PowerPoints: Carmel River-History, Restoration and Protection and Water Supply Problems and Possible Solutions in the Monterey Peninsula Area

ABSTRACT: At the Carmel Residents Association May Meeting yesterday, Larry Hampson, Water Resources Engineer, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), and Darby Fuerst, Interim General Manager, MPWMD, presented PowerPoint Presentations entitled Carmel River - History, Restoration, and Protection and Water Supply Problems and Possible Solutions in the Monterey Peninsula Area, respectively. The Mission of the MPWMD, an Area Map and information about Larry Hampson and Darby Fuerst are presented. HIGHLIGHTS of the PowerPoint Presentations are presented. THE MISSION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS TO MANAGE,AUGMENT AND PROTECT WATER RESOURCES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. DRAFT AREA MAP The Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region CRA May General Meeting: Larry Hampson and Darby Fuerst Water problems and solutions, plus history and ecology of the river Larry Hampson, Water Resources Engineer B.S. Engineering Science, graduate-level courses in river mechanics from Colorado State University M.B.A. University of Colorado Licensed Civil Engineer in Colorado and California Water Resources Engineer for the past 17 years Hampson has focused on the sustainable use of the river by balancing restoration and protection of stream-side habitat with the needs of riverfront property owners and the Monterey Peninsula. Darby Fuerst, Interim General Manager B.S. Geological Sciences M.S. Hydrology and Water Resources Administration Certified Professional Hydrologist with the American Institute of Hydrology 23 years as a Hydrologist, Water Resources Manager and currently as Interim General Manager for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Highlights of Carmel River - History, Restoration, and Protection, A Presentation to the Carmel Residents Association, October 23, 2008 by Larry Hampson, Water Resources Engineer • Topics include, History, Ecology, Restoration and Protection • Threatened Species Protected in 1996 and 1997 Steelhead and California Red-legged Frog • Court Battles, Citizen Efforts, Better Management Halt Degradation of River 1974 - suit over groundwater extraction in mid-Valley 1976-77 - Carmel River Watch (CREW) established 1983 - 84% yes vote for river restoration program 1984 – MPWMD orders pumping to be shifted downstream 1987 – four complaints filed against Cal- Am with SWRCB 1990 – EIR on water allocation results in expanded Mitigation Program for river 1995 – SWRCB issues WR Order 95-10 1996-97 – listing of steelhead and California red-legged frogs spurs tighter federal controls of activities along the river 2000-2005 Cal-Am surface diversions further curtailed 2008 – Coastal Conservancy sponsors Sand Clemente Dam removal and river re-route 2007-08-09 (?) - SWRCB revisits Order 95- 10 • What Are the Threats to Resources of the Carmel River? Los Padres Reservoir may continue to impound sediment from the upper watershed Loss of surface storage may result in less flow downstream in the summer Lack of sediment may destabilize streambanks Armoring of streambanks is likely to continue after large floods Diversions in lower river continue to affect vegetation and aquatic habitat Global warming may cause larger swings in temperature and rainfall • Moving Forward Significant bond act funding may be available to continue restoration and mitigation efforts Private and non-profit groups such as the Big Sur Land Trust and the Planning and Conservation League are interested in restoring and maintaining the watershed San Clemente Dam to be removed by State Coastal Conservancy New water supplies for the Monterey Peninsula are projected to be completed within eight years - these projects will allow a reduction in diversions from Carmel Valley • River Reroute and Dam Removal Maximize the Public Benefits • Mitigation Program Direct Measures Seaside basin injection/recovery Fish rescue, rearing, habitat improvement Irrigation of Carmel River riparian corridor Vegetation management/modification and augmentation Streambank and channel restoration Highlights of Water Supply Problems and Possible Solutions in the Monterey Peninsula Area, A Presentation to the Carmel Residents Association, October 23, 2008 by Darby Fuerst, Interim General Manager • Distribution of California American Water Production by User Type Approximately 55% Residential • Physical Limitations on Water Supply Extreme annual and seasonal variability of streamflow in the Carmel River Inadequate surface water and groundwater storage capacity in Carmel River Basin Infrequent, but certain drought events, i.e., consecutive dry or critically-dry inflow years Threat of seawater intrusion in Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basins • Legal Limitations on Water Supply State Water Resources Control Board Order No. WR 95-10 against California American Water (CAW) Order 95-10 requires CAW to reduce its diversions from the Carmel River by approximately 75% • Water Supply Requirements MPWMD has estimated that 12,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) of replacement supplies are required to meet existing water demands and comply with Order 95-10 and the Seaside Decision. In addition, MPWMD has estimated, based on input from the jurisdictions within the District, that an additional 4,500 AFY of supplies are required to meet future water demands within the District • Water Supply Solutions CAW’s proposed Coastal Water Project Water for Monterey County Coalition’s1proposed Regional Water Project Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency’s proposed Groundwater Replenishment Project MPWMD/CAW’s Phase 1 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project, in operation. MPWMD’s proposed Phase 2 ASR Project MPWMD’s proposed Seawater Desalination Project (“95-10 Project”) in the former Fort Ord area.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Preliminary Valuation and Cost of Service Analysis Report, October 29, 2019

ABSTRACT: The Board of Directors, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Special Meeting/Board Workshop, November 12, 2019, agenda packet, including AGENDA, Preliminary Valuation and Cost of Service Analysis Report, October 29, 2019, by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (“Raftelis”) (EXHIBIT 2-A) and Barclay’s Letter of Confidence (EXHIBIT 2-B) document copy is embedded.  The Executive Summary and Findings and Conclusions of the Preliminary Valuation and Cost of Service Analysis Report are reproduced.  

AGENDA
Special Meeting/Board Workshop
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management DistrictTuesday, November 12, 2019, 6 pm

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Preliminary Valuation and Cost of Service Analysis Report

October 29, 2019

Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (“Raftelis”)

John M. Mastracchio, CFA Vice President

William Stannard, P.E. Chairman of the Board

2-A      Preliminary Valuation and Cost of Service Analysis Report

2-B       Barclay’s Letter of Confidence

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Preliminary Valuation and Cost of Service Analysis Report

October 29, 2019

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to document the findings of a preliminary valuation assessment and cost of service evaluation completed to support the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD” or “District”) in evaluating the feasibility of securing and maintaining public ownership of the Monterey Water System. The preliminary valuation assessment consisted of completion of a preliminary desktop valuation assessment of the Monterey Water System to estimate the cost required to be incurred to acquire the Monterey Water System. The cost of service analysis was completed to compare the cost of public ownership, operation, and maintenance of the Monterey Water System (i.e. the public ownership scenario) with a status quo scenario, which is the anticipated cost of continued ownership, operation, and maintenance of the system by California American Water (“CAW”). The cost of service analysis was compared in terms of the annual Monterey Water System revenue requirements and typical residential customer bill impacts associated with the various scenarios that were developed.

CAW currently provides water service to approximately 41,000 customer connections and a population of approximately 99,794 in its Monterey County District. The “Main” system within the Monterey County District serves approximately 38,325 customers and includes customers within the incorporated cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and the unincorporated areas of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley and Pebble Beach. The Main system is generally located within the MPWMD boundaries. The Monterey County District also includes the areas of Bishop, serving approximately 385 customers, Hidden Hills, serving approximately 454 customers, and Ryan Ranch, serving approximately 212 customers, which are areas that are also within the MPWMD boundaries.1 The Central Satellite areas include the areas of Ambler, Ralph Lane, Chualar, Toro, and Garrapata, which are located outside of MPWMD boundaries and serve a total of approximately 1,086 customers. The subject of the preliminary valuation and cost of service analysis is the portion of the water system located within the boundaries of the District.

Preliminary Valuation Assessment

The valuation of the Monterey Water System was prepared for acquisition feasibility purposes

considering three methods of valuation: the Income Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach, and the Cost Approach. The definition of value used in the valuation assessment was fair market value as the term is defined in California’s Eminent Domain Law (Code of Civil procedure Section 1263.320), and the date of the valuation estimate was January 1, 2020.

The income approach is based on the premise that the value of a property is the present value of the future economic benefits of owning the property. The underlying principle in this approach is that buyers invest in assets with the expectation of receiving the anticipated future net benefits. This approach is relevant when the property being valued generates or is anticipated to generate net income, profits, or free cash flows. The value estimate of the Monterey Water System calculated using the income approach ranged $222 million to $255 million. An 80% weighting was placed on the results of this valuation method.

The Market Approach is a general way of determining an indication of value of an enterprise by comparing the subject to similar businesses that have been sold. The valuation estimate under the market approach was prepared using the Guideline Transactions Method, which is a method whereby pricing multiples are derived from transactions involving companies engaged in the same or similar lines of business. Certain factors, such as the location, date of sale, physical characteristics, and technical and economic factors relating to sales transactions were analyzed for their comparability to CAW’s Monterey Water System. Based on this analysis, the average value of the Monterey Water System under the market approach was estimated to be approximately $272 million. A 20% weighting was placed on the results of this valuation method.

Under the Cost Approach, the value of the assets is typically derived by subtracting the amount of depreciation from the replacement or reproduction cost of the assets. The value under this approach is estimated by the sum of the parts of the system, i.e. physical asset components, land, water rights, etc. Depreciation in this context represents the loss in value caused by physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence. The reproduction cost new less depreciation (“RCNLD”) amount was calculated and estimated to be approximately $464 million. No weighting was placed on the results of this valuation approach because it tends to place an absolute ceiling on the market price, which most frequently is not approached in actual market negotiations associated with regulated public utilities.

Combining these three valuation methods with their weightings, the base estimated value of the Monterey Water System (portion located within MPWMD jurisdictional boundaries) as of the valuation date (January 1, 2020) was estimated to be approximately $245 million. This estimate is a preliminary estimate of value that was prepared based on a desktop analysis described above for feasibility purposes and information available as of the date of this report. This value estimate may be higher or lower than the conclusion of value that may result from the completion of a formal appraisal.

This base estimate excludes the value of asset additions, such as construction-work-in-progress, 30% of the Monterey Pipeline and Pump Station value deemed by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) not to be “used and useful” in conjunction with CAW’s Monterey Water System, the value of the desalination plant currently under development, and the value of non “used and useful” land parcels. The value of the Monterey Water System, including the base value and the identified asset additions, was estimated to be approximately $359 million.

CAW has incurred other expenses that CPUC has approved for recovery through Monterey District water rates over time. It is possible that MPWMD may be required to compensate CAW for these unrecouped expenses as part of a potential taking of the Monterey Water System. These expense items and their potential amounts include unrecouped portions of tank painting expenses, San Clemente Dam removal costs, the portion of the “acquisition premium” allocable to the Monterey Water System that was approved by the CPUC in 2001 in connection with CAW’s acquisition of the California assets of Citizens Water Company, the portion of the “acquisition premiums” allocable to the Monterey Water System associated with the acquisition of the Bellflower Municipal Water System, the Rio Plaza Water Company, Fruitridge Vista Water Company, and Hillview Water Company that are proposed under CAW’s Special Request No. 11 in its 2019 General Rate Case Application to the CPUC, plus the unrecovered portions of various balancing accounts. These net expenses were estimated to total approximately $155 million as of the valuation date, and adding these net expenses to the value estimate of the “base” water system results in a total value estimate, plus adjustments, of approximately $513 million. A summary of the valuation and adjustments is provided in Table ES-1.

This value estimate, with adjustments, does not include the potential value of other assets that are not currently included in CAW’s rate base, except for the value of land which has been considered. These assets either have not been deemed to be “used and useful” for the provision of water service or were developer contributed and are not allowed by CPUC to be included in rate base. It is possible that some of the non “used and useful” assets may become “used and useful,” and recoverable in water rates in the future. However, the value of these assets is not likely to be substantial. CAW reports a value of $20.2 million of “contributions-in-aid-of construction” and “advances-in-aid-of-construction”, which are contributions of money or property contributed by developers pertaining to the expansion, improvement, or replacement of water system assets. However, since CAW is not allowed to include the value of these assets in rate base, they have been excluded from consideration in the value of the Monterey Water System.

MPWMD may also be required to pay severance damages to CAW for acquiring the Monterey Water System. These damages may relate to not taking the satellite water systems owned and operated by CAW within their Monterey District, but outside of MPWMD’s jurisdictional boundaries. Severance damages in this instance would consist of increased inefficiencies in CAW’s provision of service to these smaller pockets of customers and potentially higher costs per customer to do so. It is somewhat difficult to evaluate and quantify such severance damages, which would involve better understanding CAW’s current service model, how CAW could most effectively modify its service model in the post-District acquisition scenario, and how much of the work formerly performed by local CAW staff could effectively be transferred to other nearby CAW field offices or centralized locations. In addition, given that CAW would likely be entitled to include reasonable increased marginal operating costs in its next rate filing(s) to the CPUC with respect to the “remainder” of its Monterey District, it is questionable whether CAW would suffer any net profitability losses at all. Given these uncertainties, and the likelihood that CAW could mitigate some or all of its severance damages through the CPUC ratemaking process, our tentative conclusion is that CAW is likely to suffer minimal, if any, severance damages, and any severance damages it does suffer would not be so significant as to materially affect the conclusions of the District’s feasibility analysis. If the District does proceed to prepare a formal appraisal of just compensation for the acquisition of the Monterey Water system, however, it is recommended that the severance damages issue be further reviewed at that time.

Cost of Service Evaluation

The cost of service evaluation consisted of preparing a 20-year financial projection of CAW continuing to own and operate the Monterey Water System (status quo), analyzing and identifying the incremental cost differences associated with MPWMD owning and operating the Monterey Water System in comparison to the status quo, preparing an annual cash flow projection of two district ownership scenarios, and estimating customer bills under both the CAW status quo and District ownership scenarios. The following cost of service scenarios were prepared:

A. Status Quo – CAW ownership

B. MPWMD Ownership with District staff operations

C. MPWMD Ownership with contract operations

The cost of service modeling results indicate that significant annual reductions in revenue requirements Water System. The estimated revenue requirement in 2022 under the MPWMD ownership scenario with District operations (Scenario B) was projected to be approximately $13.6 million or 11.9% lower than the status quo CAW ownership scenario (Scenario A). Scenario B is estimated to have a net present value savings from 2021 to 2040 of approximately $267 million. The estimated revenue requirement in 2022 under MPWMD ownership and contract operations (Scenario C) was projected to be approximately $10.2 million or 8.9% lower than the status quo CAW ownership scenario (Scenario A). Scenario C is estimated to have a net present value of savings from 2021 to 2040 of approximately $213 million. These net present value savings estimates include the debt service costs associated with the District paying fair market value for CAW’s Monterey Water System. These cost of service modeling results are summarized in Table ES-2.

The projected reductions in revenue requirements are a result of the following differences between CAW and MPWMD ownership and operation:

1. Lower corporate and administrative overhead costs. An estimated $7.2 million in CAW corporate administrative overhead would be avoided under MPWMD and replaced with approximately $1.8 million in District operations and administrative costs.

2. Operating cost differences. The District’s ability to utilize existing administrative staff and eliminate redundant positions, net of higher pension and benefit costs under public ownership.

3. Cost of public financing (4.0% interest rate) vs. rate of return and CAW profit (7.61%). The tax exempt annual debt interest rate for MPMWD is lower than taxable corporate debt and CAW’s allowable rate of return. The public financing interest rate was reviewed by Barclays and was deemed to be reasonable.

4. Reduction in revenue requirements of an estimated $10.1 million per year (2021 estimate) under public ownership due to avoidance of property and income taxes.

5. Elimination of rate regulatory expenses estimated at $330,000 per year (2021 estimate).

Based on the information and estimates summarized in this report, which are reasonable considering the currently available information, the acquisition of the Monterey Water System by MPWMD appears to be economically feasible. Economic feasibility was assessed by comparing the estimated revenue requirements of the water system under MPWMD ownership versus CAW ownership and indicated that significant revenue requirement savings could be achieved under the MPWMD ownership scenarios that were evaluated

6. Findings and Conclusions

Set forth below is a summary of the findings and conclusions which Raftelis has reached regarding its preliminary valuation and cost of service feasibility study. For a complete understanding of the estimates and assumptions upon which these opinions are based, this report should be read in its entirety.

1. The base estimated value of the Monterey Water System (portion located within MPWMD

jurisdictional boundaries) as of the valuation date (January 1, 2020) is estimated to be approximately $245 million. This estimate is a preliminary estimate of value that was prepared based on a desktop analysis described above for feasibility purposes and information available as

of the date of this report. This value estimate may be higher or lower than the conclusion of

value that may result from the completion of a formal appraisal.

2. This base estimate excludes the value of asset additions, such as construction-work-in-progress, 30% of the Monterey Pipeline and Pump Station value deemed by CPUC not to be used and useful, the value of the desalination plant, and land estimated to be non “used and useful.” The potential value of these additional items was estimated separately and total approximately $114 million. In addition, it was assumed that MPWMD would assume the anticipated SRF loan and any public agency financing associated with the desalination plant (estimated at approximately $181 million), therefore, these amounts were excluded from the valuation estimate but were considered as part of the cost of service evaluation. The value of the Monterey Water System, including the base value estimate and the identified asset additions, was estimated to be approximately $359 million.

3. CAW has incurred other expenses that CPUC has approved for recovery through Monterey District over time. It is possible that MPWMD may be required to compensate CAW for these unrecouped expenses as part of a potential taking of the Monterey Water System. These expense items and their potential amounts include unrecouped portions of tank painting expenses, San Clemente Dam removal costs, the portion of the “acquisition premium” allocable to the Monterey Water System that was approved by the CPUC in 2001 in connection with CAW’s acquisition of the California assets of Citizens Water Company, the portion of the “acquisition premiums” allocable to the Monterey Water System associated with the acquisition of the Bellflower Municipal Water System, the Rio Plaza Water Company, Fruitridge Vista Water Company, and Hillview Water Company that are proposed under CAW’s Special Request No. 11 in its 2019 General Rate Case Application to the CPUC, plus the unrecovered portions of various balancing accounts. These net expenses were estimated to total approximately $155 million as of the valuation date, and adding these net expenses to the “base” water system value estimate, results in a total value estimate plus adjustments of approximately $513 million.

4. Non-Regulated Assets of CAW’s Monterey Water System. Other non-regulated assets of CAW’s Monterey Water System may include other assets that are not currently included in its rate base, except for the value of land which has been considered. These assets either have not been deemed to be “used and useful” for the provision of water service or were contributed by developers and are not allowed by CPUC to be included in rate base. It is possible that some of these non “used and useful” assets may become “used and useful” and could become recoverable in rate base in the future. However, the value of these assets is not likely to be substantial. CAW reports a value of $20.2 million of “contributions-in-aid-of-construction” and “advances-in-aid-ofconstruction.” However, since CAW is not allowed to include the value of these assets in rate base, they have been excluded from consideration in the value of the Monterey Water System.

5. Severance Damages. MPWMD may be required to pay severance damages to CAW for acquiring the Monterey Water System. These damages may relate to not taking the satellite water systems owned and operated by CAW within their Monterey District, but outside of MPWMD’s jurisdictional boundaries. California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1263.420 states that where the public entity is taking less than an entire piece of property, the possibility of severance damages to the remainder should be considered. These damages may relate to not taking the satellite water systems owned and operated by CAW within their Monterey District, but outside of MPWMD’s jurisdictional boundaries. Our tentative conclusion is that CAW is likely to suffer minimal, if any severance damages and any severance damages it does suffer would not be so significant as to materially affect the conclusions of the District’s feasibility analysis. If the District does proceed to prepare a formal appraisal of just compensation for the acquisition of the Monterey Water system, however, it is recommended that the severance damages issue be further reviewed at that time.

6. The cost of service modeling results indicate that significant annual reductions in revenue requirements and projected monthly water bills can be realized by MPWMD acquiring and operating the Monterey Water System. The estimated revenue requirement in 2022 under the MPWMD ownership scenario with District operations (Scenario B) was projected to be approximately $13.6 million or 11.9% lower than the status quo CAW ownership scenario (Scenario A). Scenario B is estimated to have a net present value savings from 2021 to 2040 of approximately $267 million. The estimated revenue requirement in 2022 under MPWMD ownership and contract operations (Scenario C) was projected to be approximately $10.2 million or 8.9% lower than the status quo CAW ownership scenario (Scenario A). Scenario C is estimated to have a net present value of savings from 2021 to 2040 of approximately $213 million. These net present value savings estimates include the debt service costs associated with the District paying fair market value for CAW’s Monterey Water System.

7. Based on the information and estimates summarized in this report, which are reasonable considering the currently available information, the acquisition of the Monterey Water System by MPWMD appears to be economically feasible. Economic feasibility was assessed by comparing the estimated revenue requirements of the water system under MPWMD ownership versus CAW ownership, which indicate significant revenue requirement savings could be achieved under the MPWMD ownership scenarios that were evaluated.

REFERENCE:

Steve Thomas

06 Nov 2019

Featured, Uncategorized

District Releases Measure J Feasibility Study for Public Takeover of Cal Am

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MPWMD) & MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES, October 16, 2017

MPWMD & MPRWA Special Joint Meeting 10-16-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

AGENDA PACKET, SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MPWMD) & MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
October 16, 2017

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REVISED AGENDA (7/17/2015) Regular Meeting Board of Directors Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Featuring GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 8. Update on Development of Water Supply Projects & PUBLIC HEARING 12. CONSIDER FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 165 AMENDING RULES 11, 21, 23 AND 23.1 AND ADDING RULE 23.7 TO ESTABLISH A WATER ENTITLEMENT FOR MALPASO WATER LLC & ACTION ITEM 16. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO MODIFY CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 2009-0060

ABSTRACT: The REVISED AGENDA (7/17/2015) Regular Meeting Board of Directors Monterey Peninsula Water Management District scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2015 document copy is embedded. Agenda Items featured include GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 8. Update on Development of Water Supply Projects and PUBLIC HEARING 12. CONSIDER FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 165 AMENDING RULES 11, 21, 23 AND 23.1 AND ADDING RULE 23.7 TO ESTABLISH A WATER ENTITLEMENT FOR MALPASO WATER LLC and ACTION ITEM 16. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO MODIFY CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 2009-0060; all staff report document copies are embedded. 

Note: Agenda Packet (190 pages)

Mpwmd Agenda 07-20-15

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REVISED AGENDA (7/17/2015)

Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

******************

Monday, July 20, 2015

Mpwmd Update on Development of Water Supply Projects 07-20-15

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
8. Update on Development of Water Supply Projects

Mpwmd Establish a Water Entitlement for Malpaso Water Llc 7-20-15

ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING
12. CONSIDER FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 165 AMENDING RULES 11, 21, 23 AND 23.1 AND ADDING RULE 23.7 TO ESTABLISH A WATER ENTITLEMENT FOR MALPASO WATER LLC
Meeting Date: July 20, 2015
From: David J. Stoldt, General Manager
Prepared By: Stephanie Locke
General Counsel Review: Yes
Committee Recommendation: On March 17, 2015, the Water Supply Planning Committee recommended the Board conduct the first reading of a draft ordinance that would amend Rules 11, 21, 23 and 23.1, and add Rule 23.7 to establish a Water Entitlement for Malpaso Water LLC.
CEQA Compliance: District is a Responsible Agency relying on an EIR certified by the SWRCB

Mpwmd Proposal to Modify Cease and Desist Order 07-20-15

ITEM: ACTION ITEM
16. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO MODIFY CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 2009-0060
Meeting Date: July 20, 2015
From: David J. Stoldt, General Manager
Prepared By: David J. Stoldt
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A

2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: A GLASS HALF FULL? THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

ABSTRACT: The 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report “A GLASS HALF FULL? THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT” document copy is embedded. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections are reproduced.

FINDINGS

F1. The MPWMD has effectively communicated the need for consumers to conserve water.

F2. Reduced funding for the MPWMD rebate program may impact participation in the voluntary retrofit of home appliances.

F3. Water conservation efforts for the MPWMD are nearly maximized; further efforts may conserve an additional 500-1,000 acre-feet per year.

F4. Although water sources are sufficient for existing MPWMD communities and customers, this will change with the execution of Order 95-10 and enforcement of the State’s Cease and Desist Order Cal Am to decrease pumping from the Carmel River.

F5. Although current water sources are sufficient to serve existing MPWMD customers, these sources are not sufficient to allow for growth.

F6. The MPWMD supports the current Cal Am proposal to construct (and so own) a desalination facility and has agreed to access low-cost funding for this project on behalf of Cal Am.

F7. The MCWD has sufficient water to serve existing customers but will need reliable sources of additional water if proposed developments in Ft. Ord are to move forward.

F8. 2014 groundwater legislation could affect the MCWD’s current allocation of water from the Salinas Valley Basin.

F9. A lack of permanent senior management at MCWD has led to instability within the organization.

F10. Individuals elected to the MCWD Board of Directors are not required to undergo formal training in governance, procedure, and chain of command.

F11. The technology exists to track water use in real time, alerting technicians to serious water leaks; however, MCWD does not have this technology in place.

F12. Excess surface water from the Carmel and Salinas Rivers could be used to recharge the aquifers, providing a method for “storing” water that would otherwise flow to the ocean.  MPWMD is currently capturing water from the Carmel River.

F13. The MOU signed by both districts and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey County Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and the City of Salinas may lead to a more efficient use of reclaimed and treated wastewater across the county, provided the MOU results in a signed agreement.

F14. Conservation offset programs that involve conservation agreements between developers, water districts, and cities have significant potential to benefit both conservation efforts and city planning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) continue conservation efforts to achieve additional water savings, with the goal of conserving an additional 500 acre-feet per year by the end of 2016.

R2. MPWMD seek additional funding to offset reduction in rebate program budget by the end of 2015.

R3. MPWMD offer incentives for retrofitting multi-family laundry facilities by the end of 2016.

R4. MPWMD mandate installation of pressure reducers on all water supply lines by the end of 2016.

R5. MPWMD institute offset programs for new residential and commercial developments that offer incentives for builders to pay for conservation efforts in other structures as part of permit approval beginning in January 2016.

R6. MPWMD install water saving devices (low-flow toilets, water-efficient washers and dishwashers, aerators) in low-income housing units in conjunction with offset programs.

R7. The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) continue conservation efforts to achieve additional water savings.

R8. MCWD install technology to track water use in real time by the end of 2016.

R9. MCWD hire additional personnel to expand current conservation efforts by September 2015.

R10. MCWD institute offset programs for new residential and commercial developments that offer incentives for builders to pay for conservation efforts in other structures as part of permit approval beginning in January 2016.

R11. MCWD hire permanent General Manager and District Engineer as soon as possible to stabilize operations.

R12. MCWD provide mandatory and ongoing training for all board members, effective immediately.

R13. MPWMD and MCWD keep abreast of new technology for conservation and desalination and utilize such technology when economically feasible.

R14. MCWD and MPWMD make all possible efforts to form an agreement with the signers of the wastewater MOU with the goal of having such an agreement in place by the end of 2015.

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests a response as indicated below from the following governing bodies:

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board of Directors:

• Findings F1 thru F6, F13, F14; Recommendations R1 thru 6, R13, R14

Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors:

• Findings F7 thru F14; Recommendations R7 thru R14.

A Glass Half Full Mpwmd & Mcwd 06-05-15 Mccgj Report

2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report
A GLASS HALF FULL? THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
June 5, 2015
(16 pages)

PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT, APRIL 2015

ABSTRACT: “Pure Water Monterey is an advanced water recycling project, jointly developed by two public agencies – Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA.)  Pure Water Monterey is a multi-benefit, integrated, regional solution that will provide a water recycling model for other regions in California.” Project Technology: “Pure Water Monterey will utilize secondary treated water pumped into the Advanced Treatment Plant which would be put through an additional four-step Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) purification process of Ozone (O3) Pre-Treatment, Membrane Filtration (MF), Reverse Osmosis (RO), and Oxidation with Ultra Violet Light (UV) and Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2). These methods are commonly used in processing strictly regulated items for public consumption like baby food and bottled water. The purified water is near distilled quality and exceeds all drinking water standards.” 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD: The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR runs for 45 days, beginning April 22, 2015 and ending June 5, 2015.
Comments on the Draft EIR must be submitted in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2015 to the mailing address, fax number, or email address listed below:

By Mail:  Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Administration Office
ATTN: Bob Holden, Principal Engineer
5 Harris Ct., Bldg D
Monterey, CA 93940

By Email: gwr@mrwpca.com

By Fax: 831-372-6178 (please also send a physical copy of the correspondence to ensure receipt).
The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT document (without VOLUME 1 APPENDICES, Appendix A – Appendix Z) APRIL 2015 is embedded.

REFERENCES:

Fact Sheet (03-11-15)

Tri-Fold Brochure 03/11/15)

Meeting ScheduleEmail List

Contact Information

Deir Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project 04-15-No-Appendix

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT

(without VOLUME 1 APPENDICES, Appendix A – Appendix Z) (1247 pages)
APRIL 2015
Prepared for:
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency in partnership with Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

REFERENCE:

Document/Report	Size	Date
Copy of the Full Draft EIR – (Without Appendices)	64.5MB	04/22/15
Table of Contents	451kb	04/22/15
S. SUMMARY	3.33MB	04/22/15
1. INTRODUCTION	2.32MB	04/22/15
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION	26.1MB	04/22/15
3. WATER QUALITY STATUTORY AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW	415kb	04/22/15
4.  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 Introduction to Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures	1.74MB	04/22/15
4.2 Aesthetics	3.97MB	04/22/15
4.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas	736kb	04/22/15
4.4 Biological Resources: Fisheries	3.02MB	04/22/15
4.5 Biological Resources: Terrestrial	2.36MB	04/22/15
4.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources	1.64MB	04/22/15
4.7 Energy and Mineral Resources	1.21MB	04/22/15
4.8 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity	7.62MB	04/22/15
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials	1.68MB	04/22/15
4.10 Hydrology/Water Quality: Groundwater	3.73MB	04/22/15
4.11 Hydrology/Water Quality: Surface Water	7.95MB	04/22/15
4.12 Land Use, Agriculture and Forest Resources	2.64MB	04/22/15
4.13 Marine Biological Resources	1.21MB	04/22/15
4.14 Noise and Vibration	1.60MB	04/22/15
4.15 Population and Housing	467kb	04/22/15
4.16 Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities	606kb	04/22/15
4.17 Traffic and Transportation	2.52MB	04/22/15
4.18 Water Supply and Wastewater Systems	1.52MB	04/22/1
5. GROWTH AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES	210kb	04/22/15
6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT	2.31MB	04/22/15
7. LIST OF PREPARERS	217kb	04/22/15
Appendices – Cover
Appendix A: Scoping Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report	35.3MB	04/22/15
Appendix B: Source Water Assumptions Memorandum	963kb	04/22/15
Appendix C: Source Water Rights White Paper	582kb	04/22/15
Appendix D: Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Water Quality Statutory and Regulatory Compliance Technical Report	3.89MB	04/22/15
Appendix E: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Analyses	1.06MB	04/22/15
Appendix F: Memorandum Regarding Steelhead Habitat and Passage Effects Assessment: Salinas River	2.18MB	04/22/15
Appendix G: Fisheries Impact Assessments: Reclamation Ditch/Tembladero Slough Diversions	5.48MB	04/22/15
Appendix H: Supporting Information for the Biological Resources: Terrestrial Section	94.2MB	04/22/15
Appendix I: Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act	58.0MB	04/22/15
Appendix J: Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Northern Monterey County, California	9.22MB	04/22/15
Appendix K: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR Monterey County, California	20.8MB	04/22/15
Appendix L: Recharge Impacts Assessment Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project	8.92MB	04/22/15
Appendix M: Memorandum Regarding GWR Project EIR – Cumulative Projects Modeling Results for Seaside Groundwater Basin	2.63MB	04/22/15
Appendix N: Memorandum Regarding Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project – Impacts of Changes in Percolation at the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility on Groundwater and the Salinas River	997kb	04/22/15
Appendix O: Salinas River Inflow Impacts Report	16.9MB	04/22/15
Appendix P: Reclamation Ditch Yield Study	21.7MB	04/22/15
Appendix Q: Blanco Drain Yield Study	4.56MB	04/22/15
Appendix R: Groundwater Replenishment Project Urban Runoff Capture at Lake El Estero	15.0MB	04/22/15
Appendix S: Memorandum Regarding Predicted Impact on Farming from Use of Recycled Water with Higher Salinity	1.46MB	04/22/15
Appendix T: MRWPCA GWR Discharge Dilution Analysis	1.0MB	04/22/15
Appendix U: Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project	3.46MB	04/22/15
Appendix V: Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Project Variant	3.35MB	04/22/15
Appendix W: Noise Study Report	2.64MB	04/22/15
Appendix X: Regional Treatment Plant Wastewater Flow Projection Report	2.57MB	04/22/15
Appendix Y: Overview of Combined MPWSP with 6.4-mgd Desalination Plant and GWR Project	1.75MB	04/22/15
Appendix Z: Alternatives to CalAm Distribution System: Monterey and Transfer Pipelines	3.46MB	04/22/15
Other
List of Acronyms	224kb	04/22/15