Evidentiary Hearing, California Public Utilities Commission, April 13, 2017: A.15-07-019 (EH) - Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Modify Conservation and Rationing Rules, Rate Design, and Other Related Issues for the Monterey District

ABSTRACT: RE: A.15-07-019 (EH) - Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Modify Conservation and Rationing Rules, Rate Design, and Other Related Issues for the Monterey District. On April 13, 2017, a California Public Utility Commission Evidentiary Hearing is scheduled, Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. “Joint Parties shall appear at an evidentiary hearing to be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 13, 2017, in the Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. The hearing shall be held for Joint Parties to explain how the Phase 3A true-up mechanism works. California American Water Company shall appear and show cause why it should not be penalized for violations of the Public Utilities Code and Commission decisions. California American Water Company and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates shall, and other parties may, appear and address specific items addressed in this Ruling. By April 11, 2017, parties who intend to actively participate in the April 13 hearing shall each file and serve a prehearing statement that provides information specified herein to help organize the hearing. Parties shall be prepared to address other scheduling matters to conclude Phases 3A and 3B. The hearing may continue, if necessary, to April 14, 2017.” ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING HEARING AND PHASE 3 SCHEDULE (FILED 3-28-17), DECISION ADDRESSING WRAM BALANCES, RATE DESIGN, CONSERVATION AND RATIONING RULES, AND OTHER ISSUES FOR THE MONTEREY DISTRICT (Date of Issuance 12/8/2016) and DECISION ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE SUMMER OUTDOOR WATERING ALLOTMENTS IN THE MONTEREY DISTRICT (Date of Issuance 3/24/2016) document copies are embedded. Summaries and ORDERS are reproduced.

04/13/17 9:30 a.m. ALJ Weatherford Comr Randolph

A.15-07-019 (EH) - Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Modify Conservation and Rationing Rules, Rate Design, and Other Related Issues for the Monterey District. Commission Courtroom, San Francisco (Also April 14.) (EH) = Evidentiary Hearing

Alj's Ruling Setting Hearing and Phase 3 Schedule 3-28-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 3-28-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING HEARING AND PHASE 3 SCHEDULE

Summary
Joint Parties shall appear at an evidentiary hearing to be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 13, 2017, in the Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. The hearing shall be held for Joint Parties to explain how the Phase 3A true-up mechanism works. California American Water Company shall appear and show cause why it should not be penalized for violations of the Public Utilities Code and Commission decisions. California American Water Company and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates shall, and other parties may, appear and address specific items addressed in this Ruling. By April 11, 2017, parties who intend to actively participate in the April 13 hearing shall each file and serve a prehearing statement that provides information specified herein to help organize the hearing. Parties shall be prepared to address other scheduling matters to conclude Phases 3A and 3B. The hearing may continue, if necessary, to April 14, 2017.

IT IS RULED that:

1. An evidentiary hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 13, 2017,in the Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. The hearing may continue on April 14, 2017, if needed.

2. California American Water Company, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and Coalition of Peninsula Businesses (Joint Parties) shall appear at the evidentiary hearing. Joint Parties shall have one or more witnesses available to explain the operation and implementation of the Phase 3A pilot program, with copies of the material in sufficiently large type so as to be readable. Joint Parties shall have one or more witnesses available to address the reasonableness and feasibility of returning a Phase 3B cost recovery waiver to each customer as a bill credit.

3. California American Water Company is ordered to appear and show cause why it should not be penalized for violations of the Public Utilities Code and Commission decisions identified in Decision 16-12-003 and stated in this Ruling. Based on the assumption the Commission may determine a penalty is warranted, California American Water Company shall also address each of the following nine penalty considerations: the severity of the offense; the conduct of the utility; the financial resources of the utility; the totality of the circumstances; the role of precedent; the sophistication, experience and size of the utility; the number of victims; the economic benefit received from the unlawful acts; and the continuing nature of the offense. In particular, California American Water Company shall specifically provide (1) data on the financial resources of American Water Company, and (2) citations to relevant Commission decisions involving reasonably comparable factual circumstances with an explanation of any substantial differences in outcome. On the assumption that one or both Settlement Agreements will not be adopted by the Commission and a penalty is appropriate, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and other parties may, also appear at the hearing and be prepared to address the nine penalty considerations stated above.

4. The revised schedule for Phases 3A and 3B as set forth in the body of this Ruling is adopted. 5. Each party shall file and serve a prehearing statement with the following information no later than April 11, 2017: (a) a brief description of what the party expects to show at the hearing, (b) the name of each witness the party will sponsor, the subject of the testimony, and the proposed order, (c) a list of exhibits the party may seek to have identified, (d) an estimate of the amount of time necessary for direct, (e) an estimate of the amount of time necessary for cross-examination, and (f) anything else the Commission should reasonably consider in order to make the hearing efficient. To the best of their ability, California American Water Company and all other parties shall identify their witnesses and provide their exhibit list and all other relevant information to other parties in advance of April 11, 2017. All parties shall use all reasonable efforts to file and serve a joint prehearing statement.

6. All parties shall be prepared at the hearing on April 13, 2017 to address other scheduling matters to conclude Phases 3A and 3B as efficiently, equitably, and soon as reasonably possible.

Decision Addressing Wram Balances, Rate Design, Conservation and Rationing Rules, And Other Issues for the... by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

Date of Issuance 12/8/2016
DECISION ADDRESSING WRAM BALANCES, RATE DESIGN, CONSERVATION AND RATIONING RULES, AND OTHER ISSUES FOR THE MONTEREY DISTRICT

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, file a Tier 2 advice letter in conformance with General Order 96-B. The advice letter shall request recovery of the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism/Modified Cost Balancing Account (WRAM/MCBA) balance through 2014 for the Monterey District of $39.8 million authorized in this decision, reduced by collections from existing WRAM/MCBA surcharges, to be recovered over five years with interest at the 90-day commercial paper rate. The advice letter shall clearly and fully itemize the WRAM/MCBA balance through 2014, including adjustments for collections from existing surcharges. The recovery shall be by a fixed monthly surcharge assessed on the basis of meter size using standard meter ratios. The multiple volumetric surcharges now in place for this recovery shall be terminated concurrent with the advice letter becoming effective. When the rates are to become effective, Cal-Am shall provide customer notice and explanation of the rate changes, with the notice first reviewed by the Commission‘s Public Advisor.

2. Future Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism/Modified Cost Balancing Account (WRAM/MCBA) advice letters filed and served by California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) for the Monterey District shall request recovery of under-collections (or refunds of over-collections) by a uniform surcharge (or surcredit) on each unit of water sold (volumetric rate) including Tier 1. This applies to all WRAM/MCBA balances recovered once the new rate design is implemented. Cal-Am shall provide customer notice of each such advice letter consistent with General Order (GO) 96-B. In addition, for each of the next three advice letter requests, Cal-Am shall notify all customers in the Monterey District by bill insert or direct mail of the request even if that notice is not otherwise required by GO 96-B. The Notice shall be approved by the Commission‘s Public Advisor before it is issued by Cal-Am.

3. California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) shall, within 60 days of the date of this decision, file a Tier 2 advice letter in conformance with General Order 96-B. The advice letter shall include tariffs for the Monterey District that: (a) eliminate the residential allotment system, (b) recover 30 percent of residential customer fixed costs in the residential monthly service charge, (c) use the temporary modification to standard residential meter ratios recommended by Cal-Am for recovery of the increased percentage of fixed costs in the residential monthly service charge, (d) use the standardized residential rate design recommended by Cal-Am in which each customer gets the same amount of water in each tier at the tier break points and modified block widths, (e) reduce the multiple of Tier 5 to Tier 1 residential rates to 8 as proposed by Cal-Am, (f) use 2015 residential consumption data for rate development, (g) apply a 30 percent discount from the monthly service charge and the rates in Tier 1 through 4 for customers in the low-income ratepayer assistance program, and (h) move 8.4 percent of forecast revenue collection from residential to non-residential customers. Cal-Am shall, and parties may, as soon as feasible, recommend elimination of the temporary modification to the standard residential meter ratios for recovery of the increased percentage of fixed costs in the residential monthly service charge, and shall do so by the time of Cal-Am‘s next general rate case (after Application 16-07-002) or explain in that general rate case why not. When the rates are to become effective, Cal-Am shall provide customer notice and explanation of the rate changes, with the notice first reviewed by the Commission‘s Public Advisor.

4. California-American Water Company shall study the following issue and report its findings along with its recommendations in Application 16-07-002. The issue is the potential for automatic enrollment in the low-income ratepayer assistance program, along with coordination with energy utilities, municipalities, and community based organizations to provide conservation information and tools to its customers.

5. The June 17, 2016 Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement Between California-American Water Company and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District on the Annual Consumption True-Up Pilot Program and on the Modifications to Monterey District Rule 14.1.1 and Tariff Schedule MO-14.1.1 is denied. California-American Water Company and parties are encouraged to file and serve a motion for Commission adoption of an improved annual consumption true-up pilot program, with the improvements incorporating those stated in the body of this decision as well as addressing the issues also stated in the body of the decision. That motion, if any, shall be filed and served within 60 days of the date of this decision. The Administrative Law Judge may extend the 60 day deadline for good cause.

6. California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, file a Tier 2 advice letter in conformance with General Order 96-B. The advice letter shall include a modified Monterey District Rule 14.1.1 and Tariff Schedule MO-14.1.1 that is consistent with the proposal attached to July 13, 2016 Reply Comments filed by Cal-Am and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District with one modification: Schedule 14.1.1 part B.4 (and related part(s) in Rule 14.1.1 if any) shall be modified to read:
―Once the Schedule is activated, utility can implement Stages 2, 3, and 4 or change levels of the Emergency Conservation Rates, of the Schedule by filing a Tier 2 advice letter.‖

7. Application 15-07-019 remains open in Phase 3 to address (a) a motion, if filed, for Commission adoption of an improved annual consumption true-up pilot program, and (b) a penalty phase. Parties in Phase 3 shall address by evidence and briefs, as appropriate, whether or not a penalty (if any is ultimately assessed) can be returned directly to ratepayers, including the desirability, feasibility, legality, and any other relevant factors that must be considered in doing so.

Decision Adopting Settlement Agreement to Eliminate 3-24-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

Date of Issuance 3/24/2016
DECISION ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE SUMMER OUTDOOR WATERING ALLOTMENTS IN THE MONTEREY DISTRICT

Summary
This Phase 1 decision adopts a Settlement Agreement to eliminate the summer outdoor watering allotment for Tiers 3 and 4 in the Monterey District of the California-American Water Company, effective May 1, 2016. It also provides for direct notification to customers of such elimination. The decision takes effect immediately.

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The December 16, 2015 motion to adopt the Phase 1 Settlement Agreement to eliminate summer outdoor watering allotments is granted.

2. The Settlement Agreement attached to this decision as Attachment A is approved.

3. Application 15-07-019 remains open to address the issues in Phase 2.

  

SOURCE: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Timothy J. Sullivan,
Executive Director
Daily Calendar Friday, April 7, 2017

REFERENCES:

A1507019 – Proceeding

Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Modify Conservation and Rationing Rules, Rate Design, and Other Related Issues for the Monterey District.

ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Jul 24, 2015)
COMMISSIONER: Liane Randolph (Assigned Feb 10, 2017)

Cal Am facing potential multimillion-dollar fine over residential water allocation system

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 04/07/17, 6:28 PM PDT

State Water Resources Control Board Deny Petitions for Reconsideration of Water Rights Order No. 2016-0016 Filed by Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula (WRAMP, aka Water Plus) & Public Trust Alliance

ABSTRACT: On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the proposed Order Denying Petitions for Reconsideration of Water Rights Order No. 2016-0016, adopted by the Board on July 19, 2016, filed by Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula (WRAMP, aka Water Plus) and Public Trust Alliance. "Order WR 2016-0016 extends the date by which Cal-Am must cease its unauthorized Carmel River diversions from December 2016 to December 2021 and sets a maximum diversion limit of 8,310 acre-feet, subject to further reductions of 1,000 acre-feet should Cal-Am not satisfy specific milestone dates for construction of, and thence use of water from, a desalination project and a recycled water project (Pure Water Monterey)." (DRAFT) CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the State Water Board finds that State Water Board Order WR 2016-0016 was appropriate and proper, and denies the petitions for reconsideration. To the extent that the petitions for reconsideration purported to raise issues not addressed in this order, the State Water Board finds that the issues do not raise substantial issues related to the causes for reconsideration enumerated in California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 768. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the petitions for reconsideration are denied.

SWRCB 11-01-16 Agenda Rev by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, November 1, 2016 – 9:00 a.m.

REVISED AGENDA

SWRCB 11-01-16 ITEM 6 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

BOARD MEETING SESSION – DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

NOVEMBER 1, 2016

ITEM 6

weitzman 08-16-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER TO AMEND ORDER WR 2009-0060
Petitioner Water Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula
Dr. Ron Weitzman, President

Warburton 08-15-16 Pet Reconsid by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

Petition for Reconsideration of Order WR 2016-0016
Petitioner: Michael Warburton

Executive Director 

Public Trust Alliance

REFERENCES:

California-American Water Company Request to Change Order WR 2009-0060

Petition to reconsider Carmel River cutback order extension denied
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 11/03/16, 5:18 PM PDT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: ‘ The question before us is whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission), which is empowered to regulate the rates and charges of public utilities, had the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee. We conclude that the PUC did not have such authority.’

ABSTRACT: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent; CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO., Real Party in Interest, the Court ruled that the PUC did not have “the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee.” “Petitioner Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, a public agency, imposed a fee on a public utility’s customers for work it had undertaken to mitigate environmental damage caused by the utility. The agency’s fee was charged as a line item on the utility’s bill and was collected by the utility on behalf of the agency. The question before us is whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission), which is empowered to regulate the rates and charges of public utilities, had the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee. We conclude that the PUC did not have such authority.” The Opinion document copy is embedded.

S208838 Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent;
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO., Real Party in Interest.
S208838
Cal.P.U.C. Decision Nos. 11-03-035 and 13-01-040

REFERENCE:
California Supreme Court clears way for user fee on Cal Am bills

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 01/25/16, 7:38 PM PST

Final Report: Technical Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for the Proposed Poseidon Water Desalination Facility at Huntington Beach, California, Authored by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel Under the Auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC, Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc., October 9, 2014

ABSTRACT: The Final Report: Technical Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for the Proposed Poseidon Water Desalination Facility at Huntington Beach, California, Authored by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel Under the Auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC, Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc., October 9, 2014, document copy is embedded. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Phase 2 section, Chapter VI, is reproduced. Importantly, “Only the seabed infiltration gallery and the beach gallery survived the fatal flaw analysis and both are deemed to be technically feasible at this site.” “The ISTAP evaluated nine types of subsurface intakes for technical feasibility at the Huntington Beach site. The subsurface feasibility options included: (1) vertical wells completed in the shallow aquifer above the Talbert aquifer, (2) vertical deep wells completed within the Talbert aquifer, (3) vertical wells open to both the shallow and Talbert aquifer, (4) radial collector wells tapping the shallow aquifer, (5) slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer, (6) seabed infiltration gallery (SIG), (7) beach gallery (surf zone infiltration gallery), (8) horizontal directional drilled wells, and (9) a water tunnel.” “It is the collective opinion of the ISTAP that each of the other seven subsurface intake options for the desired hydraulic capacity range (100-127 MGD) had at least one technical fatal flaw that eliminated it from further technical consideration.”
Note: Final Report Becomes Part of the Public Record

REFERENCES:

POSEIDON WATER

Huntington Beach Project

Public hearings needed about desal science, MONTEREY HERALD

— Kristina Baer, Monterey

POSTED: 10/26/15

Experiment a costly waste for Cal Am ratepayers, MONTEREY HERALD

— Roland Martin, Carmel

POSTED: 10/24/15

ISTAP Final Phase 1 Report 10-9-14

Final Report: Technical Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for theProposed Poseidon Water Desalination Facility at Huntington Beach, California

Authored by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel

Under the Auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC

Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc.

October 9, 2014

Chapter VI. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Phase 2

The ISTAP evaluated nine types of subsurface intakes for technical feasibility at the Huntington Beach site. The subsurface feasibility options included: (1) vertical wells completed in the shallow aquifer above the Talbert aquifer, (2) vertical deep wells completed within the Talbert aquifer, (3) vertical wells open to both the shallow and Talbert aquifer, (4) radial collector wells tapping the shallow aquifer, (5) slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer, (6) seabed infiltration gallery (SIG), (7) beach gallery (surf zone infiltration gallery), (8) horizontal directional drilled wells, and (9) a water tunnel.

The hydraulic design capacity for these subsurface intake types ranged from 127 MGD for the combined requirement of the proposed SWRO plant and RO concentrate discharge dilution, and 100 MGD, if the concentrate discharge dilution was unneeded (diffuser system used to reduce environmental impacts from the concentrate discharge).

The ISTAP used a standard definition of technical feasibility as defined in the California Coastal

Act and carefully evaluated fatal flaws of each subsurface intake type considered for application at the proposed Huntington Beach site. Only the seabed infiltration gallery and the beach gallery survived the fatal flaw analysis and both are deemed to be technically feasible at this site. The design of both types of galleries is well understood, but construction challenges would be expected for both due to their subsea/subtidal construction. The surf zone (beach) gallery, in particular, was judged to have some potentially difficult constructability challenges (and thus a lesser degree of technical feasibility) related to construction in the high-energy surf zone. The ISTAP does not consider the existing scale of use of any particular subsurface intake compared to the capacity requirement at Huntington Beach to be a fatal flaw for technical feasibility (e.g. the only existing seabed infiltration gallery has an hydraulic capacity of 27 MGD versus the 100 MGD proposed at the Huntington Beach site, and no large scale implementation of the beach gallery has been constructed and operated to date).

It is the collective opinion of the ISTAP that each of the other seven subsurface intake options for the desired hydraulic capacity range (100-127 MGD) had at least one technical fatal flaw that eliminated it from further technical consideration. The shallow vertical wells would create unacceptable water level drawdowns landward of the shoreline and could impact wetlands and cause movement of potential contaminants seaward. The deep vertical wells would have a significant impact on the Talbert aquifer that would interfere with the management of the salinity barrier and the management of the interior freshwater basin. The combined shallow and deep-water wells would adversely impact both the shallow aquifer and Talbert aquifer, and in addition, would produce waters with differing inorganic chemistry, which would adversely affect SWRO plant operation. Radial collector wells constructed into the shallow aquifer would have to be located very close to the surf zone which would make them susceptible to damage during storms and would be impacted by the projected sea level rise. Slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer would interfere with the management of the salinity barrier and the management of the freshwater basin, and further, would likely have geochemical issues with the water produced from the aquifer (e.g., oxidation states of mixing waters). The recently-collected offshore hydraulic conductively data shows that the use of HDD wells is technically questionable and the largest capacity system in Spain is currently not operating at its original design capacity. The water tunnel constructed in the unlithified sediment at Huntington Beach would have overwhelming constructability issues.

The ISTAP recommends in Phase 2, further consideration be given solely to seabed infiltration galleries (SIG) and beach gallery intake systems. For clarification, the ISTAP believes that the remaining subsurface intake system deemed to be technically feasible could meet the seawater extraction goals of either 100 or 127 MGD.

It is important to stress that the ISTAP interpreted its Phase 1 charge relative to the Terms of Reference to be the evaluation of the technical feasibility of subsurface intake technology linked to a proposal. Consistent with that approach, the Phase 1 Panel considered nine technologies keyed to a potential project in the range 100 to 127 mgd. The Panel did address the broad issue of downward scalability where they saw relevance, but did not consider a full or parsed range of scale options for any of the nine technologies as this task exceeded the agreed upon scope defined in the TOR. Scalability issues could be addressed in subsequent assessments of other feasibility factors at the mutual agreement of the conveners.

Further, it was not the charge of the Phase 1 ISTAP to evaluate the economic considerations of using a subsurface intake versus a conventional open-ocean intake in this phase. The ISTAP recommends that the Phase 2 Panel give considerable analysis to the constructability of the seabed infiltration and beach gallery intake systems, because this greatly affects the economic viability of their potential use. However, the ISTAP recommends that in the Phase 2 evaluation of the subsurface intake options that a detailed lifecycle cost analysis should be provided to the succeeding committee. This lifecycle cost analysis should contain at least four scenarios, including: (1) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate operating period duration obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a conventional open-ocean intake without considering the cost of potential environmental impacts of impingement and entrainment, (2) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate duration of an operating period obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a conventional open-ocean intake and considering the cost of potential environmental impacts of impingement and entrainment, (3) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate duration of an operating period obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a seabed gallery intake system (or beach gallery intake system) using the same pretreatment design as used in treating open-ocean seawater, and (4) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate duration of an operating period obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a seabed gallery intake system (or beach gallery intake system) using a reduced degree of pretreatment, such as mixed media filtration followed by cartridge filters.

In each of these scenarios, the ISTAP recommends that the selected design hydraulic capacity match both the minimum and maximum flow rates consistent with the desired production rate of a 50 MGD desalination facility using the SWRO technology. The definition of an “appropriate” operating period should follow accepted industry standards for such lifecycle cost analyses. Typically, a period of 30 years is used, but given concerns on the potential for sea level rise impacts, analysis over a longer operating period (e.g. 50 years) may be desirable. In addition, the ISTAP questions the need for the use of seawater to dilute the concentrate discharge given the well-known use of diffuser outfalls to meet ocean discharge requirements.

The ISTAP also recommends that “Technical Feasibility” should continue to be defined by generally recognized factors as documented in the California Coastal Act of 1976. (Section 30108 of the California Public Resources Code)

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REQUESTING DATA ON RATEMAKING AND GEOSCIENCE PATENTS

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REQUESTING DATA ON RATEMAKING AND GEOSCIENCE PATENTS document copy is embedded. Importantly, We seek the data specified below to further inform the Commission and the public on this issue, with the data provided no more than 10 days from today.
1. Dennis Williams, President of Geoscience, shall:
a. Describe each of his patents, including a brief explanation of all valid and assertable claims, including claims related to MPWSP.
b. Describe whether the work done on the MPWSP likely fall within the scope of the claims of any of his patents?
c. Explain each potential patent claim and its integration into the MPSWP.
d. Disclose any pending patent applications with claims that, if granted, the project would potentially infringe.
e. Disclose any pending patent applications that will become relevant to MPSWP now or in the future?
f. State anything else necessary for a reasonably complete statement regarding the relationship of his patents to the MPWSP.
2. Cal-Am shall:
a. Provide a copy of the signed and executed contract between Cal-Am and Geoscience, along with any supplemental documents that accompanied the signed and executed contract (e.g., scope of work, amendments, modifications, extensions) and any written communications related to that contract and those documents;
b. Provide a copy of the signed and executed subcontract between RBF Consulting (RBF) and Geoscience, along with any supplemental documents that accompanied the signed and executed contract (e.g., scope of work, amendments, modifications, extensions), and any written communications related to that contract and those documents;
c. Provide a copy of any and all patents held by Dennis Williams, as well as any related illustrative documents, that were exchanged between Geoscience and Cal-Am and/or RBF, and any written communications related to such patents;
d. Detail whether Williams, as patent holder, has entered into any agreements with Cal-Am or RBF regarding patents and/or licenses with regards to the MPWSP.
e. Explain if Williams, as patent holder, has executed any contracts or agreements with Cal-Am and/or RBF with respect to limiting patent and/or licensing claims;
i. If so, is this only for current claims?
ii. If so, does this include future claims?
iii.If so, produce all documents related to such contracts or agreements.
f. Determine and explain if Williams, the patent holder, has patents pending or intends to file future patents that may assert claims that MPWSP infringes upon:
i. Has Williams indicated to Cal-Am that he intends to claim patent infringement in the future?
ii. Has Williams entered into any contract or agreement with Cal-Am and/or RBF promising not to make future claims of patent infringement?
g. Explain what steps, if any, Cal-Am has taken to ensure that Williams’ patents are not relevant to the MPWSP and state when those steps were taken;
h. State whether Cal-Am has examined and analyzed the potential for Williams to later contend that the MPWSP infringes on his patents and that he will therefore seek a license and, if so, provide a copy of that examination and analysis and any documents related thereto;
i. State the degree, if any, to which ratepayers may be asked to pay any costs related to the patents of Williams, and identify those costs and produce any documents related to any such assertion;
j. State the steps Cal-Am has taken to ensure that ratepayers will not be subject to any future impact from patents held by Williams and produce any documents related to any such assertion;
k. State the steps Cal-Am is prepared to take to ensure that ratepayers will not be subject to any future impact from patents held by Williams; and
l. State anything else necessary for a reasonably complete statement regarding the relationship of William’s patents to the MPWSP, and costs related to those patents that Cal-Am may seek to recover from ratepayers.
IT IS RULED that, within 15 days of the date of this Ruling, Dennis Williams, President of Geoscience, shall file and serve responses to the inquiries stated in Item 1 in the body of this Ruling. Within 15 days of the date of this Ruling, California-American Water Company shall file and serve responses to the inquiries stated in Item 2 in the body of this Ruling.

Alj's Ruling Requesting Data on Ratemaking and Geoscience Patents 7-14-15

Filing Date 7-14-15
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REQUESTING DATA ON RATEMAKING AND GEOSCIENCE PATENTS

REFERENCE:
CPUC replaces desal project manager, seeks conflict answers
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 07/13/15, 6:03 PM PDT

THE PEOPLE’S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT (PMLWDP) : MOSS LANDING HARBOR DISTRICT NOTICE OF PREPARATION Environmental Impact Report for People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project

ABSTRACT: Regarding the Environmental Impact Report for People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the Moss Landing Harbor District (District), as CEQA Lead Agency, is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project (PMLWDP or Proposed Project). Accordingly, two Scoping Meetings were held on Wednesday, July 8, 2015 in Del Rey Oaks and Prunedale on the scope of the EIR. The scoping meetings presented an overview of the Proposed Project and the project alternatives identified to date. Subsequent to the presentation, interested parties were given the opportunity to make oral comments on issues to be considered in the EIR, or on Notice of Preparation People’s Moss Landing Desalination Project 2.
Written scoping comments may be submitted by U.S. mail or email during the NOP review period, or in person at the scoping meetings listed below. The scoping comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2015. Please include your name, address, and email address if you would like to receive future notices on this matter. Comments may be sent by email to PeoplesDesal@aspeneg.com or to the address below:
Linda G. McIntyre, Moss Landing Harbor District
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935
San Francisco, CA 94104

THE PEOPLE’S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Environmental Impact Report for People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project

The People’s Moss Landing
Water Desal Project
Draft Process Design Report
February 27, 2015
Prepared by:
604 South Frederick Avenue, Suite 309
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

MOSS LANDING HARBOR DISTRICT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVIEW, CEQA PROCESSING SERVICES, FOR THE PEOPLE’S MOSS LANDING WATER DESALINATION PROJECT
February 6, 2015

REFERENCE:
People’s Desal Project starts formal environmental review
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 07/08/15

California Coastal Commission Executive Director’s Determination RE: Condition Compliance – Special Condition #11 of Coastal Development Permits (“CDPs”) A-3-MRA-14-0050 and 9-14-1735 for California American Water’s (“Cal-Am’s) slant test well project in Marina, Monterey County

ABSTRACT: In a letter from Charles F. Lester, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, to Ian Crooks, P.E., Engineering Manager, California American Water Company, dated July 3, 2015, Dr. Lester states in the Executive Director’s Determination, as follows: Special Condition 11 requires, in part, that Cal-Am stop its pump test if monitoring shows more than a 1.5-foot decrease in water levels at Monitoring Well 4. It also requires the HWG to examine the monitoring data to determine the causes of the water level decrease and to submit its determination to the Executive Director. We reviewed the above-referenced letter, along with the HWG’s follow-up June 22, 2015 letter, weekly monitoring reports, and a June 25, 2015 submittal by Remy Moose Manley, all of which address various aspects of the pump test, monitoring results, aquifer characteristics, and regional and seasonal pumping regimes. The June 22nd HWG letter notes that there are likely several influences other than Cal-Am’s pump test, but that the test could be responsible for about 0.2 to 0.5 feet of the decrease.2 Based on our review, we have determined that the water level decrease appears to be caused in part by the pump test. Pursuant to Special Condition #11, Cal-Am must therefore submit an application for a permit amendment to allow restart of the test and is not to conduct further pump testing until receiving an amended permit. However, we understand that minimal maintenance pumping, of no more than 6 hours once per week, is required to maintain the well and its related equipment. This maintenance pumping is allowed prior to the Commission’s action on an amendment to Cal-Am’s permit. We understand you will notify us of the start and stop times for each of these maintenance cycles.With the benefit of several months of monitoring data obtained before, during, and after the pump test, including data Cal-Am is continuing to collect, we believe the current permit and its conditions can be modified to better reflect aquifer conditions identified through these data, to better characterize other factors affecting the aquifers, and to better identify the potential effects of the pump test as they relate to those factors. We therefore recommend Cal-Am work with the HWG to develop a proposed amendment that incorporates the analyses and information referenced above and that addresses the following:

• Characterization of local/regional effects: The available data suggest the monitoring results are affected by several elements other than the pump test – e.g., regional pumping regimes, daily changes in agricultural pumping, etc. We recommend the application for the proposed amendment identify and incorporate the likely effects of those elements on the data. For example, the HWG surmises that a regular pattern observed in the data is due to seasonal increases in agricultural pumping, of pumping being reduced on Sundays, etc. We recommend the application include available data to support those assumptions.

• Effects on different aquifers: The available monitoring data show that the three aquifers underlying the area have different characteristics – e.g., confined, semi-confined, and unconfined – and are affected differently by the pump test and the other factors. We recommend that Cal-Am consider whether the application should include separate, specific thresholds that can be used to measure the potential effects of the test well on each of the aquifers.

• Water and TDS levels: The available monitoring data suggests the changes in water and TDS levels may be better described not as single values but as a range or trend in the data. We recommend that Cal-Am consider whether the application should include proposed thresholds that better reflect the identified trends in the monitoring data.
In addition, and as noted in the above-referenced June 25th letter, we request that you clarify Cal-Am’s compliance with the requirement of Special Condition #11 that monitoring devices be installed at a minimum of four wells on the CEMEX site within 2000 feet of the test well.
A document copy of the letter is embedded. 

Condition Compliance CalAm Letter July 3 2015 Lester to Crooks

STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
LETTER FROM CHARLES F. LESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TO IAN CROOKS, P.E., ENGINEERING MANAGER, CALIFORNI A AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
July 3, 2015

REFERENCES: Cal Am must seek amended desal test well permit
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 07/06/15, 6:18 PM PDT |

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

TEST SLANT WELL DOCUMENTS

CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), April 2015

ABSTRACT: The Draft Environmental Impact Report CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, April 2015, prepared for California Public Utilities Commission and prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (1789 pages) document copy is embedded; 7.12 Environmentally Superior Alternative is reproduced and the Appendices for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documents copies (1971 pages) are embedded in the following Posts.   

7.12 Environmentally Superior Alternative

The analysis of alternatives presented in Section 7.11, taken together with the analysis of the proposed MPWSP and the MPWSP Variant in Chapters 4 and 6, respectively, provide a basis to identify the environmentally superior alternative, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, among the alternatives to the proposed project and those to the MPWSP Variant. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative identified as meeting most of the basic project objectives and resulting in the fewest significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 provides that if the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Here, No Project Alternative 1 may technically qualify as the environmentally superior alternative because it would involve the least amount of change to the existing physical environment. However, No Project Alternative 1 would not meet most of the basic project objectives, is not feasible for reasons indicated previously, and could result in different impacts than the proposed project or other options given the failure of No Project Alternative 1 to supply sufficient water for customers within the CalAm service territory. For this reason, the discussion below focuses on selecting another environmentally superior alternative from among the myriad options presented in this EIR.

It is important to recognize that the selection of the environmentally superior alternative is not always a straight-forward and formulaic exercise. In some cases, including here, no alternative stands out from others as eliminating significant and unavoidable, long-term environmental effects. As such, considerable weighing among gradations of impacts and judgments as to the relative importance of topical impact areas in the context of the proposed project come into play. Such judgments, while based upon reasoning grounded in the scientific study that comprises the EIR, are inherently subjective. This means that, though this EIR identifies an environmentally superior alternative, the CPUC decision-makers could ultimately come to a different conclusion as to which option is the environmentally superior alternative based upon applying different weights to various impact areas.

The following discussion of the environmentally superior alternative assumes that the Alternative Pipeline Configuration 2, as described previously in Section 7.9.3 and as used for all of the alternatives analyzed above, would be used for either the proposed project or the MPWSP Variant.

Because the proposed project would result in the least amount of construction and operation impacts compared with either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, it is the environmentally superior alternative of the proposed project alternatives (as opposed to Variant options). While Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in impacts to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, the effects of the project in this regard would be less than significant, except as to one impact concerning remediation that would be less than significant with mitigation. On the other hand, Alternatives 1 and 2 would cause numerous construction effects that are significant and would require mitigation to attain a level of less than significant. Furthermore, Alternative 1 may prove infeasible due to failure to meet the basic objective of the project to supply sufficient replacement water to CalAm customers and the lack of site control for the slant wells. Alternative 2 may prove infeasible due to regulatory and permitting hurdles, and also would cause significant impacts above and beyond those identified for the project without corresponding offset to project significant effects. For these reasons, the proposed MPWSP project is the environmentally superior alternative among those options that do not include the GWR facilities.

Similarly, because the MPWSP Variant results in the least amount of construction and operation impacts compared with either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4, it is the environmentally superior alternative of the MPWSP Variant alternatives. The explanation provided in the paragraph above with respect to environmental impacts and project feasibility applies equally to the choice among the MPWSP Variant and Alternatives 3 and 4. 
When combined with other CalAm facilities (e.g. pipelines and ASR facilities) the project variant would have impacts similar to the proposed project for most of the topical areas evaluated. However, there are several impacts of the project variant that are unique, or are more or less severe than the proposed project. These factor heavily into the selection of the environmentally superior alternative and are thus listed below.

The following impacts are unique to the GWR facilities of the project variant, and would not be

associated with the proposed project:

• The soils that underlie the proposed location for the Injection Well Facilities in the Seaside Groundwater Basin could be susceptible to hydro-collapse if large quantities of water were injected into the ground. The risk would be less than significant.
• Construction of the proposed Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough diversions could indirectly result in habitat modifications for endangered or threatened fish species as a result of construction activities and dewatering the construction sites. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
• Operation of the project variant would result in changes in stream flows that may interfere with fish migration in the Salinas River and Reclamation Ditch. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

The following impacts would be more severe with the project variant than with the proposed project:

• Construction of the project variant would result in an overall increase in the amount of soil that would be disturbed, and therefore, would increase the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The combined impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
• Rapid water fluctuations may induce erosion and sedimentation within the downstream affected reach of the Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough components of the project variant that would not occur under the proposed project. This significant impact of the project variant would be reduced to less-than-significant with the implementation of mitigation.
• The addition of the GWR Facilities would result in an overall increase in temporary, construction-related trips on local roadways compared to the proposed project, and construction of the GWR facilities would overlap with construction of the CalAm facilities for almost two years. The combined significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than significant level.
• The proposed project would be able to mitigate the generation of noise levels to meet the applicable standards during construction. However, impacts associated with construction at the Tembladero Slough Diversion site would conflict with County Code Section 10.60.030, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact of the project variant, even with mitigation.
• While the emissions of PM10 associated with the proposed project could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the total combined maximum day construction emissions of the MPWSP Variant would result in a significant unavoidable impact even with mitigation.
• Discharges of the proposed project through the existing outfall would result in exceedences in Ocean Plan water quality objectives for PCBs and ammonia. Discharges associated with the project variant would, in addition, exceed Ocean Plan water quality objectives for chlordane, toxaphene, DDT and TCDD Equivalents. All exceedences, for both projects, could be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the same mitigation measure.

The following impacts would be less severe with the project variant than with the proposed project:

• The response of the SVGB to the operations of the project variant in the Dune Sands Aquifer and 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer would be much less pronounced than under the proposed project because less water would be extracted from the slant wells and more water would be provided to CSIP for agricultural users, and Salinas Valley return water would be injected into the 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer.
• Interference with the remediation of a contaminated groundwater plume at Fort Ord can be mitigated under the proposed project; it would be avoided with operation of the project variant as a result of the dampened groundwater elevation response in the SVGB.
• The combined components of the project variant would use 4,700 MWh/year less energy than the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant for both the proposed project and the project Variant since the energy would not be used in a wasteful and inefficient manner.

The project variant would generate 253 metric tons CO2e (GHG) per year less than the MPWSP. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable for both the proposed project and the project variant. The MPWSP Variant would generate certain significant environmental effects that would not occur with the project, but for the most part, such effects would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

There are two significant unavoidable impacts that would occur with the MPWSP Variant and not with the proposed project – construction PM10 emissions and noise – but these impacts would be temporary in nature and thus may be accorded a lesser weight than impacts of a more permanent and on-going nature. The MPWSP Variant would result in an increase in other construction related impacts (cultural resources, traffic and biological resources) due to the construction of the GWR Project elements. Each of these temporary impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Although the MPWSP Variant and the proposed project would each result in a significant environmental impact associated with greenhouse gas emissions, the Variant would use less energy than the project and thus would have somewhat lower greenhouse gas emissions than the project. Compared to the proposed project, the MPWSP Variant would provide a diversified portfolio of water supplies, reduce pumping from the SVGB, increase Seaside Basin groundwater supplies, and improve groundwater levels and quality in the SVGB. While both the proposed project and the MPWSP Variant would have less than significant effects on the SVGB levels from pumping at the slant wells, the effects would be minimized with the MPWSP Variant. As noted, reasonable minds could differ as to the selection of the environmentally superior alternative. Nonetheless, weighing the short term unavoidable construction impacts of the Variant against the longer-term, more severe impacts of the project in the key areas of groundwater and greenhouse gas emissions, between the two options, the MPWSP Variant is deemed to be the environmentally superior alternative.

Public Meetings

The CPUC will be holding four public meeting/open house presentations to facilitate your review of the Draft EIR:

Tuesday May 26, 2015, 1:00 pm: Marina Public Library, 188 Seaside Ave Marina

Wednesday May 27, 2015, 1:30 pm: Oldemeyer Center, Seaside Room, 986 Hilby Ave. Seaside

Wednesday May 27, 2015, 6:30 pm: Oldemeyer Center, Laguna Grande Hall, 986 Hilby Ave. Seaside

Thursday May 28, 2015, 1:30 pm: Sunset Center, Carpenter Hall, San Carlos Street, Carmel

Public Comment on the Draft EIR:

As of April 30, 2015, this begins a 60-day public review period; your written comments are due no later than July 1, 2015 and should be sent to:

Andrew Barnsdale
California Public Utilities Commission
c/o Environmental Science Associates
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108

Comments can also be sent by fax to (415) 896-0332, or by email to mpwsp-eir@esassoc.com

CEQA Process Schedule (See ALJ Ruling dated January 23, 2015)
Public Release of Notice of Preparation	October 10, 2012
EIR Scoping Period (30 days)	October 10, 2012 - November 9, 2012
Public Scoping Meetings	October 24, 2012 and October 25, 2012
Draft EIR Publication	April 30, 2015
Public and agency comment period	Comments are due by July 1, 2015
Public hearings on Draft EIR	May 2015
All-party Meeting in Monterey	July 30, 2015
Publication of Final EIR	October 2015
CPUC Proposed Decision Issued	December 2015
All-party Meeting	January 2016
Proposed Decision on Commission Agenda	February 2016

Calam Mpwsp Deir 2015

Draft Environmental Impact Report CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, April 2015, prepared for California Public Utilities Commission

And prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (1789 pages)

REFERENCES:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

(Application A.12-04-019, filed April 23, 2012)

Draft Environmental Impact Report

To view the complete Draft EIR without appendicies, click here [pdf 57.7mb].

To view the Appendices for the Draft EIR, click here [pdf 281mb].

Notice of Availability (NOA) [pdf], Cover [pdf], Table of Content [pdf], and List of Acronyms [pdf]

Executive Summary [pdf]

1.  Introduction [pdf]

2.  Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights [pdf]

3.  Project Description [pdf 6.67mb]

4.  Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
     4.1   Overview [pdf]
     4.2   Geology, Soils, and Seismicity [pdf 4.08mb]
     4.3   Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality [pdf 5.06mb]
     4.4   Groundwater Resources [pdf 16.1mb]
     4.5   Marine Resources [pdf]
     4.6   Terrestrial Biological Resources [pdf 3.98mb]
     4.7   Hazards and Hazardous Materials [pdf]
     4.8   Land Use, Land Use Planning, and Recreation [pdf]
     4.9   Traffic and Transportation [pdf]
     4.10 Air Quality [pdf]
     4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions [pdf]
     4.12 Noise and Vibration [pdf]
     4.13 Public Services and Utilities [pdf]
     4.14 Aesthetic Resources [pdf]
     4.15 Cultural and Paleontological Resources [pdf]
     4.16 Agriculture and Forestry Resources [pdf]
     4.17 Mineral Resources [pdf]
     4.18 Energy Conservation [pdf]
     4.19 Population and Housing [pdf]

5.  Cumulative Impacts [pdf]

6.  MPWSP Variant [pdf 3.15mb]

7.  Alternatives [pdf 10.3mb]

8.  Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth [pdf]

9.  CEQA Statutory Sections [pdf]

10. Report Preparers [pdf]

Appendices

A.  NOP and NOP Scoping Report [pdf 3.6mb]

B1. MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and Maximum Month Demand Scenarios [pdf]

B2. State Water Board Final Analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project [pdf 22.4mb]

C1. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise [pdf 7.0mb]

C2. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios [pdf]

C3. Exploratory Borehole Results [pdf 69.2mb]

D1. Far-Field Analysis of Brine Discharge [pdf 10.6mb]

D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis [pdf]

D3. Water Quality Analysis of the Discharges [pdf]

D4. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment [pdf 4.05mb]

E1. Test Slant Well Groundwater Modeling and Analysis - CEMEX Active Mining Area [pdf 9.82mb]

E2. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater Modeling and Analysis [pdf 127mb]

F.  Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered [pdf]

G.  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations [pdf]

H.  Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Project Description [pdf 24.4mb]

I.  Component Screening Results [pdf]

J1. Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans [pdf]

J2. Secondary Effects of Growth [pdf]

Report:Smaller Cal Am desal plant, new groundwater project preferred

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 04/30/15, 7:50 PM PDT