Ron Weitzman is president of Water Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula, formerly WaterPlus.
ABSTRACT: The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, according to Public Agenda 3352, was scheduled to consider Consent Agenda Item 3 (page 5), Thursday, February 26, 2015, namely Settlement Agreement between California-American Water Company, the County of Monterey, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Agenda Changes include Item 3, HELD TO 3/12/15, HELD BY Sandoval, REASON Further Review. The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Public Agenda 3352 document, PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ WILSON and AGENDA CHANGES document are embedded. The proposed settlement “calls for Cal Am to recoup $1.9 million from customers to cover costs it advanced to the county, with the county agreeing to waive a local ordinance and allow Cal Am to build its own plant without partnering with a public agency.” Importantly, PUC’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates “argued ratepayers shouldn’t be on the hook when the Peninsula’s biggest water provider has already spent $30 million of customer money on desal proposals that never panned out,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.
PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ WILSON
DECISION ADOPTING, IN PART CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, AND THE MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
Settlement Agreement between California-American Water Company, the County of Monterey, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
A13-05-017
In the Matter of the Application of California- American Water Company for an Order (1) Approving a Settlement Agreement with the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to Settle and Resolve Claims and Issues Between the Parties and to Promote the Development, Construction and Operation of a Water Supply Project for Monterey County on an Expedited Basis, and (2) Authorizing the Transfer of Authorized Costs Related to the Settlement Agreement to Its Special Request 1 Surcharge Balancing Account
ABSTRACT: The City of Monterey is hosting the Monterey Peninsula Water Forum featuring presentations by California American Water (Cal-Am), DeepWater Desal, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), and the People's Moss Landing Water Desal Project. WHO, WHAT, WHEN & WHERE is presented and the text of the AGENDA is reproduced. Notes: The Forum will be broadcast live on Comcast cable channel 25. A live video stream will be viewable on the web at www.monterey.org/tv and the forum will be re-broadcast on Channel 25 and will be available to view as video-on-demand on the web. Information about the Water Forum is available at www.monterey.org/waterforum
WHO: Hosted by the City of Monterey on behalf of the six peninsula cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside.
California American Water, DeepWater Desal LLC, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District:, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and The People’s Moss Landing Water Desal Project
WHAT:Monterey Peninsula Water Forum
Five organizations with water supply solutions will discuss their plans, including how much water will be generated, the cost of the water, the timeline for delivering water, the mechanics of the solution, and the status of environmental reviews. Presentations will be made by California American Water (Cal-Am), DeepWater Desal, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), and the People's Moss Landing Water Desal Project. California American Water will present the results of an RBF Consulting technical analysis of 11 alternative water supply options to meet the Monterey Peninsula’s water shortage. The analysis was developed to examine the technical feasibility of the 11 alternatives in a uniform manner to provide community stakeholders an objective look at each option. DeepWater Desal LLC plans to build a 25-million gallon per day desalination plant at Moss Landing that will supply potable water to water agencies in both Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. The feed water will be drawn deep from the Monterey Submarine Canyon that comes inshore at Moss Landing because this water is clearer and cleaner than ground water and contains less marine life than shallow sea water sources. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District: To address the water supply gap, the District has approved five projects for further investigation. These include Aquifer Storage and Recovery (both the existing Phase 1 and additional phases), a small local desalination facility, support and assistance with the MRWPCA Groundwater Replenishment project, and creating additional capacity at the Los Padres Dam. Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency proposes to construct a 2,700 acre feet per year Groundwater Replenishment Project that would recharge the Seaside Aquifer. This project will utilize the same state-of-the-art advanced water treatment technology successfully used for the last 35 years by the Orange County Water District. The People’s Moss Landing Water Desal Project proposes a 10,700 acre feet per year desalination plant on 60 acres of its property in Moss Landing which already has intake and outfall pumps and pipes and a permit to process 60-million gallons of water per day, and 14 storage tanks having 44-million gallons capacity.
WHEN: Wednesday, October 26 from 6:00 P.M. – 10:30 P.M.
NOTES:
The forum will be broadcast live on Comcast cable channel 25.
A live video stream will be viewable on the web at www.monterey.org/tv. The forum will be re-broadcast on Channel 25 and will be available to view as video-on-demand on the web.
Information about the Water Forum is available at www.monterey.org/waterforum
Monterey Peninsula Water Forum
On behalf of the six Peninsula cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside, this public forum will explore the current array of proposed water projects, along with each project's proposed solution, including how it creates a new water supply for the Peninsula, and at what cost.
PRESENTATIONS
2. Presentation by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) (30 minutes)
3. Presentation by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA)(30 minutes)
4. Presentation on the DeepWater Desal Project (30 minutes)
5. Presentation on the People's Moss Landing Water Desal Project (30 minutes)
***15 MINUTE BREAK***
PRESENTATIONS CONTINUED
6. Presentation by California American Water Company (Cal-Am) (45 minutes)
***5 MINUTE BREAK***
COMMENTS – REMARKS
7. Answers to Written Questions Submitted by Audience (45 minutes)
8. Oral Public Comments Regarding the Presentations - Due to time constraints, speakers will be limited to one minute each (30 minutes)
ABSTRACT: California American Water (CAW) has issued a technical memorandum concerning water supply alternatives designed to meet the Monterey Peninsula’s water shortage. The memo, which was prepared by RBF Consulting, examines eleven water projects capable of meeting the area’s water supply deficit, including the Marina desalination plant, pipeline, and Aquifer, Storage and Recovery (ASR) project approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. The findings will be presented at a public forum planned by the City of Monterey on Wednesday, October 26. A supplemental memo that examines permitting requirements and anticipated timelines for each project is also being prepared. In that memo, the company’s consultant will make a recommendation as to which project represents the best water supply solution for the area based on the criteria defined. Monterey Water Supply Analysis and Technical Memorandum, October 5, 2011, RBF Consulting, Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives, are embedded. A SUMMARY OF REGIONAL PROJECT & ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL COST COMPARISONS appears at the end of the Post based of values from TABLE 3, TABLE 4 and TABLE 5. The Technical Memorandum’s Summary states: “We have reviewed possible physical solutions to the peninsula’s water supply shortage on an equal basis. The next step is to complete an assessment of the permitting and schedule impact for each alternative. This will be presented in a subsequent technical memorandum at which point a final recommendation as to the most attractive alternate or alternates can be determined.”
Note: Documents Courtesy of Catherine Bowie, California American Water.
Content includes Project Supply and System Demand, Alternatives 1-11, Total Capital Costs Bar Chart for Alternatives 1-11, Total Annualized Capital and O&M/Annual Costs, Unit Costs ($/AF), Alternatives 1, 2 & 11, Alternatives 3 & 4-Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant (LCVFP) + Extended Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR), Alternative 5 – Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant (LCVFP) + Desal Plant in Marina + Extended ASR, Alternative 6-LCVFP + Sand City Desal Expansion + Extended ASR, Alternative 7-LCVFP + Monterey Desal Plant + Extended ASR, Alternative 8-Lower Carmel Valley Iron Removal Plant (LCVIRP) + Monterey Desal Plant + Extended ASR, Alternative 9-SRFP + Extended ASR, Alternative 10.
Technical Memorandum
Date: October 5, 2011
To: Richard Svindland, Director of Engineering, California American Water
From: Paul Findley, RBF Consulting
Subject: Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives
This technical memorandum presents the results of cost analysis for eleven alternatives to solve the water supply deficit in CAW’s Coastal Division. It should be noted that these alternatives represent physical solutions and that we have not fully explored permitting and schedule impacts for each of these alternatives. Permitting and schedule impacts will be presented in a subsequent technical memorandum.
•Alternative 1 – Implementation of 10 mgd Marina project;
•Alternative 2 – Implementation of 6.5 mgd Marina project with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge in Seaside, and 2700 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution;
•Alternative 3 – 35 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 4 – 24 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside, with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge, and 4200 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution;
•Alternative 5 – 32 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, a 3. 5 mgd desalination plant in North Marina, and a 5500 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 6 – 35 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, expansion of the Sand City desalination plant from 0.3 mgd to 1.0 mgd, and a 6500 afy ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 7 – 32 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, a 3.0 mgd desalination plant near the Naval Post Graduate School, and a 5200 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 8– 20 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Iron Removal Plant, a 5 mgd desalination plant near the Naval Post Graduate School, and a 5100 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 9 – 35 mgd Salinas River Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside;
•Alternative 10 – 10 mgd “Deep Water Desalination” Plant near Moss Landing with a 1300 AFY ASR system in Seaside.
•Alternative 11 – 5 mgd Marina project with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge in Seaside, 2700 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution, and implementation of a more aggressive conservation program to reduce demand by an additional 1500 AFY. A potential variation of this alternative would be to obtain additional Table 13 direct diversion rights in lieu of additional conservation.
Contents include Description and Operation for each Alternative, Tables (REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST, System Flow Rates, CAPITAL COST COMPARISON (2012 Dollars in Millions), O&M/ANNUAL COST COMPARISON (2012 Dollars), UNIT COST COMPARISON Figures (Alternative 3, Alternative 5, Alternative 6, Alternative 7, Alternative 8, Alternative 9 , Cost Comparison including Capital Cost, O&M/Annual Cost, Unit Cost, Other Considerations and Summary
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL PROJECT & ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL COST COMPARISONS REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST (Estimated Cost (Oct 2012 $)
MCWD/MCWRA Total MCWD/MCWRA Capital Cost $297,000,000
CAW Total CAW Capital Cost $107,000,000
TOTAL REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST $404,000,000
UPDATE: Desal EIR dealt blow
Review failed to consider water rights, judge rules
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/03/2012
Synopsis: In an amended/revised ruling, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Lydia Villarreal judge found that “the environmental review for the failed regional desalination project neglected to properly consider a number of issues, including water rights.”
“The revision was released Thursday, about six weeks after Villarreal ruled that Marina Coast Water District should have prepared the EIR as the lead agency under state environmental law.”
UPDATE: GNM105019: AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
On Monday, 19 December 2011, Monterey County Superior Judge Lydia Villareal issued her decision that the "Marina Coast Water District should be the lead agency” on the Regional Desalination Project and “must prepare and certify an environmental impact report " (EIR). Ag Land Trust sued Marina Coast, “alleging the district should have been the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and should have been responsible for the EIR instead of the state Public Utilities Commission. The suit alleged Marina Coast's board improperly relied on the PUC's environmental report to approve the regional project, and alleged the document failed to adequately address a number of relevant issues. The issues included the reliability of the proposed desal plant, water rights, impacts to neighboring properties and exportation of water from underground sources in the Salinas Valley.” However, Judge Villareal’s decision “didn't address specific environmental issues raised by the Ag Land Trust.”
Note: The Ag Land Trust, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preservation of farm land, owns property near a proposed desal project well site.
GNM110691: AG Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources, et al
Ag Land Trust attorney Michael Stamp said a similar lawsuit challenging the project's water rights, filed against the county in February, is "on hold," according to the Herald’s news article.
UPDATE:
Case Number GNM105019
Case Caption AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Motion Hearing 9/30/2011 09:00:00 Courtroom 15
Writ of Mandate Hearing 10/27/2011 09:00:00 Courtroom 15
ABSTRACT: Significant information regarding RMC and upcoming court hearings for Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (M105019) and Ag Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources and Board of Supervisors (M110691) is presented. The ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW, prepared by Michael W. Stamp and Molly Erickson, attorneys for Ag Land Trust (Case No. S192285) provides a summary of the issues; the document is embedded.
•Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (M105019)
Writ of Mandate Hearing scheduled for Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 15, Judge Lydia M. Villarreal. Marina Coast Water District’s petition for review was previously denied by the California Supreme Court.
Case Details of GNM105019; AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Case Information
Case Number: GNM105019
Case Caption: AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Filing Date: 4/5/2010
Case Type: Judicial Review: Writ Mandate (02)
Filing Type: Complaint
Original Filing Date: 4/5/2010
Schedule Events
Type: Writ of Mandate Hearing
Date: 9/29/2011 Time: 09:00:00
Location: Courtroom 15
DEPARTMENT 15 Lydia M. Villarreal
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
Michael W. Stamp and Molly Erickson, attorneys for Ag Land Trust
Case No. S192285
(Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal No. H036084; Monterey County Superior Court No. M105019)
•Ag Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources and Board of Supervisors (M110691)
Motion Hearing scheduled for Friday, September 16, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 15, Judge Lydia M. Villarreal. Ag Land Trust (Petitioner) filed a petition under the California Environmental Quality Act against the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (Respondents); the petition challenges Respondents’ compliance with CEQA in regard to the approval of the Regional Water Project.
Case Details of GNM110691; AG Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources, et al Case Information
Case Number: GNM110691
Case Caption: AG Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources, et al Filing Date: 2/14/2011
Case Type: Judicial Review: Writ Mandate (02)
Filing Type: Petition
Original Filing Date: 2/14/2011
Schedule Events
Type: Motion Hearing
Date: 9/16/2011 Time: 09:00:00
Location: Courtroom 15
DEPARTMENT 15 Lydia M. Villarreal
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Letter to California Coastal Commission Members, July 29, 2011
Re: Regional Desalination Project – Slant Well Application
•RMC Water and Environment, the engineering company hired to design and manage the proposed $400 million regional desalination plant has suspended work on the project because the county has failed to pay the firm $458,290 in unpaid bills since January 11, 2011. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors decided not to pay RMC until the County and California American Water and Marina Coast Water District resolve conflict of interest allegations involving former county water agency director Steve Collins while RMC contends there isn’t any legal basis for the county “to link payment for [RMC’s] services to mediation with third parties.” However, RMC said it could “proceed with these tasks if MCWD and Cal Am agree to revise the cost allocation...and fund the portion of the shared services that would otherwise have been funded by MCWRA,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone, 2 September 2011.
ABSTRACT: An abbreviated version of the MONTEREY BAY REGIONAL DESALINATION PROJECT (RDP) TIMELINE from March 2010 to August 2011 is presented based on “A RIVER RE-RUNS THROUGH IT,” Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, August 25, 2011. An ADDENDUM consisting of links to “A RIVER RE-RUNS THROUGH IT” and related articles and embedded Remcho Report and Markham Report is provided.
April 2010: • The Courts put the State Water Resources Control Board’s Cease-and-Desist Order is effect; the Order sets a phased schedule for Cal Am to end illegal diversions of approximately 10,500 acre-feet of Carmel River water by the end of 2016. •Ag Land Trust files a lawsuit against the Project partners, challenging their legal right to pump coastal water what could impact the Salinas Valley Basin; trial set for September 29.
June 2010: • Public hearings held in Seaside and Monterey on the RDP.
September 2010: •WaterPlus, a new ratepayer advocacy group, calls for a public buyout of Cal Am.
November 2010: • Moss Landing Water, a private desalination venture, proposes to draw deep water from the Monterey Submarine Canyon and desalinate it for Cal-Am customers at a fraction of the RDP’s costs.
December 2010: •California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approves the agreements governing the $400 million RDP, including approximately $300 million for the desalination facilities in Marina and approximately $100 million for Cal Am’s pipeline to the Peninsula.
January 2011: • CPUC approves the moratorium after a judge allows Cal-Am to stop new water hookups on the Peninsula effectively stopping redevelopment projects in Seaside and Monterey until a new water source in developed. • Investment bank Wedbush Securities states the RDP is a risky investment, in part because “the financial risk falls directly on Cal-Am ratepayers, with little recourse to the public project owner-operators.”
March 2011: • MCWRA Board Director Steve Collins recused himself from voting on the $28 million contract with RMC Engineering to manage the RDP; Collin’s financial disclosure form reveals $160,000 in consulting fees from RMC while serving on the board and voting on issues related to the RDP.
April 2011: • Steve Collins resigns from the MCWRA board after 16 years while denying allegations of conflict of interest. The County Board of Supervisors launches an independent investigation of Collins’ conduct. • MPWMD officials begin discussions with the Naval Postgraduate School about the potential to build a smaller desalination plant in Monterey.
May 2011: • The State’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) begins an investigation into Collin’s possible violation of Government Code 1090, which prohibits public officials from making contract deals in which they have financial interest. Later, the Monterey County District Attorney’s office is working with the FPPC to investigate Collins.
June 2011: • The Board of Supervisors releases the “Remcho Report,” representing partial findings of an independent investigation into the Collins matter. A finding claims that RMC paid Collins for his official work as an MCWRA director; that finding puts the validity of the RDP agreements in doubt.
July 2011: • Marina Coast releases the “Markman Report,” its investigation into the Collins’ matter. Collins claimed Supervisors Calcagno and Potter asked him to push for the RP and the Supervisors knew of his RMC consulting work. Supervisors Calcagno and Potter deny any prior knowledge that Collins was on RMC’s payroll. • Cal Am President Robert MacLean writes to MCWRA General Manager Curtis Weeks notifying MCWRA of their failure to obtain project financing by the deadline. • MCWRA considers the water purchase agreement void because of Collins’ alleged conflict of interest. • Marina Coast maintained that the RDP agreement is valid and rejects MCWRA’s calls for dispute resolution.
August 2011: • RDP partners ask the California Coastal Commission for permission to test a slant well as a potential source of brackish water for the desalination plant. The Commission unanimously agrees to delay any decision until the Collins matter and the pending Ag Land Trust lawsuit are resolved. • Cal Am notifies MCWRA and Marina Coast that they’re in default because they haven’t secured the RDP’s financing on time and calls for dispute resolutions giving the project partners 90 days to remedy situation or proceed with mediation. • The California Superior Court holds a case management conference on Cal Am and MPWMD’s appeal of the State Water Boards Cease-and-Desist Order.
ABSTRACT: Pertinent documents regarding the Regional Desalination Project, including Regional Desalination Project Description, Desalination Plant Site Plan, Conceptual Level Financing Plan, REGIONAL DESALINATION PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT and STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, are embedded.
WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
By and Among MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY And CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
Dated April 6, 2010
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water by the California American Water Company
Parties
Water Rights Prosecution Team1
California American Water Company
Interested Parties
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, City of Carmel by the Sea,
City of Seaside, Seaside Basin Watermaster, Pebble Beach Company,
Monterey County Hospitality Association, City of Monterey, City of Sand City, Division of Ratepayers Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission, Public Trust Alliance, Carmel River Steelhead Association,
Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Planning and Conservation League, California Salmon and Steelhead Association, National Marine Fisheries Service
