RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
HOLE IN THE BUCKET
Cal Am doesn’t squeeze all it could out of aquifer storage and recovery.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Excerpts Highlights:
“But an update presented to the district water board Jan. 30 finds that if the three ASR wells had been maximized, Cal Am could have injected 660 acre-feet in that time frame. (A fourth ASR well was recently built but is not yet connected to electrical and water lines.)”
“Why is the program falling short? One ASR well, according to the report, is out of service while Cal Am repairs broken shaft bearings. An equipment glitch at a river source well couldn’t be fixed due to wet conditions. Cal Am system demand spiked at times, reducing the amount of water that could be diverted to ASR. And several upper-river source wells stopped working when temperatures dropped below freezing earlier this month. Cal Am also missed several days of ASR production at the beginning of the season because its production wells were not ready, according to District General Manager David Stoldt.”
ABSTRACT: Pertinent
Agenda Items of the Board of Directors, Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District, January 30, 2013, related to water, are presented. Specifically, Agenda Items: Update on Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Injection Operations – Water Year 2013 to Date, Consider Changes to Project
Sizing by California American Water, Provide Guidance to Staff Regarding
District Positions for Testimony due February 22, 2013 in CPUC Application
12-04-019, Letters Received (featuring Roger Dolan, Carmel Valley Association
Water Committee) and Monthly Water Supply and California American Water
Production Report.
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District
Wednesday, January
30, 2013
5:30 PM – Closed Session
Tarpy’s Roadhouse
Restaurant, Tack Room
2999 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey,
CA
7:00 PM – Regular
Board Meeting
Conference Room,
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
5 Harris Court, Bldg G, Monterey, CA
Board of Director
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
REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS
ACTION ITEMS -- Public comment will be received on
each of these items. Please limit your comment to three (3) minutes
per item.
Action: Board should discuss and determine if it
would like to adopt a formal position of support, disagreement, or neutrality,
and direct staff to include in District testimony.
Action: Board should discuss and recommend “high
level” policy guidance for development of the District’s February testimony.
REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS
ITEM:
|
REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS
|
|
17.
|
UPDATE ON AQUIFER STORAGE
AND RECOVERY INJECTION OPERATIONS - - WATER YEAR 2013 TO DATE
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
January 30, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
NA
|
|
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Program/
|
NA
|
|
General
Manager
|
Line Item
No.: NA
|
|
Prepared
By:
|
Joe
Oliver/Jon Lear
|
Cost Estimate:
|
NA
|
|
General Counsel Approval: N/A
|
Committee Recommendation: N/A
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY: The Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (MPWMD) and California American Water (Cal-Am) are working
cooperatively to implement the Water Year (WY) 2013 operation of the Aquifer
Storage and Recovery (ASR) projects in the Seaside Groundwater Basin (i.e.,
Water Projects 1 and 2 at the Santa Margarita and Seaside Middle School sites,
respectively). The WY 2013 injection operations began on December 3,
2012. Since then through January 16, 2013 when injection operations
were temporarily curtailed pending resumption of adequate Carmel River Basin
(CRB) flows above minimum bypass flow requirements, a total of 294.5 acre-feet
(AF) has been injected into the SGB for storage and subsequent recovery later
this year during the dry season. This amount exceeds the 131.3 AF
that were injected during the entire previous injection season (WY 2012, which
was a dry year). A breakdown of the actual injection amounts
and potential volumes that could have been injected with the available online
ASR well capacity, additional ASR well capacity not currently online, and
maximum diversion under the water rights permits for the projects, is provided
in the Background section below.
RECOMMENDATION: This is a status update item for
information purposes only.
BACKGROUND: During WYs 1998 through
2007, MPWMD had been injecting CRB source water into the Seaside Basin
as part of an ASR feasibility testing program in the
SGB. Subsequently, MPWMD and Cal-Am have been cooperatively
implementing permanent ASR operations at the Santa Margarita (Water Project 1)
facility under a jointly held water right issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) in WY 2008. More recently, beginning in WY
2012, permanent ASR operations were initiated at a second ASR facility being
developed by Cal-Am with assistance from MPWMD at the nearby Seaside Middle School
(Water Project 2) facility. There are two ASR wells at each
facility, for a total of four ASR wells thus far in the SGB. From
the beginning of the MPWMD’s ASR feasibility testing program in WY 1998 through
the end of the previous WY 2012 season, a total of 4,477 AF has been injected
and temporarily stored in the SGB for use in offsetting impacts associated with
Cal-Am’s CRB production during low-flow, high-demand periods.
The breakdown of actual and potential injection volumes so
far in WY 2013 is summarized as shown below.
Actual
injection to
date 294
AF
Potential
injection with two ASR wells
maximized
449 AF
Potential
injection with three ASR wells
maximized 660
AF
Potential
injection with full water rights maximized 958
AF
During this early part of WY 2013, two ASR wells have been
available for injection operations – ASR-1 at the Santa Margarita site, and
ASR-3 at the Seaside
Middle School
site. There is an additional ASR well at each site that is not currently
available. As shown above, the actual injection of 294 AF is 65% of
the potential injection volume of 449 AF with the two available online ASR
wells operating at capacity (3,000 gallons per minute [gpm]
combined). Several factors attributable to a combination of Cal-Am
production system issues contributed to the actual injection volume falling
below the available ASR well capacity. These factors
included: a major CRB source well (Canada well) being offline due to
an equipment failure that could not be accessed for repair due to wet
conditions, temporary “spikes” in Cal-Am system demand that at times reduced
the amounts that could be diverted to the ASR wells for injection, and the
unanticipated loss of production from several of Cal-Am’s upper CRB source
wells due to the failure of the wells’ operating equipment from sub-freezing
temperatures during the cold weather earlier in January 2013.
The third ASR well (ASR-1) is equipped for injection, but is
currently not in service pending completion of repairs to its shaft bearings
that failed during WY 2012 extraction operations. This repair work
is being conducted by Cal-Am and is scheduled to be underway within the next
few weeks, and it is anticipated this well will be back in service later this
injection season. Had the ASR-1 well also been available for
injection during the initial part of the WY 2013 season, up to 660 AF could
have been diverted for injection with all three wells operating at capacity
(4,500 gpm combined).
The fourth ASR well (ASR-4) was recently constructed in 2012
and has not yet been equipped with its permanent pump & motor, and has not
been connected to permanent water and electrical lines. This work is
scheduled for completion later in 2013. Had the ASR-4 well also been
available for service during the early part of the WY 2013 season, up to 958 AF
could have been diverted for injection with all four wells operating at the
maximum amounts allowed under the two SWRCB ASR water rights permits (6,590 gpm
combined).
ACTION ITEMS -- Public comment will be received on
each of these items. Please limit your comment to three (3) minutes
per item.
Action: Board should discuss and determine if it
would like to adopt a formal position of support, disagreement, or neutrality,
and direct staff to include in District testimony.
ITEM:
|
ACTION
ITEM
|
|
18.
|
CONSIDER CHANGES TO PROJECT
SIZING BY CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
January 30, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
|
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Program/
|
|
|
General Manager
|
Line Item
No.:
|
|
Prepared
By:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Cost Estimate:
|
|
|
General Counsel Approval: N/A
|
Committee Recommendation: N/A
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY: During the January 9, 2013 Public
Participation Hearings on A.12-04-019 in Monterey,
Cal-Am indicated that it was increasing the
size of the proposed desalination facilities to incorporate replenishment of
the Seaside Basin, as well as potential demand they
had previously not included in the project sizing. These include build-out
of the Pebble Beach project the EIR for which was certified by the County last
summer, the potential “bounce back” in tourism resulting from economic recovery
and utilizing existing visitor-serving capacity, and legal lots of
record. These additions are shown in the table below:
Estimated
Demand –Mid Range (AFY)
|
15,296
|
5yr Average (AFY)
|
13,290
|
Pebble Beach
(AFY)
|
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 Seaside Groundwater Basin
was set at 25 years. Essentially, this reduces the available supply from the Seaside Basin from 1,474 AFY to 774 AFY.
· 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 is attached as
Exhibit 18-A.
· Cal-Am has included an
additional 325 AFY of potable water demand that needs to be included for the
recently approved Pebble
Beach build-out.
· Cal-Am provided the estimated
demands for the Lots of Records (LOR) of 1,181 AFY.
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 supply, the desal
plant needs to be sized larger by approximately 700 AFY or 0.6 million gallons
per day (MGD) to account for the reduction in supply. Please refer
to Exhibit
18-B which
is a plant sizing memorandum from RBF Consulting dated January 7, 2013 that
discusses the updated sizing of the desal plant with and without the
Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) project.
The resulting revised facility size is 6,252 AF with GWR, or
9,752 without GWR.
EXHIBITS
18-A MPWMD Analysis of Hospitality Bounce-Back
18-B Plant Sizing Memorandum
Action: Board should discuss and recommend “high
level” policy guidance for development of the District’s February testimony.
ITEM:
|
ACTION
ITEM
|
|
19.
|
PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO STAFF
REGARDING DISTRICT POSITIONS FOR TESTIMONY DUE FEBRUARY 22, 2013 IN CPUC APPLICATION
12-04-019
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
January 30, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
|
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Program/
|
|
|
General
Manager
|
Line Item
No.:
|
|
Prepared
By:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Cost Estimate:
|
|
|
General Counsel Approval: N/A
|
Committee Recommendation: N/A
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY: In September
2012, the Board considered several items for inclusion in its October 1, 2012
public participation proposal. At this
time, the District is asked to file its first testimony as an intervenor in the
proceeding. This testimony can encompass
issues raised in California American Water’s (Cal-Am) initial application and
testimony from April 2012 and its supplemental testimony filed January 11,
2013, as well as any of the other filings made by Cal-Am and intervenors over
the course of the past ten months. The
Cal-Am application and testimony can be found at the following website:
http://www.watersupplyproject.org/downloads. The board needs to consider several
areas related to the proceeding and recommend guidance to staff for development
of testimony due February 22, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION: The
Board should discuss and recommend “high level” policy guidance on key subject
areas identified below, to be incorporated into District testimony to be filed
in February. The General Manager
recommends the following.
General Statement of Support for the Application – The Board
should determine if the District supports, does not support, 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 (discussed more fully below.)
Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) – The Board should consider
a strong statement endorsing GWR.
MPWMD’s testimony can refer to and attach SWRCB 84-7 as an exhibit, and
the text can amplify that this mandate was referenced in the Cease and Desist
Order (CDO) requiring dischargers in “water short areas who propose to
discharge treated wastewater to the ocean to evaluate the potential for water
reclamation.” This will tie the CDO to SWRCB 84-7, and provide a logical
basis for the CPUC to weigh in as to Cal-Am’s obligations in this arena. We can further cite the SWRCB proposed
Recycled Water Policy, the draft of which was circulated in January 2013.
Governance – The mayors and the
District continue to advance discussions with Cal-Am for formation of a
Governance Committee and revisions have been made to the document approved by
the District in September 2013. The
Board should consider approval of the current draft of the governance proposal,
attached as
Exhibit 19-A.
Public Contribution – One of the financing proposals the
District made in its October filing was the use of low-cost public debt to
reduce the cost of the project to ratepayers.
This has become a key proposal in the discussions between Cal-Am, the
Mayors Authority and the District. The
Board should consider reconfirming its commitment to a financial contribution
to the benefit of ratepayers, as well as the other financial suggestions
recommended at its September 2012 meeting and included in the District’s
October 1 filing regarding State Revolving Fund Loans; Issuing tax-exempt debt
on Cal-Am’s behalf (conduit); and providing a public “credit back-stop.” A description of a potential contribution of
public funds is included as
Exhibit 19-B.
Surcharge 2 – The Board may wish to state a position on the
proposed collection of Surcharge 2, approximately $99 million of pay-as-you-go
financing to be raised from Cal-Am rates during the construction period. This surcharge is designed to ease in or
“step up” the revenue requirement for the project costs incrementally each
year. Its use does reduce the overall
cost to the community during the life of the project, but does increase the
burden on ratepayers in the first few years.
Opponents are also concerned it places the early, riskier expenditures
on ratepayers. One option to mitigate
this perceived risk is to allocate those funds specifically for the Cal-Am
investments in transmission, storage, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) –
projects that must be undertaken irrespective of the desalination facility
undertaken.
Alternative Desalination Project – The Board should discuss
how the District should introduce this topic to its testimony. This aspect of the District’s testimony will
also address the Pacific Grove
filing on behalf of the Peoples Moss Landing project.
Pacific Grove Small Projects
– The Board should consider testimony in general support of Pacific Grove’s proposal(s) for small water
projects that might allow it to shift irrigation of its municipal golf course
from potable water to recycled water, thereby increasing supplies available for
development.
Project Sizing – This topic was discussed under Agenda Item
18.
EXHIBITS
19-A District and Authority’s Proposal on
Governance, as of 1-24-13
19-B Example of Potential Contribution of
Public Funds
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.
ITEM:
|
INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS/STAFF REPORT
|
|
25.
|
MONTHLY
WATER SUPPLY AND CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER PRODUCTION REPORT
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
January 30, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
|
From:
|
David
J. Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
N/A
|
|
General
Manager
|
Line
Item No.:
|
|
|
|
Prepared By:
|
Jonathan Lear
|
Cost Estimate:
|
N/A
|
|
General Counsel Review: N/A
|
Committee Recommendation: N/A
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 25-A shows
the water supply status for the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System
(MPWRS) as of January 1, 2013. This system includes the surface
water resources in the
Carmel River Basin, the groundwater resources in the Carmel
Valley Alluvial Aquifer and the
Seaside Groundwater Basin.
Exhibit
25-A is
for Water Year (WY) 2013 and focuses on four factors: rainfall, runoff,
storage, and steelhead. The rainfall and streamflow values
are based on measurements in the upper
Carmel River Basin at
San Clemente Dam.
Water Supply Status: As shown, rainfall
during December 2012 totaled 7.70 inches and brings
the cumulative rainfall total for WY 2013 to 11.11 inches, which
is 164% of the long-term average through December. Estimated
unimpaired runoff during December 2012 totaled 12,908 acre-feet
(AF) and brings the cumulative runoff total for WY 2013
to 13,719 AF, which is 185% of the long-term average
through December. Usable storage, which includes surface and
groundwater, was 29,920 AF, or 102% of the long-term
average through December. This storage equates
to 79% of system capacity. In addition, 18 adult
steelhead were counted in the fish ladder at San Clemente Dam for WY 2013
through December.
Production Compliance: Under State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cease and Desist Order No. 2009-0060,
California American Water (Cal-Am) is allowed to produce no more than 10,187 AF
of water from the
Carmel
River in WY
2013. In addition, under the Seaside Basin Decision, Cal-Am is
allowed to produce 2,669 AF of water from the Coastal Subareas and 147 AF from
the Laguna Seca Subarea of the
Seaside
Basin in WY
2013. Altogether, Cal-Am is currently allowed to produce
12,856 AF from
Carmel River and Seaside Coastal sources for customers in
its main
Monterey
system and 147 AF from the Laguna Seca Subarea for customers in Ryan Ranch,
Hidden Hills, and Bishop Systems (not adjusted for ASR recovery or Sand City
Desalination). For WY 2013 through December, Cal-Am has produced 2,574
AF from the
Carmel River,
Seaside
Basins, Sand City
Desalination, and ASR recovery, for customer use. This water
production is 378 AF or 12.8% less than the target
specified for Cal-Am’s production from the MPWRS for WY 2013
through December. A breakdown of Cal-Am’s production for
WY 2013 through December is included as
Exhibit
25-B.
Cal-Am’s production
from the
Carmel River Basin is reduced for diversions that are
made for injection into the
Seaside Basin; Cal-Am’s “native”
Seaside Basin production
is reduced for injected water recovery. For WY 2013
through December, 140 AF of
Carmel
River Basin groundwater have been diverted for
Seaside Basin
injection; 131 AF have been recovered for customer use. Exhibit
25-C shows
production breakdown from all sources for all uses.
Some of the values in this report may be revised in the
future as Cal-Am finalizes their production values and monitoring data.
EXHIBITS
25-A Water
Supply Status: January 1, 2013
25-B Monthly Cal-Am
Diversions from Carmel River and Seaside
Groundwater Basins: Water Year 2013
25-C Monthly Cal-Am production by source: WY 2013
