Regular
Meeting
Board of
Directors
Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District
******************
Thursday,
February 13, 2014
7:00 PM – Regular Board Meeting
Conference Room, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
5 Harris Court, Bldg G, Monterey, CA
Staff notes for the 7 PM agenda items will be available on the District web site at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2014/2014.htm by 5 PM on Friday, February 7, 2014
ITEM:
|
CONSENT CALENDAR
|
||||
3.
|
|
||||
Meeting Date:
|
February 13, 2014
|
Budgeted:
|
No |
||
From:
|
David J. Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
Groundwater
Replenishment Project
|
||
General Manager
|
Line
Item No.:
|
1-5-1
|
|||
Prepared By:
|
Suresh Prasad
|
Cost Estimate:
|
$1,118,781
(75% of budget increase)
|
||
General Counsel Approval: N/A
| |||||
CEQA
Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: At its June 17, 2013 meeting, MPWMD Board
adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 budget which included $2,717,500 for
GWR. This budgeted amount represented
75% of the total GWR expenditure for FY 2013-2014. The other 25% of the project cost is funded
by Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). Grants are also used to fund a portion of the
project.
Based on recommendations made by
the project’s Independent Advisory Panel, expansion in scope of project
components, and the acceleration of certain project activities, new mid-year
budget estimates were developed by MRWPCA, resulting in a need to increase the
GWR FY 2013-2014 budget by an additional $1,557,714. This increase includes estimates from MRWPCA
attached as Exhibit 3-A.
This budget adjustment was
approved by the MRWPCA Board on January 27th. It was recommended for approval by the
District’s Water Supply Planning Committee 3-0 at its meeting February 5th. The Water Supply Planning Committee approval
was conditioned on expected reductions in the “Internal Labor” and “Public
Outreach” budgets, as well as the expectation that certain expenditures for
Public Outreach would be deferred until source water contract negotiations make
demonstrable progress. MRWPCA has since
made recommended reductions and increases, for a net reduction from the
approved amount, to a new amount of $1,389,714 as shown in Exhibit 3-B.
The District’s share of this
revised increase based on the Cost Sharing Agreement with MRWPCA will be
$1,118,781 ($1,042,286 or 75% of the increased budget, plus an additional
$76,495 for differential between MPWMD and MRWPCA originally adopted budgets). The funding for this increase will come from
Aquifer Storage Recovery Phase I and Alternate Desalination Project. Most of the project costs for these two
projects have been deferred to FY 2014-2015.
This budget increase will be included in the District’s mid-year budget adjustment
slated for February-March Board meeting.
This mid-year adjustment includes
costs for outreach activities, water rights related services, and externalities
analysis all based on MPWMD recommendations.
Attached as Exhibit 3-C
to this staff report is Amendment 1 to the Cost Sharing Agreement between MPWMD
and MRWPCA. This proposed Amendment
addresses MPWMD’s concerns about Monterey Peninsula ratepayers paying for
services and benefits to entities outside Cal Am’s Monterey District. If in the future GWR facilities funded under
the Cost Sharing Agreement provide benefits or services to entities outside Cal
Am’s Service area, MPWMD would be reimbursed by MRWPCA for such costs.
RECOMMENDATION: The Water Supply Planning Committee
recommends that the Board authorize the increase in budget for Groundwater
Replenishment Project of $1,118,781 for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and approve
Amendment 1 to the Cost Sharing Agreement.
EXHIBITS
3-A Mid-Year GWR Budget Adjustment -
MRWPCA Summary
3-B Line Item Summary of Budget Adjustments
3-C Amendment 1 to GWR Cost Sharing
Agreement
ITEM:
|
CONSENT CALENDAR
|
||||
4.
|
|||||
Meeting Date:
|
February 13, 2014
|
Budgeted:
|
Yes |
||
From:
|
David J. Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
Augment
Water Supply
|
||
General Manager
|
Line Item No.:
|
1-5-1
/ 5-7860.10
|
|||
Prepared By:
|
Larry Hampson
|
Cost Estimate:
|
$
40,000
|
||
General Counsel Review: N/A |
|||||
Committee Recommendation: The Administrative Committee reviewed this item on February 12, 2014; action taken by the Committee will be reported at the February 13, 2014 Board meeting. |
|||||
CEQA
Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: The Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency (MRWPCA) and the District (MPWMD) are working cooperatively to
develop the Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) Project to
provide highly treated water from an advanced water treatment plant to the
Seaside Groundwater Basin for indirect potable use in the California American
Water supply system for the Monterey Peninsula.
Potential source waters for the project include winter stormwater runoff
into Lake El Estero in Monterey, City of Salinas treatment plant water,
stormwater runoff from an urbanized basin on the south side of Salinas,
wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant, flow diversions in the
Reclamation Ditch west of Salinas and flow diversions in the Blanco Drain,
which is located west of the City of Salinas between Highway 183 and the
Salinas River (see Exhibit 4-A). Each of these potential sources will be
evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Diversion of flow from the Blanco Drain has potential environmental
benefits to downstream sensitive habitats by removing a portion of the
pollutant load in the stream.
MPWMD staff propose to amend an existing agreement with Schaaf and Wheeler,
Consulting Civil Engineers. The
amendment would be to expand the existing study of the Reclamation Ditch to
include the Blanco Drain watershed. The
Consultant would conduct a hydrologic analysis of flow in the watershed and
quantify the potential to divert a portion of the flow into the sanitary sewer
collection system near the confluence with the Salinas River. A final scope of work will be developed prior
to executing the amendment and is expected to include similar tasks to the
scope of work for the Reclamation Ditch (see Exhibit 4-B).
Transfers of source water flowing in known and definite channels, such as in
the Blanco Drain, to the GWR Project would be a consumptive use that may
require an appropriative permit from the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB).
MPWMD desires to retain a qualified consultant to provide hydrologic
information that may be used in the GWR Project EIR and for a permit
application to the SWRCB. Tasks include
analysis of Blanco Drain watershed flows, potential downstream changes due to
diversions, and a preliminary design of facilities to divert flows to the
Regional Treatment Plan. MPWMD staff will coordinate project work with MRWPCA,
and others as necessary. Work is
expected to take about three months, including reviews by interested agencies.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the
expenditure of up to $40,000 in budgeted funds for analysis of flow
availability for diversion from the Blanco Drain near its confluence with the
Salinas River to supply a portion of the source water for the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency Groundwater Replenishment Project. The Administrative Committee considered this
matter at their February 12, 2014 meeting.
Results of their decision will be reported to the Board of Directors at
their February 13, 2014 meeting.
If this item is adopted with the Consent Calendar, the
General Manager would be authorized to increase the not-to-exceed amount from
$40,000 to a not-to-exceed amount of $80,000 in an existing agreement for
services with Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. It is expected that these costs will be
included in the overall GWR budget and MPWMD’s share will be 75%.
IMPACTS TO STAFF/RESOURCES: Funds for this work are identified in the
proposed FY 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget adjustment, Program Line Item 1-5-1,
Augment Water Supply – Groundwater Replenishment Project. Schaaf and Wheeler, Consulting Civil
Engineers anticipate expenses of $40,000.
BACKGROUND: The Blanco Drain
is an earthen channel used to drain surface runoff and agricultural tile drain
water generated in the 6,000 acre watershed.
Blanco Drain water is known to contain pesticides and other contaminants
that are the subject of an order from the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) concerning discharges of irrigation and stormwater from certain
agricultural operations. Some consider
Blanco Drain water not suitable for irrigation due to the high chloride
content. However, SWRCB may have
jurisdiction over the agricultural return flow and storm water flows. The Blanco Drain is listed as a Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) impaired water for the presence of pesticides, nitrates, and
sediment.
EXHIBIT
4-A Blanco Drain watershed map
4-B Scope of Work
ITEM:
|
CONSENT CALENDAR
|
||||
5.
|
|||||
Meeting Date:
|
February
13, 2014
|
Budgeted:
|
Yes
|
||
From:
|
David J. Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
Alternative Desal Project
|
||
General Manager
|
Line Item No.:
|
1-11-1
|
|||
Prepared By:
|
David J. Stoldt
|
Cost Estimate:
|
Ongoing;
Not to exceed $800,000
|
||
General Counsel Approval: N/A
|
|||||
Committee Recommendation:
The Water Supply Planning
reviewed this item on February 4, 2014 and recommended approval 3-0. The
Administrative Committee reviewed this item on February 12, 2014; action
taken by the Committee will be reported at the February 13, 2014 Board
meeting.
|
|||||
CEQA
Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: The District’s Cost
Sharing Agreement with DeepWater Desal LLC has six suspension and termination
provisions (Section 8 of the Agreement – see “DISCUSSION” below). At this time, District staff believes the
sixth provision with respect to definitive agreements (Section 6.4 of the
Agreement – see “DISCUSSION” below) is at risk of not being satisfied by
February 28, 2014 as required under the Agreement. However, staff met with the DeepWater team
and its data center developer on January 22nd and believes
sufficient progress is being made on all of the areas, and the February 28,
2014 deadlines should be extended.
At its February 5, 2014 meeting, the
Water Supply Planning Committee recommended approval 3-0. The Administrative Committee reviewed this at
its February 12, 2014 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: The Water Supply
Planning Committee and the Administrative Committee recommend the Board of
Directors extend the deadline for definitive agreements under Section 6.4 of
the Cost Sharing Agreement with DeepWater Desal LLC to May 30, 2014.
DISCUSSION: The relevant sections of the Agreement are as follows:
“8. Suspension or
Termination of MPWMD Payment Obligation
In addition to enforcing other rights set forth in this
Agreement, MPWMD may, in its sole and absolute discretion suspend or cease
payments under this Agreement if any of the following issues arise:
·
Progress and/or expenditures made by
the Company do not meet MPWMD expectations with respect to Environmental and
Permitting Activities, completion of technical studies, development of
preliminary design for the CCRWP or Desalination Plant, or the Company has
failed to enter into or maintain adequate contracts for rent, insurance, or
consultants; or,
·
There has been a failure to identify
either a CEQA Lead Agency and a federal
NEPA lead agency within sixty (60) days of Company’s filing a complete
application with a state permitting agency;
Identification of federal or state lead agencies shall be evidenced by
publication by that lead agency of a Notice of Intent or a Notice of
Preparation in compliance with CEQA and
NEPA, as may be applicable; or,
·
MPWMD, in
its sole discretion, finds and declares that its Water Supply Charge is limited
and not available to fund reimbursement obligations under this Agreement; or,
·
MPWMD, in its sole discretion,
within one hundred sixty (160) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement,
determines the Company lacks sufficient funds, taking into account funds
contributed by MPWMD under this Agreement, to pay Environmental and Permitting
Costs and to meet the additional costs anticipated above in the Background,
Paragraph B, of this Agreement; or,
·
MPWMD, in its sole discretion
determines the Company will not have sufficient funds available for its expenditure on additional
technical studies and/or preliminary design related to the CCRWP and
Desalination Plant; or,
·
The Company, on or before February
28, 2014, fails to enter into or maintain, in full effect, the Definitive
Agreements described above in section 6.4.
6.4 Definitive Agreements. On
or before February 28, 2014, the Company shall use its best efforts to enter
into the following agreements to facilitate construction and operation of the
CCWRP, including the Desalination Plant
·
an option agreement for the Company
to purchase the “Tank Farm” parcel
adjacent to the Dynegy Moss Landing Power Plant from Dynegy Moss Landing, LLC,
together with easements necessary to construct intake and/or outfall pipelines
necessary to operate the CCRWP and the Desalination Plant; and
·
an agreement for the Company to
purchase from the City of Salinas sufficient electricity needed to operate the
CCRWP and the Desalination Plant; and
·
an agreement in a form reasonably
acceptable to MPWMD for development of
intake and outfall pipeline facilities, and data center components for the
CCRWP.
In the event the MPWMD Option is still in effect at the time the agreements referenced in this Paragraph are made, such agreements shall expressly recognize and accommodate exercise of the MPWMD Option.”
The DeepWater Team is in
negotiation with Dynegy over a purchase agreement for the parcel and easements;
its consultant submitted a Municipal Utility Facilities and Financial Study to the City of Salinas in January, which
will lead to continued negotiation on agreements for electricity; and there is
a data center developer presently in the due diligence phase on the
project. Further, the Tenera
Study on impacts of the intake facility has been completed, the Preliminary
Environmental Assessment (PEA) is expected to be delivered to the State Lands
Commission in March or April followed in May or June with a Notice of
Preparation for an environmental impact report.
EXHIBITS
None
|
|||||||
ITEM:
|
ACTION ITEM
|
||||
23.
|
|||||
Meeting Date:
|
February
13, 2014
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
||
From:
|
David J. Stoldt
|
Program/
|
N/A
|
||
General Manager
|
Line
Item No.: N/A
|
||||
Prepared By:
|
David J. Stoldt
|
Cost
Estimate:
|
N/A
|
||
General Counsel Approval: N/A
|
|||||
Committee Recommendation: The Public
Outreach Committee reviewed this item on February 6, 2014 and recommended
approval.
|
|||||
CEQA
Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: Section 9315 of the
California Elections Code provides that Initiative proponents may file a
written argument in favor of the ordinance, and the District Board “may submit
an argument against the ordinance.” The
Registrar’s office has also confirmed that when the County conducts an election
on behalf of a district, arguments and rebuttals fall within section 9162. Section 9162 (a) provides,
“The board of supervisors or any
member or members of the board, or any individual voter who is eligible to vote
on the measure, or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of
these voters and associations may file a written argument for or against any
county measure. No argument shall exceed 300 words in length. . .”
Section 9162 sets forth the
requirements for the length and form of the argument. Section 9167 allows both parties to submit
rebuttal arguments, or to authorize others to prepare, submit or sign rebuttal
arguments.
At its February 7, 2014 meeting the
Public Outreach Committee recommended that the District not author any
arguments in favor or against the Initiative, rather maintain its neutral
position and instead continue to execute the required ministerial duties
required under the initiative process.
The Committee further recommended that District staff and General
Counsel assume responsibility for receiving from outside parties and conveying
to the County Registrar the arguments for, against, and rebuttals.
RECOMMENDATION: The Public Outreach
Committee recommends the Board of Directors (a) adopt a neutral policy with
respect to arguments for, against, and rebuttals with respect to the
Initiative
and (b) assign District staff and General Counsel responsibility for receiving
from outside parties and conveying to the County Registrar the arguments for,
against, and rebuttals.
EXHIBITS
None
|
INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS The
public may address the Board on Information Items and Staff Reports during
the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Please limit your comments to three
minutes.
|
||
|
24.
|
||
No comments:
Post a Comment