co

Strategy for WRights Applic

Meet to Esta

Strategy for W

Rights Applic

Revised 10/23/14

Identify 6 to 8 Agreements, who will sign, scope

Assess a

componen

Project for Pr

Prepare Revis

Water Rig

Applicati

When Defin

Agreemen

Reached,

amended W

Rights Applic

10% Design

Capital

Costs identified

Rate Studyto develop

interruptible

rate for cost

of treatment

Meet with

stakeholders todiscuss pro rata

share and

amount of

capital costs and

initial Prop 218

Strategies Develop

alternative CSIP

funding

allocations &

Prop 218

strategies

3rdParty review

of costs/facilities PublicOutreach

Finalize

estimated

costs,

allocations, and

Prop 218

strategy

Incorporate into

Definitive

Agreement

Discuss with

each provider

of water

Fisheries

Review

Define Terms

Develop Scenarios

Propose Key Terms

Meet with

staff and

board/counsel

Important

Issues

Revise

Definitive

Agreement

Decide on

which waters

to incorporate

and phasing


9/40



Item No: 3.

06/12


SUBJECT: Discuss GWR/DESAL Cost Comparison Study

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Keith Israel, GeneralManager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and David Stoldt,General Manager of the Water Management District on the status of the cost

comparison study of Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) vs Cal Ams Desal facilities.

DISCUSSION:

Integral to the CPUC decision process approving GWR as part of a new PeninsulaWater Supply system, a cost comparison between GWR and the Cal Am Desal facilitiesis required.

This study have been approved and advertised by the Water Management District.

Keith Israel and Dave Stoldt will provide an update of the status of the cost comparisonstudy.


10/40


11/40



Item No: 4.


SUBJECT: Receive Report on Comparison of Dana Point and Marina Slant Wells

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC review available reports on the Dana Point test slantwell, discuss, and make recommendations as appropriate.

DISCUSSION:

At the request of the Water Authority at its meeting of Jan 8, 2015, Cal Am agreed todiscuss the results of the Dana Point test slant well in relation to the MPWSP test slantwell and potential production wells at the CEMEX site.

ATTACHMENTS:

Final Draft Report:www.mwdoc.com/documents/FinalDraftReport4-6-07.pdf

Final Report for Dana Point dated 2014

http://www.mwdoc.com/cms2/ckfinder/files/files/Final%20Summary%20Re

port%20FINAL%20January%202014%20KWS%20with%20cover.pdf

Huntington Beach technical report dated October 2014:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/pdf/ISTAP_Final_Phase1_Report_10-9-14.pdf


12/40

MU

NICIPAL

WATE

R

DISTRICT

OF

OR

ANGE

COUNTY

September24,

2014

St reet Addr

ess

18 700 War

d Street

Fountain Valley, Califo

rni a 92708

Mailing A dd r

ess

P.O . Box 20895

Fountain Valle

y, CA 92728-0895

cott McCreary

ia email: sco

[email protected]

t

7

14) 963-3058

ONCUR

Fa

x: 714) 964-9389

www.mwdoc.com

Re: Commen

ts on Draft Pha

se 1 Report Tec

hnical Feasibili

ty of Subsurfac

e Intake

Designsfo

r the Proposed

Poseidon Wate

r Desalination F

acility at Hunt

ington Beach

Californ

ia Independen

t Scientific Tech

nical Advisory

Panel CONCU

R September 2

2

2014

We

offer the follo

wing clarifying

comments on t

he referenced d

raft report.

In general,it does notappear that theISTAP reviewed the full suiteof project reports for

the Dohen

yOcean Desal

ination Project,

Phase 1 Hydrog

eology Investig

ation, Phase 2

Test

Slant Wel

l Design/Constr

uction and Sub

surface Intake F

easibility Inves

tigation and Ph

ase

3 E

xtendedPumpi

ng and Pilot Pla

nt Test,but onl

y reliedon one

report prepared

by

Geoscienceand

some articles p

repared byGe

oscience. These

reports can be

found at our

web

site under Ocea

n Desalination

, Doheny Ocean

Desalination P

roject. We sug

gest a

fi

rst read of the P

roject Summar

y Report. Our c

oncern is that y

our report has

made

fi

ndings regardin

g slant wells th

at we strongly b

elieve are not

supported by ou

r research.

O

ur comments a

re mainly direc

ted to the gene

ralized stateme

nts made regard

ing slant

wells.

IST P F

indings

The

Draft Report pr

ovides the follo

wing findings a

nd conclusions

for slant wells i

nthe

Talb

ert Aquifer as g

eneralized in th

eSummary Ma

trix page 14) w

hich we find to

be

misleading an

d incorrect as e

xplained below

.

Res

ponse to ISTAP

Draft Report F

indings and Co

nclusions

Section 3.3

.6 Slant Wells

Design/Constr

uction Conside

rations.

The rep

ort is correct in

noting that Dua

lRotary

drilling is

a proven water

welltechnolog

y andits applica

tionto angle in

stallations has

also

been prov

en inmining ap

plications, but only in a few water supply projects Hudson River

a

nd Missouri Ri

ver, projects co

nstructed by La

yne) prior to ou

r Test Slant We

llproject on

Doheny StateB

each in 2006.

Howev

er, the report is

incorrect in dra

wing conclusio

ns regarding th

e performance

of the

test slan

t well and extra

polating those

results to a full

scale productio

n well, as many

tr

ade-offs were m

ade in our test

work, due to m

onetary and ti

me constraints.

Larry D. D

ick

Presiden t

W ay ne S O

sborne

Vice President

Brett R. Barbre

Direc tor

Wayne A. Cl

ark

Direc tor

Joa n

C Finnegan

Direc to

r

Susan

Hinman

Direc tor

JefferyM. Thomas

Direc tor

Robert J. Hunter

Gen eral M

anager

M E M B E R G

ENCIES

City of Brea

Ci

ty of Buena Park

E

ast OrangeCounty W ater

District

E

l Toro Water D istrict

Emerald Bay Ser

vice District

City of Fou

ntain Valley

C

ity of G arden Grove

G olden Stat

e Water Co.

Ci

ty of Huntington Beach

Irvine Ranch Water D

is trict

Laguna Beac

h County Water District

City of

La Habra

City of La Palma

Mesa Water Distric

t

M ou

lton Niguel Water Distr ic

t

City o

f Newport Beach

City of Orange

Or a

nge County Water District

City

of San Clemente

City of S

an Juan Capistrano

Santa

Margarita Water District

City of Seal Beach

Serrano W

ater District

South

Coast Water District

Trabuco Ca

nyon WaterDistrict

City

of Tustin

City of Westm

inster

Yorba L

inda Water D istrict


13/40

Mr. Scott McCreary

Page 2

September 24, 2014

Due to limited funding, our Test Slant Well project was designed as a uniform 12-inch diameter well (blank

casing and screened interval) without a larger diameter blank pump housing. Consequently, the largest

diameter submersible pump that could be installed in the well was a 10-inch pump. The well was developed

at about 1,700 gpm. A key objective of our test work was to stress the aquifer as much as feasible over a

subsequent 18-month extended pumping test period so that we could gain as much information on the

ability of the well to connect to the ocean and to evaluate pumped water quality as the old marine

groundwater was being pumped out and replaced by ocean water.

This led to a decision to use a high speed, high capacity pump. The well was subsequently equipped in 2009

with a high speed, 2480 rpm, 2,200 gpm pump. We anticipated sand clogging of the gravel pack and

expected a drop off in the well efficiency over the extended pumping test since it was not possible to fully

develop the well at the required 3,300 gpm pumping rate, as a pump at this capacity was not available from

manufacturers. It is industry standard practice to develop wells at 1.5 times the design discharge rate. To do

that for the Test Slant Well would have required a pump capable of approximately 3,300 gpm (2,100 gpm x

1.5). As this was not feasible due to pump house casing diameter limitations, the Test Slant Well was never

fully developed. As such, over time material entered the well during the approximate two year pilot pumping

test which contributed to higher well losses and lower efficiency near the end of the test. This would not

occur with a full scale well.

Development pumping at a rate 1.5 times the desired production rate is typically performed to fully entrain

and remove finer grain materials from the near well zone. At the normal production rate, these materials are

no longer entrained and a clear producing well is developed. This was not possible with our decision to use

the high capacity pump and consequently it was expected that sand clogging and well deterioration was

experienced over the extended pumping test.

For the full scale project, the well will be designed with a larger diameter pump blank housing casing, which

will enable development pumping at 4,500 gpm to produce a clear production well at 3,000 gpm. We are

certain that a thoroughly developed well can be constructed which will minimize well deterioration over

time. In addition, the use of 2507 Super Duplex Stainless Steel should show very low rates of corrosion and

biofouling, based on our pilot testing work, which will allow long periods between well maintenance

(estimated at 5 to 10 yrs to perform major re-development work).

Slant well maintenance is not complex nor is it much more difficult than what is required for conventional

vertical wells, but it is just done at an angle. Proven well development methods of jetting, brushing,

swabbing/bailing, air lifting, and development pumping would be used for the full scale production well and

any future re-development work. We learned a great deal on how to work at an angle and we don t see any

significant difficulties in construction, development and maintenance of the full scale production wells. At

Doheny, we plan to install 9 wells, 7 would be operational at any one time and 2 would be in standby

rotational status. This allows the operation to continue through the summer period when beach access is

not permitted should a pump fail. The ITSAP conclusions regarding design consideration and maintenance

should show a low risk rather than medium risk, as the medium finding was based on incorrect interpretation

of our test work.

MUNICIP L W TER DISTRICT OF OR NGE COUNTY


14/40

Mr.S

cott M

cCrea

ry

P

age 3

S

eptem

ber 24

,2014

C

omme

nt on

Geoch

emica

lIssu

es Pa

ge 50 a

nd 61

)

Th

e repo

rt state

s that

the gr

eatest

risk of

clogg

ing oc

curs w

here

there i

s mixi

ng of

dissim

ilar w

aters o

r a

chan

ge in

water

chemi

stry (e

.g. intr

oduct

ion of

dissol

ved ox

ygen)

andc

loggin

g is of

greate

st con

cernw

here

reh

abilita

tion is

comp

lex an

d exp

ensive

. Thes

e chal

lenges

are pr

imaril

y rela

ted to

old ma

rine g

round

water

thatis

anox

ic and

canco

ntain

elevat

ed lev

els of

dissolv

ed iro

n (Fe)

andm

angan

ese (M

n).T

his is

the cas

e in

th

e mar

ine aq

uifer o

ffshor

eof D

oheny

State

Beac

h.Ove

rthe

18mo

nth ex

tende

d pum

ping t

est, th

e

pr

oduce

dwate

r rem

ained

anoxic

as the

fract

ion of

ocean

recha

rge in

crease

drapi

dly int

othe

upper

screen

sec

tions.

In this

locati

on the

re is a

n abun

dance

of org

anic m

atter

in the

shallo

w sed

iment

s that w

ill lik

ely

allo

w the

uptak

e of di

ssolve

d oxyg

en to

contin

ue for

a lon

g perio

d of t

ime.

Mode

ling(f

low,v

ariable

dens

ity and

geoc

hemic

al) isc

urrent

ly bein

g con

ducted

to pr

ovide

an esti

mateo

f the

time topumpout theoldmarine groundwater that is enrichedwith dissolved Fe/Mn and to estimatethe

stea

dy sta

te wat

er qua

lity co

nditio

ns. Th

e plan

is to

first p

ump o

ut the

old m

arine

ground

water

befor

eusin

g

thi

swate

r for f

eedwa

ter fo

rthe d

esalin

ation f

acility

, a pro

cess t

hat is

estima

ted to

take a

bout o

ne ye

ar. Th

is

will

allow

a bett

er dete

rmina

tion o

f stead

y stat

e cond

itions

, whet

her or

not th

e aqui

fer wil

l be fu

lly ox

idized

wi

th oce

an wa

ter, an

dwill

allow

final p

ilot te

sting

to dete

rmine

if any

pretr

eatme

nt is re

quire

dto re

move

a

nyres

idual

lowle

vels of

Fe/M

n and

miner

als.A

small

amoun

t of m

ixing i

n the

range

of 5%

of fres

h

gr

oundw

ater c

ompa

red to

95% o

cean

water

(based

on m

odelin

gwor

k) is n

ot exp

ected

to cau

se any

si

gnifica

nt iss

ues wi

th pro

cess tr

eatme

nt and

mem

brane

foulin

g.

Sect

ion 5.

2.5 Sla

nt We

lls Co

mplet

ed in t

he Tal

bert A

quifer

C

urrent

slant w

ell te

chnolo

gy uti

lizing

thete

lescop

ic met

hodof

desig

n and

constr

uction

canre

sultin

angle

d

w

ells (s

lant w

ells) e

xtendi

ng 1,0

00 lin

eal ft.

With

long s

creen s

ection

s exte

nding

benea

th the

ocean

floor,

onsho

re dra

wdow

n imp

acts w

ould b

e min

imize

d, The

statem

ent th

at sla

nt wel

ls wo

uld dr

aw lar

ge vo

lumes

from

the Or

ange C

ounty

Grou

ndwa

ter Ba

sin as

a fata

l flaw

has n

ot bee

ndem

onstra

ted by

defen

dable

m

odeli

ng and

or pi

lot tes

ting. A

simp

le pilo

t testu

sing a

verti

cal we

ll com

pleted

in the

Talbe

rt aqu

ifer on

the

P

roject

site c

ould d

emon

strate i

mpact

s on w

ater l

evel ch

anges

in the

Talbe

rt aqu

ifer an

d the

overly

ing se

mi-

p

erche

d aqui

fer. M

onitor

ing we

lls in

the Ta

lbert a

quifer

ands

hallow

layer

s wou

ld pro

vide th

e nece

ssary

inte

rferen

ce info

rmati

on to c

onfirm

if th

ere we

re imp

acts t

o the O

CWD

grou

ndwat

er basi

n.

Water

quali

ty para

meter

s anal

yzed d

uring

the te

sting w

ould

allow

estima

tes of

perce

ntage

of oce

an wa

ter

and

inland

water

recha

rge. W

ith th

e well

scree

n well

out u

nder th

eoce

an, un

der a

consta

nthea

d bou

ndary,

the m

aximu

m rat

eof dr

aw fro

m the

inlan

daqui

fer wo

uld be

no gr

eater

than a

bout 5

%, ba

sed on

mode

ling

co

nduct

ed for

theSa

n Juan

Cree

k conf

ineda

lluvial

offsh

ore aq

uifers

ystem

. At th

is rate

, abou

t 6 mg

d of

injec

ted we

ll wat

er wou

ld be

produ

ced by

the s

lant w

ells co

mpare

d to p

roduc

tion of

120 m

gd fr

om the

slant

w

ells.

The p

roject

would

onlyh

ave to

prov

ide the

repla

cemen

t supp

ly to O

CWD

in th

is amo

unt, a

s most

of

the

inject

ion we

ll barr

ier is

rechar

ged to

the ba

sin an

d subs

equen

tly pro

duced

. This

is a r

elative

ly sma

ll

im

pact o

n sup

ply. T

he imp

act to

the ba

rrier w

ould

be eli

minate

d if th

e slan

twell

field w

ere si

tuated

acros

s

the

full w

idth of

the T

albert

Aquif

er and

provi

ded a

suffici

ent co

ne ofd

epres

sion to

contr

ol sea

water

MUN

ICIP L

W TE

R DIST

RICTO

F OR

NGEC

OUNTY


15/40

Mr. Scott McCreary

Page 4

September 24, 2014

intrusion. This could be an added benefit of using slant wells, especially under future sea level rise

conditions.

Comm ent on Sea W ater Intrusion

Contrary to what the ISTAP panel implies, wells pumping at the coast or from subsea aquifers beneath the

ocean floor do not contribute to sea water intrusion but on the contrary, help prevent sea water intrusion

through the creation of an extraction trough that intercepts seawater. Modeling studies of the full scale

slant well project at Doheny State Beach, Dana Point show that the slant well pumping trough will provide

seawater intrusion control. It should be noted that the gold standard in seawater intrusion control once was

considered to include both an extraction trough and an injection barrier. OCWD found that it could operate

just the injection barrier to provide effective seawater intrusion control, which has been utilized for many

years. However, in the future with sea level rise, the use of injection wells will become less effective and

problematic and a shift to extraction wells will be required to prevent sea water intrusion. A recent OCWD

study (Technical Memorandum, February 2013) evaluated potential effects from sea level rise to determine

protective levels, impacts on groundwater conditions and seawater intrusion, and how long injection wells

could be utilized before it would be necessary to shift to an extraction trough.

In conclusion, we have no issue if you eliminate slant wells from consideration at the Huntington Beach

location; but if you do so, they need to be for fully supportable and technically covered reasons. We would

request that the report be modified with the following revised matrix and appropriate changes to the text of

the report.

Criteria

Subfactor

Slant Wells in Talbert quifer

Hydrogeology

Impact on freshwater aquifers

Yes, but minor at 5 of

produced water

Design Considerations

Complexity of Construction

Performance Risk degree of

uncertainty of outcome

Reliability of Intake System

Frequency of Maintenance

Complexity of Maintenance

Medium

Low

igh

Low

Low

Oceanographic

Sensitivity to sea level rise

Low Actually a positive benefit

Geochemistry

Risk of adverse fluid mixing

Risk of clogging

Risk of significant change in

inorganic chemistry

Low

Low

Low

Precedent on large scale in

similar geologic conditions

No precedent

Key considerations/fatal flaws

None

Technically feasible? Yes or No

es



16/40

Mr. Scott McCreary

Page 5

September 24, 2014

This letter was jointly prepared with Dr. Dennis Williams, Geoscience and reviewed and concurred to by Dr.

Matt Charette, Coastal Geochemist, WHO and Mr. Gerry Filteau, President, SPI (Desalination Process

Treatment). We would be most willing to meet with the ISTAP to go over our findings, answer questions, and

to provide clarifications to their report.

If you should have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned at (714) 593-5003.

Sincerely,

Richard B. Bell, PE

Principal Engineer and Project Manager

cc

r. Tom Luster

Dr. Dennis Williams, Geoscience

Dr. Matt Charette, WHO

Mr. Gerry Filteau, SPI

Mr. Ron Davis, CalDesal



17/40



Item No: 5.

06/12


SUBJECT:Receive and Discuss the Current "Detailed" MPWSP CriticalPath Schedule for Permits & Approvals.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC receive an update on the Cal Am MPWSP

Critical Path Schedule for Permits and Approvals including the impact ofthe DEIR delay .

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting of November 7, 2014, the California Coastal Commissionissued a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for Cal Am's test slant well atthe CEMEX site, and construction of the test well is underway.

The issuance of the CDP was critical to the MPWSP schedule, however

many additional permits and approvals, as well as technical issues, remain.

The situation has been further complicated by the Jan 23, 2015 ruling byCPUC Administrative Law Judge Weatherford's to delay the release of theDEIR.

Accordingly, the TAC needs to review Cal Am's latest "detailed" permitsand approvals schedule in an effort to identify likely future delays orapproval challenges that might require Water Authority attention.

ATTACHMENTS:

Current Cal Am critical path schedule for Permits and Approvals


18/40

ULL SCALE PLANT & PIPELINES SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]

ported on January 30, 2015 5:18:44 PM MST


19/40



20/40



21/40



22/40


23/40



Item No: 6.

06/12


SUBJECT: Consider a recommendation to the Water Authority relative tothe vacant MCWD seat.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC consider a recommendation to the Water

Authority to invite the District Engineer or Acting General Manager of theMarina Coast Water District as a member of the Water Authority TAC.

DISCUSSION:

At Exhibit A is the staff report provided to the Water Authority on Aug 14,2014, recommending that Brian Lee be invited to join the TAC. Brianaccepted the invitation and served as a member until his departure fromMCWD in January 2015.

The TAC should discuss inviting the current interim General Manager, BillKoker, to fill the MCWD seat on the TAC.

EXHIBITS:A- Staff report provided to the Water Authority on Aug 14, 2014


24/40


Date: August 14, 2014

Item No: 7.

06/12


SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the GeneralManager, or District Engineer, of the Marina Coast Water District(MCWD) as a member of the Authority Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority invite Marina Coast Water District (MCWD)

participation on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and consider if it should makea recommendation to the settling parties to add a MCWD hydrologist to the test slantwell Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG).

DISCUSSION:

During January and July 2014, the City of Marina has been heavily involved in thepermitting of the bore hole construction and in consideration of a mitigated negativedeclaration (MND) and coastal development permit (DP) for Cal Am's test slant well atthe CEMEX site.

During public hearings, the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) raised a number ofconcerns that suggest a lack of communication between MCWD and Cal Am, and withthe Water Authority as well. This situation has not only delayed progress on the desalplant approval and construction, but has raised serious concerns on the part of theMCWD and City of Marina that its water needs may be placed at risk as a result of thedesal plant slant wells.

To initiate a dialog on these issues, several informal MCWD/MPRWA managementlevel meetings were held during the week of August 4. Amongst other things, it wasconcluded that participation by MCWD representatives onthe TAC, and possibly ontheHWG, would provide early MCWD input on technical issues related to the Desal facility

and the slant wells, facilitate MCWD environmental review of the MPWSP EIR, insurethe concerns of Marina residents get timely consideration, and improve communicationbetween and amongst MCWD, Cal Am, and the Water Authority.

It should be noted that the TAC already has a member from the agricultural communityto articulate ag interests prior to Water Authority decisions and deliberations. Thus, theExecutive Director recommends the Authority extend an invitation to the MCWD DistrictEngineer (Interim General Manager) to join the TAC for the same purpose.


25/40



Item No: 7.

06/12


SUBJECT:Discuss Preparations for Review of the Desal DEIR Scheduledfor Release in April 2015.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC discuss preparations for review of theDesal DEIR scheduled for release by the CPUC in April 2015.

DISCUSSION:

On January 23, 2015,The CPUC Administrative Law Judge delayed thecirculation of the Cal Am Desal DEIR until April of 2015 in order to allowdata from the test slant well to be available. He also increased the period oftime available for public comment and preparation of the FEIR.

Whenever the DEIR finally is circulated, the TAC will be tasked withreviewing it and advising the Water Authority Board as appropriate. The

TAC members are asked to discuss preparations for that review.

ATTACHMENTS:

ALJ Ruling of January 23, 2015 and revised CPUC schedule.


26/40

143858682 - 1 -

GW2/sbf/avs 1/23/2015

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American WaterCompany (U210W) for Approval of theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Projectand Authorization to Recover All Presentand Future Costs in Rates.

Application 12-04-019(Filed April 23, 2012)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES RULING UPDATING SCHEDULE

In order to allow the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) to incorporate more

complete data, the procedural schedule for Phase 1 of this proceeding is

modified. The primary changes are that the DEIR may be issued later than

previously scheduled, and that there will be a comment period on the DEIR of

60 days, rather the previous 45 days.

In addition, given the large number of parties in this proceeding, a ban on

ex partecommunications with decisionmakers is effective immediately. Two

all-party meetings will be added to the revised schedule to allow for parties to

present their views to the Commissioners in a fair and controlled manner.

In a previous ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Minkin on

August 21, 2014, parties Opening Briefs on legal and policy issues were due

60 days after issuance of the DEIR. To accommodate the revised comment

period on the DEIR, Opening Briefs are now due 75 days after issuance of the

DEIR, with Reply Briefs due 15 days after Opening Briefs.

FILED1-23-15

01:36 PM


27/40

A.12-04-019 GW2/sbf/avs

- 2 -

California-American Water (Cal-Am) has drilled a number of boreholes to

provide stratigraphic data that will be useful in performing hydrologic analysis

for the DEIR. In addition, Cal-Am is drilling a test well at the Cemex site. In the

process of drilling the test well, additional stratigraphic data will be obtained

that could be useful in the DEIRs hydrologic analysis.1 Incorporation and

analysis of this data, such as its use in modeling runs, is taking more time than

allowed for in the current schedule.

Our DEIR preparation process also needs to remain coordinated with the

DEIR being prepared by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

(MRWPCA) for their Groundwater Replenishment Project, and recent revisions

to the Groundwater Replenishment Project (such as the identification of new

source water) must also be analyzed and incorporated into the California Public

Utilities Commissions DEIR. In order to include this data and the related

analysis in the DEIR, more time is needed than is provided by the current

schedule. Because of the scope of the EIR, and its relationship to the

Groundwater Replenishment Project, we will be allowing for a 60-day, rather

than a 45-day, comment period on the DEIR.

Finally, it is important that the DEIR (and Final Environmental Impact

Report (FEIR)) provide adequate information and analysis of the possible effects

of the MPWSP on groundwater. The State Water Resources Control Board

(SWRCB) has indicated that this is a topic that is important for the Commission

to address, and has given us some guidance on how to do so. Commission staff

1 Because of the duration required for a pump test from the test well, it is unlikely that

significant pump test data from the test well will be available for the DEIR. In addition, the testwell is subject to litigation that could delay its drilling and operation.


28/40

A.12-04-019 GW2/sbf/avs

- 3 -

has consulted with SWRCB on this issue, and it appears that the potential value

of the additional data and analysis that hopefully will become available

outweighs the cost of the minor delay that is contemplated.

Accordingly, the schedule is modified to be as follows:

April 2015 DEIR issued for comment.

60 days from DEIR Comments on DEIR.

75 days from DEIR Opening Briefs filed and served.2

15 days from Opening Briefs Reply Briefs filed and served.3

July 2015 All-party meeting.

October 2015 FEIR published.

December 2015 Proposed Decision issued.

January 2016 All-party meeting.

February 2016 Proposed Decision on Commission Agenda.

The schedule for Phase 2 of this proceeding may also need to be modified,

but we will not modify it at this time. As the proceeding progresses, we will

evaluate the need to modify the Phase 2 schedule.

IT IS RULED that:

1. The schedule for this proceeding is modified as described above.

2 Briefs shall use a common outline. Cal-Am shall consult with parties to develop acommon outline, and shall serve the common outline no later than 15 days afterissuance of the DEIR.

3 Reply Briefs will follow the same common outline as the Opening Briefs.


29/40

A.12-04-019 GW2/sbf/avs

- 4 -

2. Ex partecommunications with decisionmakers in this proceeding are

prohibited.

Dated January 23, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ GARY WEATHERFORD

Gary WeatherfordAdministrative Law Judge


30/40

23 January 2015

UPDATED Schedule and Task Lis t for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 23 JAN 2015)

RED are changes from 7 Oct 13 Schedule.

CPUC Calendar Dates

Task Due Date Responsible Party NotesComments onSettlement Agreements

Due

August 30, 2013 Complete

Reply Comments onSettlement Agreements

Due

September 13, 2013 Complete

PrehearingConference: Status ofSettlement Motion (ifany), of CEQA work

& other matters

September 16, 2013 Complete

Quarterly Check-in Call

with Settling Parties

October 2014 MPRWA Complete

Informational Hearingon SettlementAgreements

December 2-3, 2013 Complete

Quarterly Check-in Callwith Settling Parties

January 2015 MPRWA Complete

DEIR circulated forComment

Feb 28, 2014April 2015

all


April 2015 MPRWA

Cal-Am to file and servea common outline for

legal and policy briefs,after consulting with

parties

April 29, 2014 15 daysafter issuance of DEIR

all

Comments on DEIRDue

April 14, 201460 days from DEIR

all

Common OutlineOpening Briefs filed and

served on legal andpolicy issues

April 29, 201475 days from DEIR

all

Reply Briefs filed andserved on legal and

policy issues

May 14, 201415 days from Opening

Briefs

all

All party meeting July 2015 CPUC

FEIR published June 17, 2014October 2015

CPUC

ProposedDecision addressing

certification of FEIR andissuance of CPCN

July 2014 Phase 1December 2015

CPUC


July 2015 MPRWA

Target for CommissionAction on Phase I

August 2014

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


31/40

23 January 2015

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes


October 2015 MPRWA

Quarterly Check-in Callwith Settling PartiesAll party meeting

January 2016 MPRWACPUC

Proposed Decision onCommission Agenda

February 2016 CPUC

Testimony, settlementdiscussions, hearings,

decisions fromSettlement K

December 2014-July2015 November 2015-

June 2016

Cal-Am, MRWPCA,MPWMD, CPUC

See GWR Schedule

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


32/40

23 January 2015

GWR (Rev 5 JAN 2015)


File Motion forBifurcation of theGWR Decision

August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted

Board Actions toApprove RevisedGovernance Committee

Agreement

August/Sept 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA,County, & Cal-Am To be Completed inOctober

Executed Agreementsfor GWR Source Water

and/or DeclaratoryRelief

Sept-Nov 20136 Party Joint MOU

Approved mid-Oct 2014

MRWPCA Meet & Confer inProgressfor DefinitiveAgreements (March

2015)

Draft WPAOct-Dec 2013April 2015

MPWMD & MRWPCA Delayed per Oct 2014CPUC Adjustment ofPhase 2 Schedule

Obtain Representationsfrom DPH re Use ofExtracted GWR Water

Oct-Dec 2013June 2014

MRWPCA Dept Public HealthConcept ProjectApproval received

June 2014

Obtain Representationsfrom RWQCB re Use ofExtracted GWR Water

Oct-Dec 2013June 2014

MRWPCA ????

Storage Agreementwith Seaside Basin

WatermasterOct-Dec 2013April 2015

MRWPCA & MPWMD

GWR Basis of DesignComplete with At Least

10% DesignOct-Dec 2013October 2014

MRWPCA complete

GWR Financing PlanSufficient for SRF

FundingOct-Dec 2013

May 2015

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Agreement on Terms ofWPA Jan 2014

June 2015

Cal-Am, MRWPCA,&MPWMD

Perform Revenue

Requirement AnalysisIncluding Any DebtEquivalency Effect

Jan-Mar 2014June 2015

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Perform Assessment ofGWR Positive and

Negative Externalitiesfor Any Premium

Showing

Jan-Mar 2014June 2015

MRWPCA & MPWMD

DEIR Circulated July 2014 March 2015 MRWPCA Coord w/Cal Am DEIR

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


33/40

23 January 2015

Dilution WaterRequirements

July-October 2014Not Required

MRWPCA

Project Approved andFEIR

October 2014September 2015

MRWPCA

CPUC TestimonyPhase Commences

November 2015 Cal-Am, MRWPCA,MPWMD, CPUC

CPUC EvidentiaryHearings

January 2016 Cal-Am, MRWPCA,MPWMD, CPUC

All Permits for GWRConstruction Obtained January 2015

February 2016

MRWPCA For Major Permits

Target for CPUC Actionon Phase 2 Decision

June 2016 Cal-Am, MRWPCA,MPWMD, CPUC

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


34/40

23 January 2015

Source Wells (Rev 5 JAN 2015)


Drill ExploratoryBoreholes

Sept. 2013 February2014

Cal-Am Complete

Commence

Hydrogeologic Studyand Technical Report

August 2013 Cal-Am / SVWC Underway

Permits for CEMEXSite Test Well

January 2014 Nov 12,2014

Cal-Am Coastal CommissionApproved CDP.

CEQA lawsuit pending

Drill CEMEX Site TestWell

February 2014 NovDec14-FebMar 15 subject

to Coastal Commission

Cal-Am

Results of Test WellOperation Obtained

February 2014 2015February 2016 2017

Cal-Am Delayed -see above

Hydrogeologic Studyand Technical Report

Complete and ResultsFiled with CPUC

June 2015

?

Cal-Am Delayed -see above

Necessary Agreementsfrom CEMEX for

Source Wells

Nov. 2015, or sooner?Nov 2016, or sooner

Cal-Am

All Necessary Permitsfor Construction of

Source Wells Obtained

Nov. 2015, or sooner?Nov 2016 or sooner

Cal-Am

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


35/40

23 January 2015

Securit ization (Rev 5 JAN 2015)

Initial Revision and

Redline of Legislation

Early September 2013 MPWMD Complete

Obtain Cal-Am Input onDraft Legislation

Late September 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA, &Cal-Am

Complete

Retain Necessary

Additional

Financial/Legal

Consultants (Charles

Atkins)

October 2013 MPWMD In ProgressComplete

Revise Financial

Comparison of

Securitization v. Cal-Am

Financing

October 2013 MPWMD & Cal-Am In ProgressOn-Going

Meeting with

Community/Interest

Groups and Cities

October-December

2013

MPWMD & MPRWA In Progress Complete

Further Revise

Legislation as

Necessary

October-November

2013

In Progress Complete

Draft Summary of

Legislation

December 2013 MPWMD Complete

Introduce Legislation January 2014 Complete

Lobbying Effort February-April 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, &

Cal-Am

In Progress Complete

Legislation Adopted

Governor Signed

April-May 2014 Sept 19,

2014

Passed Senate

Unanimously; Referred

to Assembly Complete

Initial Draft of Motion for

Financing Order

April 2014

March 2015

MPWMD

Perform Analysis to

Demonstrate Annual

Customer Benefits

Exceed 1.0% of Total

Annual Revenue

Requirement

April 2014

March 2015

MPWMD & Cal-Am

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


36/40

23 January 2015

Motion Application for

Financing Order

May 2014

May 2015

MPWMD

Obtain CPUC Financing

Order

August 2014 November

2015

Order on securitization

financing on satisfaction

of remaining criteriafrom Settlement K

Preliminary Discussions

with Bond Underwriters

September-December

2014

MPWMD Complete??

Drafting of

documentation for bond

requestsDocuments

September

2014January-April 2015

MPWMD & Cal-Am

Preliminary Discussions

with Rating Agencies

February-April 2015 MPWMD

Issuance of Public BondFinancing

End of 2015 Q2-Q32016

MPWMD

015621\0002\11340073.11/30/15


37/40



Item No: 8.

06/12


SUBJECT:Receive Updated MPRWA Fact Sheet and Discuss AuthorityExpectations Relative to Each Project Cited.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC review and comment on the revised WaterAuthority fact sheet, discuss the Water Authority's expectations with

respect to each project cited in the fact sheet, and provide appropriaterecommendations to staff and to the Water Authority Board.

DISCUSSION:

The MPRWA fact sheet is updated periodically and is intended to provideupdated information on progress toward completing one or more watersupply projects to replace Cal Am's overdraft of the Carmel River andprojected reductions from the Seaside Aquifer. The fact sheet is usually a

leave-behind when staff or board members make verbal presentations tocommunity groups.

The latest update includes schedule changes up through and including theJan 23, 2015 ruling from the CPUC Administrative Law Judge delaying therelease of the Desal DEIR.

The TAC needs to review the update and insure that Water Authorityexpectations are being addressed for each project cited on the fact sheet.

ATTACHMENTS:

Updated Fact Sheet as of Feb 1, 2015.


38/40


39/40

---

-


40/40

-

-

------- -------

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 02-02-15

Documents

Transcript of TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 02-02-15