Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tac Mprwa Draft Minutes 04-15-13

Tac Mprwa Draft Minutes 04-15-13

|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by L. A. Paterson
Technical Advisory Committee of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Technical Advisory Committee of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

More info:

Published by: L. A. Paterson on May 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Burnett, Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt
 Members Absent:
 Staff Present:
Legal Counsel, Executive Director, Clerk
Chair Burnett Called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and had no requests to speak.
Chair Burnett invited public comments for items not on the agenda. Nelson Vega asked that theTAC consider development of a matrix of the projects and associated costs to the public of allthe potential projects. The costs will overwhelm the consumer and needs to be communicatedin an understandable way. Tom Rowley spoke to Mr. Vega’s comments then spoke to the costimpacts for duplication of efforts by conducting multiple environmental reviews. He questioned ifthe PUC will order review of the Deep Water Desal project at the project or the program leveland expressed frustration that any review by the Monterey Peninsula Water ManagementDistrict will be duplicated efforts at the cost of the ratepayers. With no more requests to speak,Chair Burnett closed public comment and answered questions posed.
1. March 18, 2013On a motion by Committee Member Israel seconded by Committee Member Riedl and carriedby the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the minutes ofMarch 18, 2013:AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Burnett, Huss Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt,
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, April 15, 20132NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: SeigfriedABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: NoneRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None
2. Discuss and Provide Recommendation for Draft Criteria for The Ground Water ReplenishmentWorkshop Hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission on June 12, 2013 (Stoldt)Chair Burnett introduced the item and stated that the purpose of a workshop on the GroundWater Replenishment Project is to start a discussion for what the process should be, setting theagenda, discussing the intervening party concerns, and the critical issues.Member Stoldt reported on the item and discussed the information provide in the agendapacket. He spoke to a motion by the Planning and Conservation Foundation requesting thePUC to provide the critical issues for the Ground Water Recovery project. He noted that anintervening party to the CPUC Application is suggesting establishment of criteria for the GWRproject. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates suggested the commission establish criteria fordetermining the sizing issue. Mr. Stoldt indicated that the local agencies and the communityshould establish the criteria for the CPUC to adopt. With the need to have the MontereyPeninsula Water Management District, the Authority and the Monterey Regional Water PollutionControl Agency review and approve the criteria prior to the workshop, it is necessary to start theprocess immediately. The TAC discussed the timeline for approval of criteria to adopt prior tothe workshop.Member Stoldt provided a list of 10 items that will need to be completed, discussed, oraddressed prior to the GWR worksho”. Mr. Stoldt then opened the discussion to the TAC.Member Israel clarified the intention to have all of the criteria determined prior to the workshopinstead of developing it at the workshop. Chair Burnett suggested that the intervening partieslikely will have a different perspectives and agendas than our community. Mr. Burnett thensuggested specifying which issues are binary decisions that do not require judgment, whichones would, and who would make that judgment.Member Riedl questioned the need for an ad hoc committee to vet the criteria with thestakeholders. Burnett questioned the criteria item of public support, due to public sensitivity. Hespoke to the importance of the public accepting the GWR project as a viable component of theportfolio.Member Israel spoke to a feasibility study currently in progress to address costs as well aswater rights and should have a preliminary concept completed in June of 2013. The results willindicate if the costs of the sources of water will be economically viable. The study will span 1.5years or may be longer depending on Cal Am's project.Member Riedl questioned if discussions of decoupling the projects are necessary. CatherineBowie from Cal Am indicated that current planning has construction scheduled to begin byAugust of 2015 at which time a decision will need to be made about the facility sizing. The TACagreed if there is delay they would discuss decoupling the projects.
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, April 15, 20133Member Israel reported that the MRWPCA is proposing to start an environmental review for theGWR project which will l be moving in concert with the CPUC review for the MontereyPeninsula Water Supply Project. The goal is to be able to provide enough information to theCPUC in a timely manner to allow it to be included in the decision making process.Member Riley spoke to Member Riedl’s suggestion for decoupling the projects and said that ifCal Am is behind schedule and GWR can help achieve the needed water it could be used asleverage for requesting relaxation of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO). The more leverageGWR has to be successful, or freedom they have to pursue success without a scheduledpause, the more likely it will be ahead of schedule and be the leverage needed to request anextension with the State Water Resources Control Board.Chair Burnett opened the item to comments from the public. Nelson Vega spoke to the criteriaand questioned why interveners allow more time for GWR and not for desal. He thenquestioned the difference in cost to the consumer for the different projects. Tom Rowley askedto see documentation that the cost of the GWR project is less expensive than the desalinationproject. Nancy Isakson thanked the TAC for including the agricultural industry in thediscussions of the projects and urged the TAC not to lose sight of the fact that GWR can stillhappen even if Cal Am builds the larger facility. The community will need more water in thefuture for legal lots of record and existing businesses change of usage. With no furtherrequests to speak, Chair Burnett closed public comment and spoke to the comments made.3. Receive Update Regarding the California Public Utilities Testimony Hearings April 2012(Burnett)Chair Burnett reported on the CPUC Testimony Hearings indicating the primary focus was onpublic contribution and that the Authority representatives accomplished what was desired andhe is optimistic of the outcome. In terms of the conditions, in the agenda packet included our judgments for Cal Am’s compliance with the adopted policy conditions. Cal am would notcommit to earmarking the pipeline only to the project. There was a line of questioning for thegovernance committee agreement from two intervening parties. There is a window of time thatthe GWR decision can be made, but he questioned why it can’t be made before that startingpoint. He then spoke to the information provided in the packet.Chair Burnett indicated that one issue that received attention and was not included in theadopted policy conditions was the outfall method. An intervening party requested that Cal Amuse pressurized diffusers for brine discharge as a way to minimize impact to sea life. Cal Amresponded that the change would be a significant cost impact of $10 million. Lastly, he notedthat Cal Am did try to prohibit discussion and questions between the MPWMD and the Authorityciting that they were working to well together.Chair Burnett requested feedback from other attending TAC Members. Member Stoldt spoke tothe cross examination of the Authority, all which resulted in a large amount of progress of thepublic interest, and will reduce the cost to the ratepayers. Member Riley presented anobservation that it does not seem like a problem solving process but is designed to reinforce

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->