Filing Date 02-26-13
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF LLOYD W. LOWREY, JR. SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE MCWD & REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California
American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 RENEWAL OF MOTION OF SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS
ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California
American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in
Rates, RENEWAL OF MOTION OF
SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS document is
embedded. Official Notice be taken of the following: 1) US Bureau of
Reclamation Contract No. 5-07-20-W12831 with Monterey County Water Resources
Agency (MCWRA) dated May 23, 1995. (Attachment #1, previously filed with the Commission on
July 25, 2012)
Filing Date 02-25-13
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MOTION OF SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS
ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California
American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in
Rates, MOTION OF SALINAS VALLEY
WATER COALITION FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS document is embedded. Documents for Official Notice of Facts
includes:
1) MCWRA Agency Map of Zone 2C (Attachment 1) as shown in Engineers Report
To Support an Assessment for The Salinas Valley Monterey County Water Salinas Valley
Water Project of the Monterey
County
2) MCWRA Map of Zone 2C North County
3) Monterey County Water Resources Agency Ordinance No.
3709 (Attachment 3)
4) MCWRA Agency Act, Water Code Chapter 52, Section 21. (Attachment 4)
Filing Date 02-25-13
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA): Legal Argument that The County is Ineligible for Membership in the Authority According to California Government Code §1099, Agency Act, Attorney General Opinion 10-903 & MPWMD Act, § 118-203
ABSTRACT: In the context of an anticipated California
Attorney General Opinion in about one year regarding the legal issue of
Incompatible Offices and the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority’s appointment of Supervisor Dave
Potter to the Mayor’s Water Authority Board of Directors and Governance
Committee, a legal argument is presented arguing that The County is Ineligible
for Membership in the Authority and Specific Disqualification of Supervisor
Potter. Supporting documents, namely Government Code §1099 is reproduced, the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency Act, Water Code Appendix, Chapter 52 (the Agency Act) (Agency Act §52-71), Attorney General Opinion 10-903 and West's
ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES WATER CODE-APPENDIX Sections 108-1 to End (MPWMD
Act, § 118-203) documents, are embedded.
52-71 Duties of Supervisors concerning litigation
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 10-903
WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES WATER CODE APPENDIX Sections 108-1 to End
LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR
INCOMPATIBLE OFFICES
The County is
Ineligible for Membership in the Authority
Next, even under the best of intentions, the County is not
eligible to join the Authority under the JPA. Supervisor Potter, himself, is
specifically ineligible to serve on the Authority board as a representative of the
County on independent grounds. These findings are based upon Government Code §1099, related conflict of
interest considerations and the MPWMD Law.
The JPA envisions a future water regime that would include
the Authority working with agencies such as MPWMD, the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency (MCWRA), the County and others, under a comprehensive water management
plan. Ultimately such an integrated county-wide water management system
represents the only conceivable solution to the water crisis. But the Authority
must establish itself first under the terms of its own Agreement. Its members
must make several fundamental decisions specifically requiring only their own
consensus. It is not until then that the Authority can effectively engage with
outside agencies and private interests.
Consequently, no member of the Board of Supervisors may
serve on the Authority. Again, Government Code § 1099 applies. However, more
specifically, the County is conflicted out of Authority membership based upon
the Board of Supervisor's role as a supernumerary to MCWRA under the Monterey
County Water Resources Agency Act, Water Code Appendix, Chapter 52 (the Agency
Act). In particular, Agency Act §52-71, provides:
Sec. 71. Duties of Supervisors concerning
litigation.
(a) The Board of Supervisors are [sic]
responsible for the initiation and the conduct of any
litigation by the Agency and for the settlement of any litigation.
Consequently, the Board of Supervisors would be directly
involved in litigation and settlement activities if any action were to arise between
the Authority and MCWRA' In anyone's reasonable estimation, such an action must
be considered fairly likely. This, under an Attorney General Opinion 10-903
analysis and general conflict of interest principles, clearly precludes the County's
direct participation in Authority activities.
The JPA foresees the County as ultimately an essential ally.
By its terms it provides a very effective alternative to direct County
membership. Paragraph 4.20 of Article 4 states that the Authority has the
power:
To organize and/or participate with local
agencies to form a water management group to develop and
implement an Integrated Water Management Plan pursuant
to Water Code sections 10530 et seq.
This is the basis for future county-wide cooperation, which
is not only desirable, but ultimately essential, to resolution of the water
crisis. The JPA provides a strong basis for the success of such a program, with
the mayors taking the initiative on behalf of municipal water users.
Specific
Disqualification of Supervisor Potter
On narrower grounds, Supervisor Potter is prima facie
ineligible to serve on the Authority board. This is because, unlike Mayor Pendergrass, Mr. Potter
may not forfeit his MPWMD seat. His
unique role under the MPWMD Law is that he, or his successor, is the only
supervisor eligible to serve on the MPWMD board. [MPWMD Act, § 118-203] It is
impossible for him to leave the MPWMD board without removal from office as a
member of the Board of Supervisors.
Source: Letter to Donald G. Freeman from THE THOMPSON LAW
OFFICE, Richard Glenn, Re: Monterey
Peninsula
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1099
1099. (a) A public officer, including, but not limited
to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee,
or other body, shall not simultaneously hold two public offices that are
incompatible. Offices are incompatible when any of the following circumstances
are present, unless simultaneous holding of the particular offices is compelled
or expressly authorized by law:
(1) Either of the
offices may audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or
exercise supervisory powers over the other office or body.
(2) Based on the powers and jurisdiction of the
offices, there is a possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties
between the offices.
(3) Public policy
considerations make it improper for one person to hold both offices.
(b) When two public
offices are incompatible, a public officer shall be deemed to have forfeited
the first office upon acceding to the second. This provision is enforceable
pursuant to Section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(c) This section
does not apply to a position of employment, including a civil service position.
(d) This section
shall not apply to a governmental body that has only advisory powers.
(e) For purposes of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a member of a multimember body holds an
office that may audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or
exercise supervisory powers over another office when the body has any of these
powers over the other office or over a multimember body that includes that
other office.
(f) This section
codifies the common law rule prohibiting an individual from holding
incompatible public offices.
AGENCY ACT
Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, Water Code
Appendix, Chapter 52 (the Agency Act) (Agency Act §52-71)
Sec. 71. Duties of
Supervisors concerning litigation.
(a) The Board of
Supervisors are responsible for the initiation and the conduct of any
litigation by the Agency and for the settlement of any
litigation.
(b) The Directors
or general manager shall refer all matters with respect to which litigation
is likely to the Board of Supervisors.
(c) The
chairperson of the Directors, or his or her designee, may be present during a
closed session held by the Board of
Supervisors to consider matters pertaining to litigation affecting the Agency.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 10-903
Attorney General Opinion No. 10-903
West's ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES WATER CODE-APPENDIX Sections
108-1 to End (MPWMD Act, § 118-203)
ADDENDUM:
State of California
Office of the Attorney General
SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM February 26, 2013: CONSIDERATION Agreement among the City of Salinas, DeepWater Desal LLC and California Water Service Company
ABSTRACT: The Salinas City Council is scheduled to meet today, Tuesday, February 26, 2013 to consider an Agreement among the City of Salinas, DeepWater Desal LLC and California Water Service Company. The REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the attached Agreement between the City of Salinas, DeepWater Desai LLC (DWDS) and California Water Service Company (CWS) with regard to a wholesale power purchase agreement.
The REPORT includes the AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF SALINAS, DEEPWATER DESAL LLC, AND CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WITH REGARD TO A WHOLESALE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT and DeepWater Desal Central Coast Regional Water Project Fact Sheet.
The REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL document is embedded.
The amended agreement between the city and the two entities would still be focused on exploring a potential deal to purchase water and wholesale power from a desal plant, dubbed the Central Coast Regional Water Project, and power generator at the Dynegy power plant in Moss Landing.
Last week, the state Lands Commission agreed to serve as lead agency for state, and potentially federal, environmental review of the DeepWater Desal project, and begin soliciting consultants to conduct a full environmental impact report.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the attached Agreement between the City of Salinas, DeepWater Desai LLC (DWDS) and California Water Service Company (CWS) with regard to a wholesale power purchase agreement.
The REPORT includes the AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF SALINAS, DEEPWATER DESAL LLC, AND CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WITH REGARD TO A WHOLESALE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT and DeepWater Desal Central Coast Regional Water Project Fact Sheet.
The REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL document is embedded.
www.ci.salinas.ca.us
|
Mayor Joe Gunter
Councilmember Jose Castañeda, District 1
Councilmember Tony Barrera, District 2
Councilmember Steve McShane, District 3
Councilmember Gloria De La Rosa, District 4
Councilmember Kimbley Craig, District 5
Councilmember Jyl Lutes, District 6
Ray E. Corpuz, Jr., City Manager
Vanessa Vallarta, City Attorney
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
4 P.M.
CONSIDERATION
3. Agreement
among the City of Salinas
a. Receive report from Ray E. Corpuz, Jr., City Manager.
b. Councilmembers’ questions.
c. Public comments.
d. Councilmembers’ comments
e. Adopt a RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to sign
an Agreement between the City of Salinas
RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
City to consider Cal Water deal
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/25/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
On Tuesday, the Salinas City Council is set to consider amending a five-year agreement with DeepWater Desal LLC to include California Water Service Co., one of the city's two municipal water purveyors. The amended agreement between the city and the two entities would still be focused on exploring a potential deal to purchase water and wholesale power from a desal plant, dubbed the Central Coast Regional Water Project, and power generator at the Dynegy power plant in Moss Landing.
Last week, the state Lands Commission agreed to serve as lead agency for state, and potentially federal, environmental review of the DeepWater Desal project, and begin soliciting consultants to conduct a full environmental impact report.
Monday, February 25, 2013
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES February 28, 2013
AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
February 28, 2013
MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
MPRWA
February 28, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
‘Monterey Peninsula desal project has two backup options:’ Central Coast Regional Water Project (DeepWater Desal's proposal) & People's Moss Landing Desal Project
ABSTRACT: Excerpts Highlights of The Monterey County Herald’s news article entitled “Monterey Peninsula desal project has two backup options In case Cal Am project fails” by Herald Staff Writer Jim Johnson are presented; a link to the complete news article is provided.
In case Cal Am project fails
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/22/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
DeepWater Desal and the People's Moss Landing Desal Project
will compete for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's support as
a contingency project.
DeepWater Desal's proposal, dubbed the Central Coast
Regional Water Project, calls for creating a public-private partnership charged
with paying for, and eventually owning and operating, a desal plant capable of
delivering 10,000 acre-feet per year of potable water for the Peninsula .
The partnership would include a single public agency or a new joint powers
authority of public agencies.
The People's Project proposal calls for Moss Landing
Commercial Park LLC to design and build a $75.5 million desal plant on about 25
acres at the 200-acre business park site. It would rely on existing infrastructure,
including pipelines and easements.
According to the plan, the desal plant would be capable of
producing up to 11,200 acre-feet of potable water a year.
The plan would require the water management district to
purchase the desal plant site for $25 million or sign a 50-year lease with a
49-year option including terms to be negotiated. The project developer would
promise to consider deferring acquisition costs until bonds are sold to finance
the project.
GEOSCIENCE Technical Memorandum & TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM and TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 2 from Timothy Durbin to the Salinas Valley Water Coalition
ABSTRACT: Excerpts Highlights of The Monterey County Herald’s news article entitled “Memo on Salinas Valley groundwater basin contradicts ag group's report,” by Herald Staff Writer Jim Johnson are presented; a link to the complete news article is provided. The GEOSCIENCE Technical Memorandum and TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM and TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 2 from Timothy Durbin to the Salinas Valley Water Coalition on the Subject: California-American Water Company – Response to comments by Geoscience on technical memorandum by Timothy Durbin (Salinas Valley Water Coalition’s hydrologist) dated December 3, 2012 regarding proposed pumping are embedded.
Memo on Salinas Valley groundwater basin contradicts ag group's report
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/19/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
Debate about the potential impact of California American Water's plans to draw source water for its desalination plant from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin has taken a new turn.
A new memo from a consultant hired by the state Public Utilities Commission contradicts conclusions about the basin in a report issued by an expert for an agricultural interest group. The report is at the core of concerns about the effect of additional pumping on the aquifer.
In a December letter to the state water board, Salinas Valley Water Coalition president Nancy Isakson cited a report from the coalition's hydrologist, Tim Durbin, that challenged Cal Am's assumptions regarding the nature of the basin and potential impact of pumping. Isakson dubbed a Geoscience model relied on by Cal Am "seriously flawed."
GEOSCIENCE Technical Memorandum
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/19/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
Debate about the potential impact of California American Water's plans to draw source water for its desalination plant from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin has taken a new turn.
A new memo from a consultant hired by the state Public Utilities Commission contradicts conclusions about the basin in a report issued by an expert for an agricultural interest group. The report is at the core of concerns about the effect of additional pumping on the aquifer.
In a December letter to the state water board, Salinas Valley Water Coalition president Nancy Isakson cited a report from the coalition's hydrologist, Tim Durbin, that challenged Cal Am's assumptions regarding the nature of the basin and potential impact of pumping. Isakson dubbed a Geoscience model relied on by Cal Am "seriously flawed."
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
(From Timothy Durbin to the Salinas Valley
December 3, 2012
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 2
(From Timothy Durbin to the Salinas Valley
February 21-2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES February 25, 2013
AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
February 25, 2013
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
February 25, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
February 25, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA February 11, 2013: PRESENTATION Update on Groundwater Replenishment Project & ACTION ITEM Consider FY 2012/13 Urban Reclamation Fund Budgets & CORRESPONDENCE Letter to MCWRA to propose development of a plan to secure water sources for the growers, February 1, 2013
RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
“A proposed water rights agreement backed by the growers was not approved by the agency board on Monday, and Israel acknowledged that the issue remains unresolved.”
ABSTRACT: The Board of Directors of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) conducted a Special Meeting on Monday, February 11, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. The MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKET, February 11, 2013, includes, as follows:
PRESENTATIONS Update on Groundwater Replenishment Project Discussions – Keith Israel;
ACTION ITEMS Consider FY 2012/13 Urban Reclamation Fund Budgets
That the Board Approve FY 2012/13 Budgets for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP – UR 501) for $25,000, Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR – UR 502) for $750,000, Brine and Ocean Outfall (UR 504) for $25,000, and Urban Reclamation Public Outreach (UR 505) for $25,000;
CORRESPONDENCE Letter to MCWRA to propose development of a plan to secure water sources for the growers, February 1, 2013.
The AGENDA PACKET, SPECIAL MEETING document and PRESENTATION are embedded.
MRWPCA Special Board Mtg Agenda Packet 02-11-13
Slowing Seawater Intrusion
Changing Wastewater into Safe Water
Would be supplemental source of water
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/15/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
“After months of delay, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Pollution Control Agency board of directors on Monday unanimously approved spending for an environmental review of the agency's groundwater replenishment project, and studying agricultural wastewater as a potential feeder source. The $750,000 project budget for the current fiscal year will be paid for through agency reserves, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District user fee revenue and grant funding.” “A proposed water rights agreement backed by the growers was not approved by the agency board on Monday, and Israel acknowledged that the issue remains unresolved.”
PRESENTATIONS Update on Groundwater Replenishment Project Discussions – Keith Israel;
ACTION ITEMS Consider FY 2012/13 Urban Reclamation Fund Budgets
That the Board Approve FY 2012/13 Budgets for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP – UR 501) for $25,000, Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR – UR 502) for $750,000, Brine and Ocean Outfall (UR 504) for $25,000, and Urban Reclamation Public Outreach (UR 505) for $25,000;
CORRESPONDENCE Letter to MCWRA to propose development of a plan to secure water sources for the growers, February 1, 2013.
The AGENDA PACKET, SPECIAL MEETING document and PRESENTATION are embedded.
Note: Audio of Special Meeting
MRWPCA Special Board Mtg Agenda Packet 02-11-13
AGENDA PACKET, SPECIAL MEETING
MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
February 11, 2013
PRESENTATION
Update on Groundwater
Replenishment Project
Discussions – Keith Israel
February 11, 2013
ADDENDUM:
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS AND OTHER SUBJECTS
ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS AND OTHER SUBJECTS document is embedded. IT IS RULED that:
1. California-American Water Company is directed to contact the Parties, obtain cross-examination time estimates and coordinate the sequencing of the cross-examinations. Parties are to cooperate in that undertaking and, where possible, to consolidate cross-examination questions to limit unnecessary duplication. California- American Water Company is directed to file and serve a compliance report proposing an allocation and sequencing of cross-examination time, preferably in matrix format, as soon as it is practicable but not later than Friday, March 22, 2013.
2. Action on the Planning and Conservation League’s Motion to Establish Project Sizing Criteria will be taken at a later date.
3. Beginning 30 days after the end of the second quarter of 2013 and continuing in the same manner in subsequent quarters until the Commission acts finally on Application 12-04-019 or, if that final action is approval, until the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) is on line, Cal-Am shall notice the Service List and a newspaper of general circulation (both electronically) and ratepayers (via bill messages) of the location and availability of new quarterly MPWSP progress reports on California-American Water Company’s Water Supply Project website: http://www.watersupplyproject.org. All of the quarterly MPWSP progress reports will remain available on the website. Upon the request of a ratepayer, Cal-Am will provide a copy of a progress report via U.S. Mail. California-American Water Company will interlink its company website, http://www.amwater.com/caaw, with its Water Supply Project’s website. The progress reports are to be as lengthy, textured and free of overly technical verbiage as appropriate for keeping a lay readership informed of the important features, milestones (reached and/or missed) and challenges of the MPWSP, including the Groundwater Replenishment and Aquifer Storage & Recovery components as relevant. The progress reports should include a time line or a Gantt chart for all major activities on the MPWSP and an explanation of the same. The actual time line can be appended to the report. For each major activity in the MPWSP the progress reports are to include the budgeted amounts, the amounts actually spent, the amounts remaining and the percentage completed. Significant developments and updates pertaining to the contingency options covered in Attachment 9 of Richard C. Svindland’s Supplemental Testimony of January 11, 2013, also are to be included.
4. Under the authority variously provided in Evidence Code §§ 451(a), 452(a), (c) and (d), official notice is hereby taken of those documents of record in the San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-12-521875 that are contained in Attachment 1 of California-American Water Company’s Motion for Official Notice, namely the County of Monterey’s (County) Complaint for Declaratory Relief, dated June 26, 2012; 2) the County’s Request for Dismissal with prejudice of entire action of all parties and all causes of action filed, dated December 11, 2012; and 3) a print-out of the San Francisco Superior Court’s docket which shows that the matter was taken off the calendar on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to the authority provided by Evidence Code § 452(h) and §453(a) and (b), official notice is hereby taken of Ordinance No. 3439 (Chapter 10.72, Monterey County Code, relating to the operation of a desalination facility) also included in Attachment 1 of California-American’s motion for official notice.
5. The protective order sought by George T. Riley, on behalf of Citizens for Public Water, in the January 3, 2013 motion is hereby granted pursuant to General Order 66-C. The personal financial information submitted under seal is withdrawn from general public inspection. Any Party of record to this proceeding may be allowed by the assigned Administrative Law Judge to review the information that is under seal upon 1) written request, 2) a showing of good cause, and 3) execution of an appropriate non-disclosure agreement.
6. The Docket Office’s rejection on January 17, 2013 of the pre-hearing conference statement of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition, on the ground that the submission was not authorized for filing, was without prejudice to that Party’s opportunity to proffer information in and/or attached to that document in the form of Intervenor Testimony
Including ATTACHMENT A
EVIDENTIARY HEARING GUIDELINES
1. California-American Water Company is directed to contact the Parties, obtain cross-examination time estimates and coordinate the sequencing of the cross-examinations. Parties are to cooperate in that undertaking and, where possible, to consolidate cross-examination questions to limit unnecessary duplication. California- American Water Company is directed to file and serve a compliance report proposing an allocation and sequencing of cross-examination time, preferably in matrix format, as soon as it is practicable but not later than Friday, March 22, 2013.
2. Action on the Planning and Conservation League’s Motion to Establish Project Sizing Criteria will be taken at a later date.
3. Beginning 30 days after the end of the second quarter of 2013 and continuing in the same manner in subsequent quarters until the Commission acts finally on Application 12-04-019 or, if that final action is approval, until the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) is on line, Cal-Am shall notice the Service List and a newspaper of general circulation (both electronically) and ratepayers (via bill messages) of the location and availability of new quarterly MPWSP progress reports on California-American Water Company’s Water Supply Project website: http://www.watersupplyproject.org. All of the quarterly MPWSP progress reports will remain available on the website. Upon the request of a ratepayer, Cal-Am will provide a copy of a progress report via U.S. Mail. California-American Water Company will interlink its company website, http://www.amwater.com/caaw, with its Water Supply Project’s website. The progress reports are to be as lengthy, textured and free of overly technical verbiage as appropriate for keeping a lay readership informed of the important features, milestones (reached and/or missed) and challenges of the MPWSP, including the Groundwater Replenishment and Aquifer Storage & Recovery components as relevant. The progress reports should include a time line or a Gantt chart for all major activities on the MPWSP and an explanation of the same. The actual time line can be appended to the report. For each major activity in the MPWSP the progress reports are to include the budgeted amounts, the amounts actually spent, the amounts remaining and the percentage completed. Significant developments and updates pertaining to the contingency options covered in Attachment 9 of Richard C. Svindland’s Supplemental Testimony of January 11, 2013, also are to be included.
4. Under the authority variously provided in Evidence Code §§ 451(a), 452(a), (c) and (d), official notice is hereby taken of those documents of record in the San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-12-521875 that are contained in Attachment 1 of California-American Water Company’s Motion for Official Notice, namely the County of Monterey’s (County) Complaint for Declaratory Relief, dated June 26, 2012; 2) the County’s Request for Dismissal with prejudice of entire action of all parties and all causes of action filed, dated December 11, 2012; and 3) a print-out of the San Francisco Superior Court’s docket which shows that the matter was taken off the calendar on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to the authority provided by Evidence Code § 452(h) and §453(a) and (b), official notice is hereby taken of Ordinance No. 3439 (Chapter 10.72, Monterey County Code, relating to the operation of a desalination facility) also included in Attachment 1 of California-American’s motion for official notice.
5. The protective order sought by George T. Riley, on behalf of Citizens for Public Water, in the January 3, 2013 motion is hereby granted pursuant to General Order 66-C. The personal financial information submitted under seal is withdrawn from general public inspection. Any Party of record to this proceeding may be allowed by the assigned Administrative Law Judge to review the information that is under seal upon 1) written request, 2) a showing of good cause, and 3) execution of an appropriate non-disclosure agreement.
6. The Docket Office’s rejection on January 17, 2013 of the pre-hearing conference statement of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition, on the ground that the submission was not authorized for filing, was without prejudice to that Party’s opportunity to proffer information in and/or attached to that document in the form of Intervenor Testimony
Filing Date 02-13-13
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS AND OTHER SUBJECTS Including ATTACHMENT A
EVIDENTIARY HEARING GUIDELINES
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES February 14, 2013
MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 02-14-13
AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
February 14, 2013
Includes:
Approve and Authorize the President to Execute an Agreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee Together with California American Water Company, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and the County of Monterey and Appoint the Water Authority’s Representative to Said Committee
Review the First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Recommend Execution by Member Cities and the County of Monterey to Add the the County of Monterey as a Member of the Water Authority and to Make Other Modifications to the Agreement
DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
February 14, 2013
Includes:
Approve and Authorize the President to Execute an Agreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee Together with California American Water Company, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and the County of Monterey and Appoint the Water Authority’s Representative to Said Committee
Review the First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Recommend Execution by Member Cities and the County of Monterey to Add the the County of Monterey as a Member of the Water Authority and to Make Other Modifications to the Agreement
DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
February 14, 2013
‘Once upon a time.. Tales from Carmel by the Sea’
ABSTRACT: Featuring the best and most eclectic aspects of
Carmel-by-the-Sea and environs, Once upon a time..Tales from
Carmel by the Sea Just another WordPress.com site is presented with
stunning photographs. Links to February
2013 posts and selected posts, including “THE FENCE THAT MAKES
GOOD NEIGHBORS….. NEEDS A GATE TO MAKE GOOD FRIENDS,” are provided.
DINING AL FRESCO IN CARMEL February 2013
Yves Delorme ~ Fine Linens In Carmel-by-the Sea February 2013
Saturday, February 09, 2013
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Meeting AGENDA ITEM Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee & Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Closed Session Meeting AGENDA ITEM regarding California-American Water Company, 12 February 2013
RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Supervisor Dave Potter named Monterey County representative for desal panel
Salinas named alternate
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/13/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
"Supervisor Dave Potter was chosen Tuesday to represent the county's interests on a proposed public governance committee that would be charged with oversight of California American Water's proposed desalination plant."
"Originally proposed and ultimately approved on Jan. 31 by the Peninsula mayors' water authority, the three-person committee would include members representing the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Peninsula Water Authority."
"The supervisors agreed Tuesday to support in principle a position statement proposed by the mayors' authority regarding Cal Am's project, including a set of conditions such as requiring a public contribution of funds designed to lower project costs and fully developed alternative source water intake plans. But the supervisors stopped short of adopting the conditions to avoid breaching the terms of the county's settlement agreement with Cal Am involving the regional project, McKee said."
1. Approve the Agreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee and authorize the Chair to execute the agreement.
2. Appoint one Supervisor as a member and one Supervisor as an alternate to the Governance Committee.
3. Support, in concept, the principles of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority’s Position Statement (labeled “Deliberative Document”).
And SUMMARY:
The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee is intended to provide public oversight of the proposed project. The Committee is to be composed of members from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), California American Water Company (CAW) and the County of Monterey. The agreement has been or is expected to be approved by all parties within the next few weeks. In addition, the MPRWA has adopted a Position Statement (labeled “Deliberative Document”) that they would like your Board to support.
Attachment 1 Water Authority Position Statement 2013-01-31 and Attachment 2 MPWSP Governance Committee Agreement are embedded.
The Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency is also scheduled to consider Closed Session Meeting Agenda Item regarding California-American Water Company; the Agenda is embedded.
Note: Meeting Videos, Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency& Board of Supervisors
Monterey County Monterey County
Government Center Salinas , CA 93901
Attachment 1 Water Authority Position Statement 2013-01-31
Monterey County Monterey County
Government Center Salinas , CA 93901
Supervisor Dave Potter named Monterey County representative for desal panel
Salinas named alternate
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/13/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
"Supervisor Dave Potter was chosen Tuesday to represent the county's interests on a proposed public governance committee that would be charged with oversight of California American Water's proposed desalination plant."
"Originally proposed and ultimately approved on Jan. 31 by the Peninsula mayors' water authority, the three-person committee would include members representing the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Peninsula Water Authority."
"The supervisors agreed Tuesday to support in principle a position statement proposed by the mayors' authority regarding Cal Am's project, including a set of conditions such as requiring a public contribution of funds designed to lower project costs and fully developed alternative source water intake plans. But the supervisors stopped short of adopting the conditions to avoid breaching the terms of the county's settlement agreement with Cal Am involving the regional project, McKee said."
ABSTRACT: On February 12, 2013, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider Meeting Agenda Item Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee. The Report RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:1. Approve the Agreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee and authorize the Chair to execute the agreement.
2. Appoint one Supervisor as a member and one Supervisor as an alternate to the Governance Committee.
3. Support, in concept, the principles of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority’s Position Statement (labeled “Deliberative Document”).
And SUMMARY:
The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee is intended to provide public oversight of the proposed project. The Committee is to be composed of members from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), California American Water Company (CAW) and the County of Monterey. The agreement has been or is expected to be approved by all parties within the next few weeks. In addition, the MPRWA has adopted a Position Statement (labeled “Deliberative Document”) that they would like your Board to support.
Attachment 1 Water Authority Position Statement 2013-01-31 and Attachment 2 MPWSP Governance Committee Agreement are embedded.
The Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency is also scheduled to consider Closed Session Meeting Agenda Item regarding California-American Water Company; the Agenda is embedded.
Note: Meeting Videos, Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency& Board of Supervisors
Board Chamber
168 W. Alisal St. , 1st
Floor
Meeting Agenda -
Final-revised
Tuesday, February 12,
2013
9:00 AM
Board of Supervisors
Chair Fernando
Armenta - District 1
Vice-Chair Louis R.
Calcagno - District 2
Supervisor Simón
Salinas - District 3
Supervisor Jane
Parker - District 4
Supervisor Dave
Potter - District 5
Roll Call
10:30 A.M. - Scheduled Matters
10.3
1. Consider approving the Agreement to Form the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee and authorize the Chair to
execute the agreement.
2. Appoint one Supervisor as a member and one Supervisor as
an alternate to the Governance Committee.
3. Consider supporting, in concept, the principles of the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority’s Position Statement. (Added via
Addendum)
Attch 1 Water Authority Position Statement 2013-01-31
Attch 2
MPWSP_Governance_Committee_Agreement
Attachment
1 Water Authority Position Statement 2013-01-31
Attachment
2 MPWSP Governance Committee Agreement
Board Chamber
168 W. Alisal St. 1st Floor
Meeting Agenda -
Final-revised
Tuesday, February 12,
2013
9:00 AM
Board of Supervisors
of the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency
Roll Call
1. Closed Session under Government Code section 54950,
relating to the following items:
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d), the Board
will confer with legal counsel regarding existing litigation:
(1) In the Matter of the Application of California-American
Water Company (Application 04-09-019)
(2) Application of California-American Water Company (U210W)
for Approval of the Monterey
Peninsula
(3) California-American Water Company v. Marina Coast Water District,
et al. (Monterey County Superior Court case no. M120053)
Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency
Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:00 AM
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) Board of Directors: AGENDA ITEMS Receive Public Comment and Consider Changes to Project Sizing by California American Water, Additional Discussion of Proposed Surcharge 2 – Collection of Project Costs During Construction Period & Consider General Statement of District Position on California American Water Application No. 12-04-019 to Construct the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, 12 February 2013
RELATED NEWS ARTICLES:
Water agencies united on conditions for Cal Am desal project
Monterey Peninsula water district sets special meeting on Cal Am desal project
Board to consider making 'general statement;' may revisit controversial desal proposals
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/08/2013
ABSTRACT: Pertinent Agenda Items of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, February 12, 2013, related to water, are presented. Specifically, Receive Public Comment and Consider Changes to Project Sizing by California American Water, Additional Discussion of Proposed Surcharge 2 – Collection of Project Costs During Construction Period and Consider General Statement of District Position on California American Water Application No. 12-04-019 to Construct the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. EXHIBIT 5-A Position Paper Adopted by MPRWA January 31, 2013, EXHIBIT 5-B Draft Governance Committee Agreement and EXHIBIT 5-C Public Contribution of Funds Proposal are embedded.
Note: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
5 Harris Court , Bldg G, Monterey , CA
Water agencies united on conditions for Cal Am desal project
Officials to testify before PUC
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/13/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
"Area officials are poised to present a united front on
California American Water's proposed water supply project in testimony to the
state Public Utilities Commission next week, agreeing on demands for public
oversight and other conditions."
"During a special meeting late Tuesday, the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District board of directors became the third local
agency to unanimously back a call by Peninsula
mayors for Cal Am's desal plant to meet certain conditions before earning the
PUC's approval."
"Cal Am's board of directors agreed to the governance
committee's proposal early Wednesday."
"Testimony is due Feb. 22 from participants in the PUC
project review process. Evidentiary hearings are set for April 2-5 and April
8-11 at PUC headquarters in San
Francisco ."
Board to consider making 'general statement;' may revisit controversial desal proposals
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/08/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
“According to a staff report, district General Manager Dave
Stoldt is recommending the board offer conditional support for Cal Am's project
based solely on its previously approved conditions.”
“The special meeting agenda also calls for revisiting a pair
of proposals by Cal Am that some consider controversial: an increase in the
size of the company's proposed desal plant and implementation of a $99 million
surcharge on Peninsula water customers' bills
to help fund the project.”
“The district board on Tuesday is also set to consider a
report on projected demand for legal lots of record.”
“District staff is planning for an alternative desal project
in case Cal Am's proposal falls through.”
Note: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Live webcast at www.ampmedia.org on
the Monterey Channel Live
MONTEREY PENINSULA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District
******************
Tuesday, February 12,
2013, 6:00 PM
Conference Room,
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Staff notes for the 6
PM agenda items will be available on the District web site at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2013/2013.htm
by 5 PM on
Friday, February 8, 2013.
Board of Directors
David Pendergrass,
Chair – Mayoral Representative
Brenda Lewis, Vice
Chair – Division 1
Judi Lehman –
Division 2
Kristi Markey –
Division 3
Jeanne Byrne –
Division 4
Robert S. Brower, Sr.
– Division 5
David Potter – Monterey County
Board of Supervisors
General Manager
David J. Stoldt
ACTION ITEMS -- Public comment will be received on
each of these items. Please limit your comment to three (3) minutes
per item.
Action: The Board will receive public comment and
then determine if it would like to adopt a formal position of support,
disagreement, or neutrality, and direct staff to include in District testimony
to the California Public Utilities Commission.
ITEM:
|
ACTION ITEM
|
||||
3.
| RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDER CHANGES TO PROJECT SIZING BY CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER |
||||
Meeting
Date:
|
February
12, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
||
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
N/A
|
||
General
Manager
|
Line Item:
|
||||
Prepared
By:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Cost
Estimate:
|
None
|
||
General Counsel Review: N/A
|
|||||
Committee
Recommendation: N/A
|
|||||
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: At the January 30, 2013 Board meeting, the
Board directed staff to include several positions in the District testimony due
February 22, 2013 in the proceeding of A.12-04-012 at the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC.) The Board, however, desired greater
public input with respect to the sizing of the desalination plant capacity.
Cal-Am indicated that it was increasing the size of the
proposed desalination facilities to incorporate replenishment of the Seaside Basin
Estimated Demand –Mid Range
(AFY)
|
15,296
|
5yr Average (AFY)
|
13,290
|
325
|
|
Tourism Bounce Back (AFY)
|
500
|
Lots of Record (AFY)
|
1,181
|
The resulting revised facility size is 6,252 AF with GWR, or
9,752 without GWR.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should discuss and
determine if it would like to adopt a formal position of support, disagreement,
or neutrality. Such position will be incorporated into District
testimony to be filed in February.
BACKGROUND: As part of its application, Cal-Am
indicated it needed new supplies of 9,006 acre foot per year (AFY) in order to
meet an annual estimated demand of 15,250 AFY. This estimated demand was
derived from the last Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and was the amount
agreed upon by the parties in the settlement adopted in decision D.10-12-016.
Since Cal-Am filed its application, a couple of items have
been brought to their attention that merits an adjustment to the estimated
annual demand. These changes are as follows:
- A payback schedule for
the
- The tourism industry pointed to recent reductions in their occupancy rates that will come back and since they are existing customers, the use of a 5-year historical average may not reflect their true demand. Cal-Am reviewed past water use by commercial class users and has allocated 500 AFY for this updated demand return. MPWMD staff analysis of this amount indicates that it may overstate the water demand that might result from economic recovery. The analysis is attached as Exhibit 3-B.
- Cal-Am has included an additional 325 AFY of potable
water demand that needs to be included for the recently approved
- Cal-Am provided the estimated demands for the Lots of Records (LOR) of 1,181 AFY. This number is derived from the October 2009 Coastal Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report and cites Cal-Am’s 2006 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) referencing a 2001 District analysis as the source. The District does not certify that the 1,181 AFY value is valid. In fact, it was cited from an interim period between the Land Systems Group Phase II reports of August 2000 and June 2002 discussed under “2000 Land Systems Group Report” in Exhibit 3-A attached. The District does not recommend continued use of this number. Instead, the District will examine the results of the “2004-06 Future Water Needs Study” background data and attempt to break out legal lots of record and present those results at the February 12, 2013 Board meeting.
As part of their supplemental testimony, Cal-Am has
re-evaluated the plant size to accommodate the above listed supply and demand
changes with the assumption that current demands remain equal to the 5-year
historical average which is approximately 13,290 AFY.
Summed up, the revised demands are 15,296 AFY, however, due
to the reduction in the Seaside
Basin
The resulting revised facility size is 6,252 AF with GWR, or
9,752 without GWR.
EXHIBITS
3-A Overview
of Legal Lots of Record Documentation
3-B MPWMD
Analysis of Hospitality Bounce-Back
3-C Plant
Sizing Memorandum
4. Additional
Discussion of Proposed Surcharge 2 – Collection of Project Costs During
Construction Period
Action: The Board will receive public comment,
discuss the issue and determine if action is needed.
Action: The Board will receive public comment and
then determine if it will state a position in its testimony on the application
by California American Water.
ITEM:
|
ACTION ITEM
|
||||
5.
|
CONSIDER GENERAL STATEMENT
OF DISTRICT
POSITION ON APPLICATION NO.12-04-019 TO CONSTRUCT THE |
||||
Meeting
Date:
|
February
12, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
||
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
N/A
|
||
General
Manager
|
Line Item:
|
||||
Prepared
By:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Cost
Estimate:
|
None
|
||
General Counsel Review: N/A
|
|||||
Committee
Recommendation: N/A
|
|||||
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: At the January 30, 2013 Board meeting,
the Board directed staff to include several positions in the District testimony
due February 22, 2013 in the proceeding of A.12-04-012 at the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC.) The Board, however, desired greater
public input with respect to the sizing of the desalination plant capacity
(Item 3 on this Agenda) as well as a general statement on the District’s
position on the application - support, not support, conditional support, or
neutrality.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should determine if the
District supports, does not support, conditionally supports, or is neutral with
respect to Cal-Am’s application. The General Manager recommends
qualified or conditional support based on Cal-Am’s incorporation of the
governance and financial proposals the District made in its October 1 Public
Participation filing and reaffirmed at the January 30, 2013 Board meeting
(see Exhibits
5-B and 5-C). The
Board may wish to include other items in a manner similar to the position
statement approved January 31, 2013 by the Mayor’s Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority and attached hereto as Exhibit
5-A.
EXHIBITS
5-A Position
Paper Adopted by MPRWA January 31, 2013
5-B Draft
Governance Committee Agreement
5-C Public
Contribution of Funds Proposal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)