TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 04-07-14

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Regular Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, April 7, 2014
Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA TAC and which is not on the agenda. Any
person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so by
addressing the Committee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to:
MPRWA TAC, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate
staff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. March 3, 2014

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Receive, Discuss, and Make Recommendations on the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)
and Scope of Work for a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) -Cullem

3. Receive Report on Detailed Schedule for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Permits, Status of Borehole and Test Slant Well Construction and Update on Alternative
Test Well Sites - Cal Am

4. Receive Update Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Negotiations for GWR
Source and Product Water, and on the Progress of the "Pure Water Monterey" Project -
Israel

5. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District Consultant Selection for GWR Externalities Study- Stoldt

ADJOURNMENT

Created date 04/04/2014 12:02 PM Monday, April 7, 2014
2

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a
meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Regular Meeting
10:30 AM, Monday, March 3, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt, Burnett

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

In Mayor Burnetts absence, TAC Member Stoldt called the meeting to order at 10:33.a.m.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Executive Director Cullem reminded the TAC that Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)
Form 700s for all TAC members are due to the Clerk.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Tom Rowley urged thanking the community for past and ongoing conservation efforts and
spoke to the proposed regulation water tiers and to comments received regarding cost
increases. David Lifland expressed concern regarding water storage capacity as well as
requested an update on the release of the Deep Water Desal report regarding the
proposed intake methods.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Rowley requested a correction on the minutes to a comment he made which should read:
the report was lacking information about the waste lands predicted by the Hopkins researcher
regarding Brine Disposal.
On motion by TAC Member Huss and Seconded by TAC Member Reidl and approved by the
following vote the Technical Advisory Committee approved the minutes of Feburary 3, 2014.
AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Huss, Israel, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt,
NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Narigi, Burnett
ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None
RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

2. Receive Report and Discuss Status of Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project:

Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager from Cal Am provided an update on the status of the
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , tem No. 1., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1
MPRWA Minutes Monday, March 3, 2014

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 3, 2014
2
borehole construction project noting the second bore hole drilling is about to begin and the
results of the water analysis will be released once certified. He then spoke to the power
purchase Agreement status and indicated the report regarding the capital costs of the
engineering solution will be published by the end of march.

Chair Burnett Arrived at 10:44 a.m. and indicated that the Authority, the City of Marina, and
Cal Am representatives will meet to strategize on engagement with the City of Marina
earlier with the slant wells to work to prevent delays in the future. Executive Director
Cullem spoke to future efforts to obtain details on remaining necessary permits to prepare
a detailed schedule and identify all possible barriers.

Member Narigi Arrived at 10:47 a.m.

Chair Burnett invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

3. Review Discuss and Provide Direction on Current CPUC Schedule and Administrative Law
Judge Decision of Jan 27, 2014 (Cullem)

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item and the change in schedule for the CEQA and
CPCN track. He expressed concern with the substantial delay for the project due to the
newly revised report release dates and questioned opportunities to request reconsideration
of the release dates. Ian Crooks from Cal Am provided an outline schedule regarding the
draft EIR circulation date and indicated that the full analysis of each bore hole content will
be complete 4 to 6 weeks after submission.

Chair Burnett invited public comment on the item.

David Lifland requested clarification regarding data needed from the Slant Wells
and suggested switching to open water intakes to move more quickly.
Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding previous efforts to obtain the CPCN
before the EIR on the failed desalination project and the need to recognize any
unnecessary delays.

Chair Burnett answered questions posed during public comment speaking to the purpose
of the data collection as required and requested by the Salinas Valley Working Group.

The TAC discussed the opportunities to speed up the draft EIR release date.

On motion by Member Riley and seconded by Member Narigi and passed by the following
vote the Technical Advisory Committee approved sending a letter to the California Public
Utilities Commission urging expeditious decision regarding the schedule of the release of
the Environmental Impact Report and the Administrative Law Judge review citing that the
purpose of delay has been resolved and consideration of cooperative efforts should be
given to put time back on the schedule.

AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt,
Burnett
NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None

3

Narigi requested that due to time constraints the TAC discuss item 7 out of order. The
TAC Agreed.
7. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Issues, Implications and
Benefits of Commissioning a Study Regarding a Public Take Over of Cal Am.

Chair Burnett introduced the item saying that the Authority was created to help deliver a
water supply project to the Peninsula and has tried to avoid deviation from that core
purpose. He requested the TAC to consider if the Authority would benefit from
engagement with regard to ballot measure O, by commissioning a study on the impacts of
the measure to provide information to the public that is not currently available, and not
biased. The TAC discussed if the following opportunities before the Authority while
keeping in mind the purpose of the Authority to obtain a reliable water supply as soon as
possible.

1. Do nothing
2. Take a position but not be involved in providing analysis of pros and cons
3. Dont take a position and provide an analysis of pros and cons.
Tom Rowley spoke to unsuccessful previous votes and lack of support for public
water and spoke against doing a study that it is a diversion from obtaining a
water supply.
Bill Hood spoke in agreement to Mr. Rowley and said this is a policy issue, and
should be taken up by the Directors.
Chair Burnett agreed that it is a policy decision but that the TAC should determine the
issues to study if a study was to be conducted. Member Stoldt indicated that the Water
Management District will not participate in providing any direction due to their position of
neutrality. He spoke to the intent of the ballot measure and what would be the resulting
process if passed.

The TAC discussed the timing for the completion of the study, the timeline for the election
ballots, the perception of the community efforts at the state level, potential Authority
involvement to provide an educational component, if there would be impacts on future
water deliveries, the impacts to the settlement agreements and bond financing impacts.

Chair Burnett Invited public comment on the discussion:
Bill Hood spoke to the discussion, and indicated that the Authority has already
provided policy direction on this topic already and disagrees with the approach.
David Lifland spoke in support of public ownership of water and against the Authority
taking a position on this issue.
Tom Rowley spoke in support of letting the Citizens vote on the public ownership.
On motion by Member Narigi and seconded by Member Huss and passed by the following
vote, the Technical Advisory Committee approved making a recommendation to the
Authority Directors to commission a factual analysis of Measure O, based on Article 2.2 of
the JPA agreement, as it addresses the ballot initiative to include all of elements.
AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Burnett
NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Riley
ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None

4
ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Stoldt

Member Narigi left the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
4. Receive Update Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Negotiations For GWR
Product Water, Update On Availability of Source Water And Discuss Unresolved GWR
Questions Posed By The Business Community (Israel)

Member Israel gave a report regarding current status of the negotiations for product water
and progress made on source water for the GWR project. Executive Director Cullem
indicated there was no need to discuss questions posed by the Business Coalition as they
have been answered by Mr. Israel previously. The TAC questioned and discussed the
level of involvement with the Marina Coast Water District indicating a partnership could
help keep the costs down, as well as discussed scenarios of changes in source water
availability.

Member Huss left the meeting at 12:27 p.m.

Chair Burnett invited public comment on the item. Tom Rowley spoke to Member Narigis
question regarding concerns about the schedule and costs. This item was for information
only to keep the public and the other agencies informed of the progress. No action was
taken.

5. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction On Emergency Funding For GWR And
Affect On Cost Of Water (Israel)

Member Israel spoke to the state emergency funding and other possibilities that could
benefit the GWR project and the cost of water. Member Stoldt spoke to meetings with
representatives regarding state revolving funds who are compiling a priority list for 0%
financing for state recycled water projects and spoke to proposed legislation related to
drought relief for California.

David Lifland questioned if the current balance of the IRWM account.
Tom Rowley spoke to the survey of willingness of people in CA willing to pay.
Votes, rate payers and tax payers in the local area. The study says people are
willing to pay more, but people in the local area are less willing. Dont be deceived.

Report was received.
6. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District Consultant Selection for GWR Externalities Study (Stoldt)

Member Stoldt spoke to the item and provided an update on the report commissioned by
the Water Management District, as required by the settlement agreement to discuss the
externalities as it relates to the GWR project. He reported the draft will be released to the
MRWPCA next week for comments and thereafter released to the Authority for comment
and review. Chair Burnett invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

5

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Jason Burnett, TAC Chair

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: April 07, 2014
Item No: 2.

06/12
FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive, discuss, and make recommendations on the draft Request for Proposal
(RFP) and Scope of Work for a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) TAC
review the draft RFP and scope of work for a Value Engineering (VE) study of Cal Ams Desal
facility 30% design and suggest any changes in time for inclusion in the Water Authority agenda
on April 10, 2014.

DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of March 31, 2014, a Governance Committee report stated that, per Section V of
the Governance Committee Agreement, the Committee shall select a professional engineer to
perform a value engineering analysis for the Desalination Project.
In addition, the Committee voted to advertise, select, and award a contract for the VE study.
The Governance agreement currently allows the Committee to select the VE consultant, but it
will need to be modified to authorize the Committee to advertise and award the contract in lieu
of Cal Am doing so.
Since the Governance Committee cannot directly award contracts, and since time is of the
essence, the Water Authority has been requested to advertise the RFP, select the consultant,
and award a contract.
The attached draft RFP and scope of work previously prepared by Cal Am has been modified by
the Authority staff to conform with the requirements for public contracting and to better reflect
the concerns and issues of the Authority and the Governance Committee.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The FY 2013-2014 budget will have to be increased to pay for the VE study with the full cost to
be reimbursed by Cal Am per the Governance Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Contract
VE RFP(draft)
VE Scope of Work (draft)

1

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

April 11, 2014

To: Selected Recipients TBD

Directors:
Chuck Della Sala, President
Jason Burnett, Vice President
Ralph Rubio, Secretary
Jerry Edelen, Treasurer
Bill Kampe, Director
David Pendergrass, Director

Executive Director:
Jim Cullem, P.E.
Re: California American Water Company
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
Desalination Infrastructure
Request for Proposal Value Engineering Study

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), on behalf of the
MPWSP Governance Committee (GC), is seeking a qualified Value Engineering (VE)
Consultant to provide VE services related to the design and construction of a 6.4 to 9.6
mgd seawater desalination water treatment (desal) plant on the Monterey Peninsula.
You are invited to submit a proposal for VE services for the above referenced project.

The project is currently being designed for the California American Water
Company (CAW) by Camp Dresser & Mckee (CDM) Constructors, Inc. with offices in
Walnut Creek, California. CDM will have made a 30% design submittal prior to the VE
study. Preliminary site plans, floor plans, elevations and a geotechnical report will be
available for the study. Schematics for the process, treatment residuals handling and
chemical systems will also be available. A preliminary cost estimate and energy
consumption model will be provided.

In general, the objectives of the value engineering services are:
To identify potential changes to the project design that would satisfy the
essential functions of the project at a lower capital and/or life cycle cost;
To identify potential changes to the project design that would better
accomplish the essential functions of the project and/or provide better
overall value;
To improve confidence in the effectiveness of the design, i.e., to ensure
the design represents the most efficient combination of cost, performance
and reliability;
To identify constructability, durability, adaptability, operability, safety,
and maintenance issues;

2

To identify opportunities to attain a Silver Award level of sustainable
design under the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure(ISI) Envision
rating system;
To identify opportunities to attain a Silver Award level of design under the
US Green Building Council LEEDS rating system.

Scope of Services

The work will consist of the following tasks and as detailed in Exhibit A, Scope
of Services, attached.

It is intended that the selected VE Consultant will conduct one VE workshop to
be conducted in the Monterey, California area from June 23 through June 27, 2014. The
VE workshop will follow the standards of the Society of American Value Engineers
(SAVE). The workshop meeting location will be announced and will be and paid for by
others. The VE workshop will consist of the following phases conducted over a period of
four/five consecutive days:

Information Phase
Function Analysis Phase
Creative Phase
Evaluation Phase
Development Phase
Presentation Phase

Required Qualifications

The VE Consultant shall provide a team leader/facilitator that is certified by SAVE
International as a Certified Value Specialist (CVS). The team will also include
multidiscipline technical specialists with appropriate qualifications such as: an architect,
instrumentation and controls engineer, civil and structural engineer, process design
engineer, electrical engineer, construction cost estimator and construction
superintendent. The team shall also include experienced operations and maintenance
staff as well as certified ENVISION and LEEDS evaluators to round out the technical
specialist staff. The VE Consultant shall demonstrate corporate experience pertinent to
the subject matter of the VE study.

Proposal Elements

Proposals are to include the following elements:
Cover Letter
Table of Contents
Understanding of the Scope of Work
Proposed Methodology and Delivery Schedule
Qualifications and Experience, including client references
Brief Biographies of Key Personnel
Fee Proposal (in separate sealed envelope)
Other considerations


3

Detailed resumes and additional corporate information may be also submitted, if
so desired. Note that key personnel must disclose any economic interest they have in
CAW, American Water, or CDM.

The proposal should be on a lump sum basis, inclusive of per diem costs for travel and
living expenses. Note that the MPRWA will utilize a Qualification Based Selection (QBS)
process in procuring professional services. Accordingly, the fee proposal is to be
provided in a separate sealed envelope submitted with the technical proposal, and will
not be considered in the selection of the best proposal. It will be opened at the time of
initial negotiation with the selected firm.

Proposals should be submitted by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2014. One
original proposal, two (2) hard copies and three (3) CD-ROMS shall be addressed and
sent to:

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
735 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Attention: Executive Director.

Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or comments
concerning the project scope of services, please contact me at 831-241-8503 or
cullem@montery.org.

Very truly yours,

James M. Cullem, P.E.
Executive Director

EXHIBITS:

A- Scope of Work for Value Engineering Study

B- MPRWA Sample Contract for Professional Services

Xc: Chuck Della Sala- President MPRWA
Jason Burnett- Chair, Governance Committee
Dave Stoldt- GM, MPWMD
I. Crooks CAW
R. Svindland - CAW
S. Creel - AW
J. Gallagher - AW

4

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY

The Value Engineering (VE) Consultant will provide the following services in accordance with this
scope of work.

CONSULTANT VE STUDY TEAM

The Value Engineering Consultant will provide the VE study team members identified below:

VE Team Leader/Facilitator Provided by VE Consultant
Civil / Structural Engineer Provided by VE Consultant
Architect Provided by VE Consultant
Process Design Engineer Provided by CAW
Electrical Engineer Provided by VE Consultant
Instrumentation and Controls Engineer Provided by VE Consultant
Construction Cost Estimator Provided by CAW
Construction Superintendent Provided by CAW
Operations personal Provided by VE Consultant
& CAW
Maintenance personal Provided by VE Consultant
& CAW
Envision and LEEDS certified evaluators Provided by VE Consultant

All other team members will be provided by the Governance Committee (GC) and/or California
American Water (CAW), at no cost to the VE Consultant. The VE Consultant will communicate
directly with the MPRWA Contract Manager, the GC Project Manager, the California American Water
Project Manager, CDM Constructors Inc. and with all other study team members as needed relative
to scheduling, pre-workshop, workshop and post workshop activities.

PRE-WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

The VE Consultant will perform pre-workshop activities to include those tasks which must be
accomplished in order for the study team to be able to efficiently and effectively perform in the
workshop. These activities will consist of:

Scheduling value engineering study tasks,
Scheduling and coordination with VE study team members
Assisting the GC and CAW with scheduling VE study participants
Coordination of the necessary project documentation of the project for distribution by the
GC and CAW to study team members
Document review by VE Consultant-supplied team members
Preparation of cost, energy, life cycle costs, etc. to the extent that the information needed
for their preparation is available.
Identify Envision Silver level Certification requirements and cost benefit analysis
Identify LEEDS Silver level Certification requirements and cost benefit analysis


5

CAW and the GC will distribute the project documents and materials to be studied to the VE study
team members at least five (5) working days prior to the workshop start. All team members are
expected to review the project documents and material prior to the start of the workshop.

WORKSHOP

The VE Consultant will conduct a 40 hour value engineering workshop using the six-step job plan
that is consistent with the best management practices recognized by SAVE. The workshop will
include an Information Phase, a Function Analysis Phase, a Creative Phase, and Evaluation Phase a
Development Phase and a Presentation Phase. A site visit for the team members will be conducted
on the first day of the workshop.

The workshop will be initiated by presentations from the GC and CAW representatives, who will
describe the objectives of the study and any constraints that will be placed on the study team. The
designers will explain specifically how the design accomplishes MPRWA and CAWs objectives and
the details of that design.

The workshop will include a detailed function analysis of the major project elements. The team will
generate a list of ideas for project improvement followed by an evaluation of those ideas. This
evaluation will include input from key GC and CAW decision makers before proceeding with
development of recommendations. On the last day of the workshop, a presentation of the
recommendations will be provided to CAW, key representatives of the design team, and the GC.

The workshop will be held at CAWs local office, 511 Forest Lodge Road, Suite 100, Pacific Grove,
CA. The cost of providing the workshop meeting facilities and all other costs associated with the
meeting facilities will not be borne by the consultant.

To ensure that the study team has complete information about the project criteria, CAW will provide,
at a minimum, key personnel from both CAW and the design team for the first day and last day
presentations.

POST WORKSHOP

The VE Consultant will conduct a four-hour post-workshop Decision/Implementation Meeting at a
location to be announced following receipt by the study team of the written design responses to the
Preliminary Report. The purpose of the Decision/Implementation Meeting is to assist the GC and
CAW in making decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the individual value proposals.
Attendees will consist of GC representatives, key CAW staff, key designer staff and the VE study
team leader.

SCHEDULE

The work will be performed in accordance with the following schedule:

Pre-Study Activities Upon receipt of a signed contract and notice to proceed
Workshop June 23 27, 2014
Preliminary VE Study Report Three (3) days after completion of the Workshop
Decision/implementation Meeting On a date to be determined by the GC, CAW, VE Consultant
and designer
Final VE Study Report Fourteen (14) days after receipt of Comments on the draft
report


6

DELIVERABLES

The VE study effort will include the following deliverables, all which are related to the results of the
workshop:

Study Team Presentation Handout
Preliminary VE Study Report
Final VE Study Report

The Preliminary VE Report will be prepared in the Value Engineering Consultant report format, and
will be a compilation of the handwritten products developed in the workshop.
The purpose of this draft report is to give the GC, CAW and other reviewers the opportunity to check
the final VE Study report prior to final issuance.

The Final VE Study Report is the final documentation of the VE Study. The report is a finalized
version of the Draft Report including the incorporation of GC and CAW comments. The submittal of
the final report concludes the Scope of Work.

The VE Consultant will provide the GC with two (2) electronic copies (CD-ROM) and the following
number of hard copies of each report:

Preliminary VE Study Report 6 copies
Draft of Final VE Study Report 6 copies
Final VE Study Report 6 copies.


7

EXHIBIT B

CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Agreement for Consultant Support Services

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this __ day of ______, by and between the Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Authority", and _________,
hereinafter called "Consultant".

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Consultant hereby agrees to provide to the Authority, as the scope of services
under this Agreement, Value Engineering Services as described on the following attachment: Scope
of Services for Value Engineering Study (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

2. Timely Work. Consultant shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth more
specifically in paragraph 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material breach of this
Agreement, and Authority may terminate this Agreement with no further liability hereunder, or may
agree in writing with Consultant to an extension of time.

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence no later than June 1, 2014
and shall be completed by July 31, 2014, unless Authority grants a written extension of time as forth
in paragraph 2 above.

4. Compensation. Authority agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to accept as full and
fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, a lump-sum payment as set forth in
Consultants Proposal (Exhibit C), in a total amount of __________________ ($_________).
Compensation under this Agreement shall become due and payable 30 days after Authoritys
approval of Consultants submission of a written invoice to the Authority Executive Director. Written
invoices shall include a copy of timesheets or invoices from sub-consultants. The payment of any
compensation to Consultant hereunder shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Authority. If Authority determines that the work
set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement, Authority shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been
satisfactorily performed.

5. Additional Services. In the event that Authority should request services identified in
Exhibit C, or for additional services not covered by the terms of this Agreement, said services will be
provided by Consultant and paid for by Authority only after a fee for said services has been agreed
upon between Consultant and the Authority Executive Director, only after the Authority Director
provides written authorization for the additional work.

6. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with Authority or its agents or
employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by Authority to insure
timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.

7. Indemnification. Consultant hereby agrees to the following indemnification clause:


8

To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code
Sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to
the Authority), indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and its officers, designated agents,
departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against
claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability (including incidental and consequential
damages, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert
consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the
extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct
of Consultant, any Subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that
they control (collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify any
Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence,
or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the above paragraph, Consultant agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the Authority from and against any and all claims, demands, defense costs, liability,
expense, or damages arising out of or in connection with damage to or loss of any property
belonging to Consultant or Consultant's employees, contractors, representatives, patrons, guests
or invitees.

Consultant further agrees to indemnify Authority for damage to or loss of Authority property to
the proportionate extent they arise out of Consultant's negligent performance of the work
associated with this agreement or to the proportionate extent they arise out of any negligent act or
omission of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, agents, contractors, representatives,
patrons, guests or invitees; excepting such damage or loss arising out of the negligence of the
Authority.

8. Insurance. Consultant shall submit and maintain in full force all insurance as
described herein. Without altering or limiting Consultant's duty to indemnify, Consultant shall
maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the
following minimum limits of liability:
Commercial general liability insurance including but not limited to premises, personal injuries,
bodily injuries, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit of not less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate.
Professional Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain in effect throughout the term of
this Agreement professional liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per
claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Consultant will either maintain or cause to be
maintained professional liability coverage in full force or obtain extended reporting (tail)
coverage (with the same liability limits) for at least three years following Authority's
acceptance of the work.
Commercial automobile liability insurance covering all automobiles, including owned, leased,
non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing services under this Agreement, with a
combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

Workers' Compensation Insurance: If Consultant employs others in the performance of this
Agreement,Consultant shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in accordance with
California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of $100,000 per occurrence for
employer's liability.

Other Insurance Requirements

A. All insurance required under this Agreement must be written by an insurance
company either:


9

admitted to do business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less
than A:VI;
or

an insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A: VII.

Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund when not
specifically rated.

B. Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state that
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority shall be given notice in writing at
least thirty days in advance of any cancellation thereof, except 10-day notice for
nonpayment of the premium.

C. The general liability and auto policies shall:

Provide an endorsement naming the Authority, its officers, officials, and
employees as additional insureds under an ISO CG 20 10 07 04 or ISO 20 37 07
04 or their equivalent.
Provide that such insurance is primary and non-contributing insurance to any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Authority.
Contain a "Separation of Insureds" provision substantially equivalent
to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or their equivalent.

Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against the Authority via an
ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or its equivalent.

D. Prior to the start of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall file certificates of
insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required by this agreement
with the Authority. Consultant shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance
promptly after any change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the
information on the certificate then on file.

E. Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or approval of
Consultants insurance, nor whether any claims are covered under any insurance,
shall in any way modify or change Consultants obligations under the
indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and
effect. Notwithstanding the insurance requirements contained herein, Consultant
is financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this Agreement.

F. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by
the Authority. At the option of the Authority, either: the insured shall reduce or
eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Authority, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Consultant shall provide a financial
guarantee satisfactory to the Authority guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.

9. Ownership of Work. Upon completion of the work under this Agreement, ownership,
and title to all materials and deliverables produced as part of this Agreement will automatically be
vested in the Authority and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to Authority.

10. Licensing. Consultant represents as follows: that it is experienced in the professional
services and a specialist in the work performed under this Agreement; is duly organized, existing
and in good standing under applicable state law; and is properly licensed and/or certified to perform

10

the work specified under this Agreement, including but not limited to possession of a current City of
Monterey business license, and will only employ persons and sub-consultants with all required
licenses and certifications.

11. Substitution of Consultant Personnel. The key personnel of Consultant or any sub-
consultants listed in Consultants proposal and assigned to perform the work under this Agreement
may not be substituted with or replaced by other personnel or sub-consultants without the advance
written consent of Authority.

12. Termination. Authority may terminate this Agreement upon ten days' written notice.
The amount of damages, if any, as a result of such termination may be decided by negotiations
between the parties or before a court of competent jurisdiction.

13. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Consultant is
hereby deemed to be an independent Consultant and not an agent or employee of Authority.

14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the
subject matter thereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing
signed by both parties hereto.

15. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full force without being
impaired or invalidated in any way.

16. Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Agreement shall not be assignable,
delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of Authority. Any such purported
assignment, delegation, or transfer shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which
Authority may terminate this Agreement and be entitled to damages.

17. Conflict of Interest. Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor shall it
acquire, any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of services under
this Agreement.

18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is
deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.

19. Laws. Consultant agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will reasonably
comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations. This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the City of
Monterey.

20. Venue. Should either party to this agreement bring legal action against the other
(formal judicial proceeding, mediation, or arbitration) the venue for the matter shall be Monterey
County, California.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the day and
year first above written in Monterey, California.

AUTHORITY CONSULTANT

__________________________ __________________________
Executive Director Consultant Name


Agenda Report

Item No: 3.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive report on detailed schedule for MPWSP permits, status of borehole and
test slant well construction.

DISCUSSION:
There is no written report for this item. A verbal report will be provided by a representative from
Cal Am.

Agenda Report

Item No: 4.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Update Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Negotiations
For GWR Source and Product Water, and on the progress of the "Pure Water
Monterey" Project - (Israel)

DISCUSSION:
The materials for this item are the same as for item #2 of the Feb 3, 2014 TAC packet
and item #4 of the March 3, 2014 packet.
A verbal discussion will take place at the meeting.
TO: Natural Resources Defense Council
FROM: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates
RE: Key Findings from Recent Survey on Water Issues
DATE: February 24, 2014
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) recently conducted a survey of 1,000
California voters likely to cast ballots in November 2014 to assess their views on key water
issues facing the state.
1
The results show that voters are enormously concerned about water
supply in the face of the current drought, and support a multi-pronged approach to dealing
with the states water needs. More than nine in ten voters agree that the state is facing a serious
drought, and that all Californians including farmers need to do their part to conserve water.
More than four in five say that the states water needs are so critical that we need to make
investments now to address them. Critically, voters also say that they are willing to pay more on
their water bills in order to fund solutions to the states water needs.
Among the key specific findings of the survey were the following:
a By a wide margin California voters view the drought as the single most critical issue
facing the state right now. Survey respondents were offered a list of major issues facing the
state, as shown in Figure 1 on the following page and they were asked to rank each as
either an extremely serious, very serious, somewhat serious or not a serious problem
for California. As the data make clear, water shortages are the single-most important issue
on California voters minds. More than two in five rate it an extremely serious problem,
and more than four in five at least a very serious problem dwarfing every other item on
the list. While concern about the economy and the deficit has receded slightly, concern about
water shortages has increased dramatically.
1 Methodology: From February 1-9, 2014, FM3 completed 1,000 telephone interviews with California voters likely
to cast ballots in November 2014. Interviews were conducted on landline and wireless phones. The margin of
sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3.1%. Margins of error for subgroups within the sample will be larger.
2425 Colorado Avenue. Suite 180 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1290
Santa Monica, CA 90404 Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (310) 828-1183 Phone: (510) 451-9521
Fax: (310) 453-6562 Fax: (510) 451-0384
Key Findings Survey of California Voters on Water Issues February 2014
Page 2
FIGURE 1:
Concern About Major Issues Facing the State
(Split Sampled)
Issue
% Extremely
Serious
% Extremely/
Very Serious
Water shortages due to more frequent droughts 42% 82%
Current drought conditions in California 40% 80%
Jobs and the economy 30% 71%
Government waste and inefficiency 37% 70%
The cost of health care 34% 69%
The quality of public schools 31% 64%
The state budget deficit 33% 63%
Water pollution 18% 49%
Global warming 20% 46%
The amount you pay in taxes 23% 46%
Increasing extreme weather events, like storms, floods,
fires, and droughts
18% 46%
The states dependence on oil 16% 45%
Air pollution 16% 45%
The price of gasoline 19% 42%
Climate change 18% 42%
The cost of electricity 15% 42%
Voters agree that addressing water problems will require both increased investment
and collective effort. In response to this widespread concern, voters want to see action
taken both by California residents and also by state government (as shown in Figure 2).
FIGURE 2:
Agreement with Statements About Water Supplies
Page 3
More than four in five voters agree that Californias water problems are so severe as to
require immediate investments (a perception which has increased dramatically in the past
year), and more than nine in ten say that all Californians have a role to play in meeting this
challenge, including farmers. More than two in three agree strongly with this sense of
collective responsibility for water conservation.
Voters prioritize and are willing to pay for a range of different approaches to
expanding water supplies. As detailed in Figure 3, survey respondents were offered a list
of different objectives that might be considered as part of efforts to expand water supplies.
They were asked two questions about each item on the list: how important a priority they
thought it should be, and whether or not they would be willing to pay a small increase on
their water bills to support it. The results are striking more than three in five rated each
item on the list a very important priority, and more than seven in ten indicated that they
would be willing to pay a small increase in their water bills to support each one.
FIGURE 3:
Importance of Goals Related to Water in California, and
Willingness to Pay More on Water Bills to Support Them
Potential Water Supply Objective
Total %
Extremely/Very
Important
Total % Willing
to Pay a Small
Amount More on
Water Bill
Increasing sustainable, local water
supplies
76% 77%
Investing in new technologies to more
efficiently use current water supplies
71% 75%
Building local water recycling plants 64% 74%
Capturing rainwater for local use 69% 74%
Cleaning up locally contaminated
groundwater
74% 71%
Voters prefer developing local supplies of water to importing them from elsewhere.
California voters were asked to choose where they would like to see their water agency
invest developing local supplies of water, or enhancing the reliability of water supplies
imported from elsewhere. As shown in Figure 4 on the following page, by a margin of 74
percent to 17 percent, voters clearly preferred expanding local water supplies.
Page 4
FIGURE 4:
Preferred Objective for Water Districts Use of Ratepayer Funds
Offered a choice of approaches to improving conditions in the Delta, voters are most
inclined to support options that include investments in water efficiency, conservation,
and recycling. Survey respondents were given the description of the Delta shown below an
then asked to choose between three approaches to addressing the Deltas challenges, as
shown in Figure 5 on the following page.
Next, let me tell you a little about a related issue. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta, or California Delta, is formed at the western edge of the Central Valley, where
snowmelt from the Sierras flows through the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and
the two rivers meet. The water then flows out through the Delta to San Francisco Bay.
The Delta also serves as the hub of our states water delivery and infrastructure system
- providing drinking water for 25 million Californians, irrigation for millions of acres
of farmland and water for businesses statewide. However, as demand for water by
farms and cities has increased, fish populations in the Delta have decreased, and key
elements of the water infrastructure have deteriorated, water experts have concluded
that major changes are needed in Delta water management.
Page 5
FIGURE 5:
Preferred Approach to Addressing Challenges in the Delta
These results again reinforce the strong priority that voters attach to maximizing diverse
approaches to expand local water supplies. More than four in five voters select one of the
two options that incorporates water efficiency, conservation, and recycling efforts, while only
one in ten favors a tunnel-only approach.
On the whole, the results show that now is a time of great potential to make progress on water
policy in California. Voters are acutely aware of the urgency of the issue; favor a wide range of
approaches to expanding water supplies particularly at the local level and are willing to pay
the additional costs that such approaches might entail.

5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA 93940 P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085
831-658-5600 Fax 831-644-9560 http://www.mpwmd.net

February 11, 2014

Mr. J ohn Narigi
Co-Chair
Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
PO Box 223542
Carmel, CA 93923

Dear J ohn:

Thank you for your letter dated J anuary 28, 2014 expressing the concerns your organization has
with respect to the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) Project budget adjustment. Please note
that the budget adjustment proposed on our Boards February 13
th
agenda is a reduced budget
from the one you evaluated as Item 19 on the J anuary board meeting agenda. This letter
addresses the issues you have raised.

Expenditures to date:

Expenditures through the end of 2013 are shown below:

Please see the MRWPCA February 2014 Recycled Water Committee report on GWR for an
Expense
FY 05/06
through FY
12/13
FY 13/14
Budget
FY 13/14
Expenses
Total to Date
Technical/Consultants $1,305,968 $2,157,570 $739,984 $2,045,952
Legal $376,855 $250,000 $143,246 $520,101
Environmental $274,681 $1,292,430 $249,629 $524,310
Internal Labor $1,102,837 $300,000 $201,604 $1,304,441
Total
Expenditures/Budget
$3,060,341 $4,000,000 $1,334,463 $4,394,804
Watermaster
(reimbursement)
($100,000) ($0) ($0) ($100,000)
MPWMD
(reimbursement)
($361,317) ($2,831,495)* ($114,434) ($475,751)
SRF Feasibility Grant
(reimbursement)
($0) ($74,883)* ($0) ($0)
BOR Title 16
WaterSMART Grant
(reimbursement)
($0) ($149,791)* ($0) ($0)
Total After
Reimbursements
$2,599,024 $943,831* $1,220,029 $3,819,053
J ohn Narigi
Page 2 of 2
2-11-14

update through J anuary 2014. That report should become available later this week. All project
expenditures are reviewed by the Recycled Water Committee and ultimately by the MRWPCA
Board and are also reviewed by the MPWMD Administrative Committee and Water Supply
Planning Committee, and ultimately the MPWMD Board.

Status of environmental and feasibility studies:

The CEQA team is in the process of finalizing the project description and submitting an
administrative draft for internal review. The feasibility studies are in a parallel track with the
environmental documents.

Status of acquisition of rights to source wastewater:

MRWPCA routinely meets with key stakeholders to discuss water right strategies and possible
scenarios for securing appropriate agreements. MRWPCA and MPWMD are working jointly on
determining the status of Blanco Drain and Replenishment Ditch waters. Beginning this month,
MPWMD is having a greater role in evaluating feasible economic outcomes that may result in
successful negotiations for source waters.

Estimates of projected cost of treated waste water to the end user:

GWR water is expected to be produced at no more than $2500 per acre-foot. Cal-Am has
estimated for an average residential use of 74cfs a 2013 monthly bill of $68.91 will rise to
$106.73 in 2018, an increase of 41%. This is based on the combined GWR facility and a 6.4
MGD desalination facility.

Status of negotiations with MCWRA on rights to the treated wastewater:

MRWPCA and MCWRA have been meeting (typically monthly) since last August
We have provided data/trend information indicating declining water supplies in the future
A joint solution was proposed that is mutually beneficial to each party

A joint committee between MRWPCA and MPWMD Boards was recently formed to enhance
communications between the two entities regarding the GWR project.

Sincerely yours,

David J . Stoldt
General Manager

Joint Powers Authority Member Entities:
Boronda County Sanitation District, Castroville Community Services District, County of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Fort Ord, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey,
Moss Landing County Sanitation District, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside.

Business Coalitions Five Questions to the JPA TAC
MRWPCA Responses

1. Is there an agreement with the local governments that clearly states the
wastewater from these jurisdictions is available for GWR?
a. MRWPCA Legal Counsel has determined that, pursuant to State
law, once wastewater flows are provided to or delivered to the
regional conveyance lines then that wastewater is owned by the
MRWPCA to use 1) as it so determines, or 2) as agreed upon in
previous agreements.

2. Who currently has rights to the water in the reclamation ditches and will
producers of the source wastewater have rights to the reclaimed
wastewater?
a. For the MRWPCA EIR, the Reclamation Ditch and the Blanco
Drain are being classified as alternative supplemental source
water components. It is our understanding that flows in both the
Reclamation Ditch and Blanco Drain may be considered waters of
the state under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and would be comprised of precipitation-
driven runoff, urban runoff, and agricultural return flows. For the
points of diversion being considered in the Reclamation Ditch and
Blanco Drain, the SWRCB website, http://www.waterboards.ca.
gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/ewrims/index.shtml shows
that no permits have been issued to divert surface flows
downstream of these points of diversion. However, there appear
to be pending permit applications for diversions in some of the
streams in the upland areas of the Reclamation Ditch watershed
(i.e., upstream of the City of Salinas). Staff is preparing an
application to request that the SWRCB make a determination to
allow the use of these sources. In coordination with MPWMD, staff
will be consulting the SWRCB for the correct determination of uses
for these sources which may result in the preparation of an
application.

Response to Business Coalition
January 29. 2014
Page Two

3. Who has to approve the injection of the advanced treated water into local
aquifers as part of the GWR process; in other words, from whom and how
many permits are needed?
a. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) formally
approves a project after review and approval of the projects
comprehensive engineering report. One permit is issued to inject
the water into local aquifers by the Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCBG). The permit includes CDPH
and RWQCB requirements to protect all groundwater beneficial
uses and water quality. A USEPA permit for a Class V
underground injection well is not required. In July 2014, the CDPH
Drinking Water Program is tentatively scheduled to become a
Division within the State Water Resources Control Board. As part
of this transition, the CDPH/RWQCB approval and permitting
process may be modified, but the permit issued for an injection
project that uses recycled water will still be crafted to protect
beneficial uses of groundwater and groundwater quality. Other
permit(s), authorizations, or approvals will be required from local
entities including: MPWMD, Seaside Basin Watermaster,
Monterey County Environmental Health, City of Seaside, and Fort
Ord Reuse Authority to construct the injections and monitoring
wells for the project.

4. What is the projected timeline for the GWR process from today to the time the
first gallons of water are pumped from the recharged aquifer into the CAW
distribution system?
a. Our target for project completion is January 1, 2017.

5. What is the projected cost per AF (+/- 10%) of the GWR water at the time it is
taken from the recharge aquifer for delivery to Cal Am (or other distributor)
and what is a definitive estimate of the cost of water to Cal Am customers?
a. The range in cost per acre foot is still estimated to be $2,500/AF.
As the feasibility and facilities planning documents begin to shore
up some project costs this summer, the figure will have more
clarity. We have contacted Cal Am regarding the estimate of the
cost of water to Cal Am customers as we currently do have not the
cost for distribution. Additional information is attached regarding
anticipated Cal Am water costs.

Z:\General Manager\Mayors JPA-MPR Water Authority\Business Coalitions GWR Questions-Responses 1-29-14.doc

1/2St2014
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

CALIFORNIA
r IZ I CAN WATIR
Monterey Water Supply Project
California American Water updates Customer Rate Impact estimates for proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Based on recent 16-party settlement agreement, revised figures show an approximate 41-percent increase for a typical customer over the next five years
California American Water, in an ongoing effort to keep (he community informed, has updated .ts estimate of bill impacts for customers on the Monterey Poninsuta. As a
result of the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and all other rate changes proposed between now and 2018,a typical customer should expect an
approximate 41-percent increase in their bill between 2013 and the end 01 2018
The estimates incorporate a major settlement that was reached on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Pro:ect appt cation, which is currently pending before the California
Public. Utilities Com mis s .on. Among the various issues settled in the agreement was a public lunding contribution that could reduce the overall cost of the project.
The settlement agreement, a ong with implementation of our San Clemente Dam decision and the recent rate filing allowed us to update our numbers " said Dave
Stephenson, director of rates and revenue for California American Water. "With the settlement In place, includiiv the planned public contribution we have revised our
customer b II impact estimates This approximately41-percentincrease will be phased In over five years."
This equates to a monthly bill increase from about $75 to about $105 or about an additional dollar per day, This is based on a typical customer who uses 74 units of water
per month (10 cubic feet per unit, or about 5,600 gallons per month). Customers with different water consumption levels will be affected differently.
MonterevWater Supply Protect Rate Imeactfact Sheet
Monterey County District Bill Comparison
Our goal in updating these estimates was to give customers a realistic idea of how their bills will change with the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and all other
infrastructure investments and system operating costs between now and 2018," Stephenson said.
California American Water conducted an analysis of how infrastructure investment over the next five years, including those antidpated in the settlement agreement, will
impact the typical customer. The methodology assumes CPUC approval of California American Waters full request to fund infrastructure improvements and expenses for
2015,2015 and 2017. The following monthly bill estimate Is what a typical customer can expect to pay between now and the end of 2018.
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
$75.74
$79.86
1$88A2
$97.27
$97.38
$106.73
These numbers are provided as estimates based on current conditions and are subject to change based on actual costs and other factors. California American Water's
committed to keeping customers informed of all major project updates, including rate Impacts. Customers interested in following the development of this project are
encouraged to visit its webslte, www.watersupplyprojecterg where customers can review the latest information and sign up for email updates.
0 2014 American Water. 'California American Water" and the star logo are the registered trademarks of American Water Works Company, Inc. All rights
reserved.
31K 1U1-
rri-Vauy Poky
Terinc of Ilia
Site Map
FOR EMPtirrE13 a
http://www.amwater.cornkaaw/Customer-ServicelRates-InforrnatiOnimonterey-Aater-supply-project.hIrril 111
Rate Impact Fact Sheet
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
Synopsis
This fact sheet is intended to show how the typical customer bill will be impacted by the Water Supply Project
and other ongoing charges from 2013 to the project's expected completion in 2018.
Summary
From 2013 to 2018, a typical customer will likely see their bills increase by about 41%, depending on the size of
the desalination plant that is required. Their bill will increase from $75.74 at the end of 2013 to $106.73 at the
end of 2018. This equates to an additional 944 per day.
The following is a year-by-year breakdown of what a typical customer will see happen to their bill during this
period. This is based on a three-person home, with a 5/8-inch meter, using 74 cubic feet per second of water per
month during the summer months.
2013 Currently, customers are already being billed a 15% surcharge for the Water Supply Project's pre-
construction costs. This 15% surcharge, itemized as "Surcharge #1" on the bill, is projected to remain in
effect through the middle of 2015. Also on the bill will be a number of other familiar surcharges that are
presently being assessed such as the San Clemente Dam Removal Surcharge and the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District Surcharge.
Typical customer bill at the end of 2013: $75.74
2014 Surcharge #1 will increase from 15% to 20%, for an annual average of 17.5%.
Typical customer bill in 2014: $79.86
2015 Surcharge #1 is projected to be discontinued in June of this year. Before this happens it will increase
to a rate of 30%. When it expires, customers will then see the introduction of Surcharge #2, at a rate of 30%.
Surcharge #2 will pay for the desalination support facilities, including the pipeline, and significantly lower the
project's cost with this injection of interest-free funding. Other charges and fees will remain in effect.
2016 Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 40% of the bill.
2017 Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 48%. However, several other surcharges will be
eliminated from the bill entirely. This includes the National Marine Fisheries Surcharge for environmental
mitigation as well as a couple of balancing account surcharges. As a result, the typical customer will not see a
significant increase from the year before.
Typical customer bill In 2017: $97.38
2018 The Water Supply Project is expected to be completed. Surcharge #2 two will be assessed at 56%.
Typical customer bill once the project is completed in 2018: $106.73
Typical customer bill at end of 2013: $75.74
Typical customer bill at end of 2018: $ 106.73 (with a 6.4 million gallons per day plant)
Percentage increase: about 41%

These CSUITlates are based on the best
information available to us at this thee
(September 2013}. Actual rate impacts
may vary based on CPL1C actions.

WE CARE ABOUT WATER. IT'S WHAT WE DO.
MONTEREY
MAIN SYSTEM
Based en actual 2052 residential
fnefage use ef 74 els, the base b.
ha4ld be as follo.s,
MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
2 013 -2018 Bill Impacts - 6.4 IYI6D
BILL COMPARISON
I 2018
Rate
(Projected)

Charge
(Proj
including
Rate
(Cr
1* te
2013
I Teat)
Charge
/ 2013
Rate
(Projected]
Charge
I 2014
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
12015
(Proj
Rate
[led)
Charge
i 2016
(Pro}
Rate
cted)
Charge
I 2017
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
2818
Lied
MWSP)
Charge
MEIMM I CM:11MEM E=1 MEM ECM MEM 1=1 MEM OEM MEECI MEM ME 1=1 MEEE MEI MEM
MI. =MEM =I MEM 1=1==IEEE EC=MEM =IEEE! EXIM MEM=MEM
0111 MEM 8000 Mil
$000
UM
$000
ES=1
*00
EME1
$000
MEM 1000 EEE1 OW
136671 0000
1231 11=11 5903 CCM
*000
EMI
6600
IMO
*000
MEM 390* CEO 1000 CE311 $999 =1000
EM: IME1
0000
Enn
6000
=I 9000 =I
*000
MEM 1909 [2:1=1
1000 854554
0000 MEM
0000
I=E: M:13IMEM IMEM IMEE IMEM IMEM IMEM II1MEM
E:=3:1MII113:13 IM:E=3 IMEM IM33 IMEM IKM=MEM Kt=1I1=E1
LE:1= EMM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM EMMEN ECM REM MEM EMM Ems MI lEriN
5352
li=13 MEM ME MN MEM EMIR=IEVEMIXEMMI MEM IIII1 1I1I11=1111111=
111:= III 09 5
54 91085
4 4 091
02504
MEM IZEI MI
$3405
1211=2 MEM
COM
I
II
1I
MEM
MEM
I
I
KM
MEM
I
I
WM
MEM
I
I
MEM
MEM
II
IMEM
I
I
MI
MEM
MI
II1
II1
KIM LE=1II
EZIE I
II1
MIMI= EMM IMEN IWM IMEM IMEM IMEM IMEM
1=1:I
Daher Difference
IEOM I=El I1203 I1=1IEEO NEM LEM IIE:=1Iamm
EZIE ZEE IIMIII IE311IMMI EMM NMI EMI I11=1
1:1=CIIMI MIN II1 II1=II 1I13313 II1
28 4 2 %
1111E31MIll ECM IEXIM
CE:=IIIIEl=lICM 1I1:1=11I11:121MIMI KIM MIMI MI IIEMI
MONTEREY
MAINSYSTEM
BaseJGI &lull 2012resizmal
s.erage use or 7,1Os. tee base OM
hcula oe as[Woes:
(Curre
Rate
2013
t Year)
Clsarge
MONTEREY
(Pro]
Rate
2013
cted)
Charge
COUNTY
2013-2018 BillImpacts
DISTRICT
- 9.6 MGD
BILLCOMPARISON
I 2017
(Projected)
1
Charge
(Proj
I 2014
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
I 2015
(Pro]
Rate
cted)
Charge
12016
(Pro'
Rate
elm()
Charge
2018
clod)
Charge
Including
Rate
201B
(Projected
MINSP)
Charge
ITM:21 MEM MEM 1=1E=ECM MEM DM MEI EEEMMEM EOM MME MEM MEM MO MEM
1313 11=1103 MEM MEM Ens==1MEM DIEM==19:seg 99 6185 11133111=1 139 4 0
Birth 30 Emu 0000 12.2183 *000Em 1000 023810 6000 62.3874 6000 12.3014 1000am 3000com so 00
IZIEE EMI 9000 MEM
8000
=MI
0000
MUM
$000
MEM 1003 =El
*000
OM
*000
=I
*000
Mot 5 0 *4192* SO00 96.0724 SO00elm 50. ,13 3660 SOCA 08.2071 1000Emmi 10oo Eirm $o oo =1.8000
Er Drew 74
MEM IMEM IMEM INOM IMEM IMEI IMEM IMMI MEIE
CII:=2IImomIMEM IEMI IMEC] IMI=3I=ElIZEE IWEE
F lS.rrv .rrr
MEM KM EOM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM =MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MIEIMMEM
=MEM IDEM=mm IIIMINI 1=1II1III
EM1111: IIIIIIIMME MEM ECM MEM MEM EEE3 E=91E1=EI
Gantlet Can Bat h00
99 39 EMM IMEM IMEM IMZEMIIIIII
1=02 ILIM IMEM IMEM IMIME IECBMIEMM ILEM IMEM
1=111:
1198 01.90 51.96 $1.98 81.98 *1.98 Mill91.96 51.98
1:13:2= MEM IMEE IEEO IE=E1 IEOM IEZEI I
$99.99 $103.66
Deem0111emee
MN NM MU 1123711Mil EMEilIII1EMU NM MEI MMI1HI 64 UM IEM11
ES:=I1 II1II I111M11111111MI LEM 1II =I 1I111E3 MIME=IEMI NMI E=1
1:1=MM=M1111111MIIMI IIMMI 10991% I111=211111M11=1 IEE11 MEM 13:133 =II II1CIES
ggigew_LAnorggol
2015-2017 Rates based on filed CRC
2018Rate estimate inflation of
2015-2018MPW1410Surcharge estimated at 52.5M urination 10%
annually) to Revenue Requirement
Surcharge N2- rate changes within each year. Used average rate
each year
Gen Erie Sal Acct estimate lully recovered by 3rd Qtr 2016
WRAM Surcharges included in base rates through 2016
San Clemente Dam Surcharge included in base rates
NOAA Surcharge ncluded in base rates through 2016
6.4 MOD Plant
Total capital is 5277.2M
Funded with 586.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of retti
$66.4M of SAPdebt at 2.5'
SRF debt is 20year term and Exempt from Properly Taxes
Surcharge 2o1S71.5M
Public Financing ISecurituatien} of $64.5M
Company's standard 53W47% capital structure
FirSt year rate base is expected to oe 150M
Yr I Revenue Requirement of 536.2* 4
Ground Roarer recharge expense of $8.75MM per annum . -icluded
hiuD Plant
Total capital is $320.814
Funded with $86.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of return
576.8M of SRF debt at 2.5%
Surcharge 201$71.51h
Public Financing (Securitizationt of $86111
Company's standard 53%/47% capital structure
First year rate base is expected to be $79.7M
Yr 1Revenue Requirement of 533.311
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
(888) 237-1333 www.califomlaarmvater.com
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
7
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

1
3
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

3
3
Rate Impact Fact Sheet
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
Synopsis
This fact sheet is intended to show how the typical customer bill will be impacted by the Water Supply Project
and other ongoing charges from 2013 to the project's expected completion in 2018.
Summary
From 2013 to 2018, a typical customer will likely see their bills increase by about 41%, depending on the size of
the desalination plant that is required. Their bill will increase from $75.74 at the end of 2013 to $106.73 at the
end of 2018. This equates to an additional 94tt per day.
The following is a year-by-year breakdown of what a typical customer will see happen to their bill during this
period. This is based on a three-person home, with a 5/8 inch meter, using 74 cubic feet per second of water per
month during the summer months.
2013 Currently, customers are already being billed a 15% surcharge for the Water Supply Project's pre-
construction costs. This 15% surcharge, itemized as "Surcharge #1" on the bill, is projected to remain in
effect through the middle of 2015. Also on the bill will be a number of other familiar surcharges that are
presently being assessed such as the San Clemente Dam Removal Surcharge and the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District Surcharge.
Typical customer bill at the end of 2013: $75.74
2014 Surcharge #1 will increase from 15% to 20%, for an annual average of 17.5%.
2015 Surcharge #1 is projected to be discontinued in June of this year. Before this happens it will increase
to a rate of 30%. When it expires, customers will then see the introduction of Surcharge #2, at a rate of 30%.
Surcharge #2 will pay for the desalination support facilities, including the pipeline, and significantly lower the
project's cost with this injection of interest-free funding. Other charges and fees will remain in effect.
2016 Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 40% of the bill.
2017 Surcharge #2 will increase to an annual average of 48%. However, several other surcharges will be
eliminated from the bill entirely. This includes the National Marine Fisheries Surcharge for environmental
mitigation as well as a couple of balancing account surcharges. As a result, the typical customer will not see a
significant increase from the year before.
2018 The Water Supply Project is expected to be completed. Surcharge #2 two will be assessed at 56%.
Typical customer bill once the project is completed in 2018: $106.73
Typical customer bill at end of 2013: $75.74
Typical customer bill at end of 2018: $ 106.73 (with a 6.4 million gallons per day plant)
Percentage increase: about 41%

These estimates are based on the best
information available to us at this time
(September 20131. Actual rate impacts
may vary based on CMG' actions.

MONTEREY
MAIN SYSTEM
Baledcnactual 2012 les:derMal
3,e0age use cl 74 els. Me base ell
a cOd 48- as folio's:
(Cum
Rat
2013
t Year)
Charge
MONTEREY COUNTY
2013-2018
DISTRICT
Bill Impacts
BILL COMPARISON
-6.4 MGD
1 201 3
I Pro)
Rate
cted)
Charge
I 201 4
(Proj
Rate
etc.])
Charge
I 201 5
(Pro)
Rate
cted)
Charge
I 2016
(Projected)
I 2017
(Pro) cted)
Charge
I 201 6
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
201
!Pro)
including
Rale
8
cted
MYY5P)
Charge
Illats 1 45 seater
EMISI =I IMES =MEM=ME=[COMM=EMI=CM
1 24.55
1 0871 3
1 )9 .21
C:1 2M =I KUM SD 89 76 MEM En3 IEM3 =I MEI El=3 EZEI ECM E3=1 E:I=min EEO EMI
1 200
1 21 : METE 3000 EMI
80,00
1 3E3
1 200
EMU
5000
=I
3000
E1 31 WC MEI
1 001 )
n 6671
Pers.* 0 1 3,531 2 1 000 cm *000 Eam impcm 000 Enci $ 000 ccei *000 cm 1000 mi 1 000
IZISI EOM
3000
EMI
30.00
111231M:11211:111
1 000 36.2071 $ 0.00
ETSMI an
1 5.4554 1 0.00
EtI=1
1 500
stir me. f4
M:1 :1 :3 II1 MEM IREM IMEM MIMI =El IIMED I
31 250
MI=62072
=2:1 =1 :: 1 4880 NMI EXIM LIM IE3:1 II=IEMEII1 1 1 21 1 31 II:=I9
61 1 1 1 1 + 0Surcnaigt 6005
S348 1 =1 Eli =EWEN EMMEN =WE= =SEEMNM EMI MEE EMI
1 :2221 1 1 2E ME NMS8 32 1 1 7 "I SU" EMI KEES NMI IIIIIII
s.....: .
IIIIEMI IID EM MEM=ME= EIEZI KM 13:111=1II
EIZZEI IEMI IWEE II1 MIX II MEM ENE 1E=E=IIIIMIMI
ubsYSMCeni*uortsfe
MIMI= IKEE II KEE NNE WOE IIEMI IIEMIE IEISE MINE=
EI1 :1 1 1 I1 1 331 IMEE I1 31 :1 IElIZE IMEE IEMI EMI
S1 .43
1 331 =1 :MI1 I1 1 1 3=31 IMO IE=3 I1 =3 IMil IQM MII EMU ILE=
1 :2=1 : M=1 1 I1 MEI MEM IEMI IEMI IEMI IEMI MIME:CM
II1 MIMI
I
I
LEIZI
E=I 1 21 1 1 =1 =1 1 IIII1 IIIIECII II1 E=Il 1 1 1 1 E EXEZI I1 2=1
CE:==IMEIIIIlIE=I 1 I1 3=1 lIEt=I=I IEl=IEMI IIM E=I
MONTEREY
MAIN SYSTEM
Paled enactual 201 2resdential
&erne use Si 74 cfs, One case e II
'mildfollohs: So as
MONTEREY
20
Rate
(Projected)
13
Charge
COUNTY
2013-2018
D ISTRICT
Bill Impacts -9.6 !MD
Charge
(Projected)
BILLCOMPARISON
12011
Rate.
(Projected)
Charge
12017
Rate
(Projected)
Mugs
I 2018
Rate
(Projected)
Chug*
2018

Including
Rate
Irmected

MYY5P)
(Current
Rate
201 3
Year)
Rabe
201 4
(Projected)
12015
Rate Charge
13L5Ch 1 45
QM MEI I=MUMECM MEM1:1=IEESEI =I NEMECM=ECMEITEI =El KIM
Bk. 2. 29 30.8828 1 21 .6060,1 076 1 2603 300041 1 28.1 030,8450 1 2741 1 09 23d 1 26,1 9 *0.3356 icE=1 cm omi Elm Em
Ell: 1 1 1 :31 1 000 EEI:13
30.00
El=
30.00
ECM
80.00
EEE31
1 0.00
E 1 1 7700 1 24826 1 000 ElaZI
1 000
Rick.' 0 1 3.531 1 IOW 1 4.431 2 1 0.00 Emma cm 1 000 cm 1 000 CI= 0000 IME111 $ 0.00 1 =1 1 00*
c! Elm $0.00 cm 1 0.00 cm $ 0.001 6.3650 1 0.01 3 68 ,2071 s000 mg 1 000 6847.64 1 0.00 orn So 03
5/ 6' Mrtor 74
M=I MMIEEMII1 KEE IIMEI II1 KMMEI=IMEI IMEM
=1 1 =1 : IE=3 IE=3 IEICEI IEMI NMI S6286 MEI=II=IECM
1 ,1 by rIAD Sunhat*.
1 =1 1 E=Exam Kam MIME=ERE MEM ZEE EMI =MEM
3,t
EMI EBB 1 341
1 =1 1 1 1 IMEE=El=
$ 8.32
MERE==MELEE IIIIME IIII
MEI
M1 1 1 1 1 I1 I
1 I
Surma(' + 2
Milllillill MI EMI =ME=EMI=ETU 634 6
1 21 := IEMI =MI EMI IIWEE 1I11E2E:1 MN ZEN III
MPSSMOCenseitraion
KOME IME IEMI MI MEM II1 EMI IMEE IEMI IEMS
1 31 :1 IEIEE IEMI 1 I1 1 EIE2 IMEE MN EOM IMEE IE=E MIME=
1 ==I1 1 M IE=r1 IEMI MOE=EMI II1 EMI OM EEEZI IE=1 MIM =I
1 71 ::1 := IIMil EXZE MIIIII1 21 1 1 II1133:13 lIEMI I1 1 31 1 1 I=MI MEM EMI
% D IRersore here 201 3fltrelatiart)
MI=IIMI ECMI131M1 1 =1 1 E=I
3281 %
=I
1 3:=I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lIII1 1 EMI IECE=1 II=I =ME=II1 2=II=I II=
ROI Impact Assumptions
2015-2017 RateS based on filed CRC
2018 Rate estimate inflation of 3%
2015-2018 MPVINID Surcharge estimated at $2.5M{inflation 10%
Surcharge #2 - rate changes within each year. Used average rate for
each year
Gen Sp Sal Acct estimate fully recovered by 3rd Qtr 2016
WRAMSurcharges included in base rates through 2016
San Clemente DamSurcharge included in base rates
NOAASurcharge included in base rates tnrough 2016
0.4 MOD Plant
Total Capital is 5277.2M
Funded with 586.5MCAWEquity at a 9.99%required rate Of return
SRF debt Ls 20 year termand Exempt fromProperly Taxes
Surcharge 2 of 571.5h1
Public Financing tSecurnitationi. of 564.5M
Company's standard 53%14791 capital structure
First year rate base is expected to be $69M
Yr 1 Revenue Requirement of 536.2M
Ground water recharge expense of $8.751410 per annum included
9.6MOO Plant
Total capital is $320.8M
Funded with $86.5MCAWEquity at a 9.99%required rate of return
576.8Mof SRF debt at 2.5%
SRF debt IS 20 year termand Exempt fromProperty Taxes
Surcharge 2 of $71.5M
Public Financing (Securitization, of 586M
Company's standard 532 1147%capital structure
Forst year rate base is expected to be 579.7M
Yr 1 Revenue Requirement of $33.3M
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
(888) 237-1333 www.califomlaamwater.com
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
7
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

1
5
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

3
5
Date: February 03, 2014
Agenda Report
Item No: 2.
SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on the Ground Water
Replenishment (GWR) Schedule, Response to Business Coalition Questions, and
Product Water Negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the TAC review the GWR schedule, noting focused schedule
activities, review the MRWPCA responses to the Business Coalition Questions, and
review the status of GWR Product Water Negotiations with the purpose of establishing a
recommended decision date after which declaratory relief should be pursued.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment #1 is the latest (7 October 2013) schedule for completion of the GWR
project. Italicized dates represent the most recent completion dates while standard type
reflects the dates established during settlement negotiations (10 September 2013).
Items shown in red are suggested by staff to be critical, those in yellow as approaching
critical. All others do not seem to be critical or near critical as of this date.
Attachment #2 is the MRWPCA Proposed Groundwater Replenishment Project
Phasing.
Attachment #3 is the Business Coalition Five Questions to the JPA TAC MRWPCA
Responses.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. GWR focused schedule dated 3 Feb 2014.
2. MRWPCA Proposed Groundwater Replenishment Project Phasing
3. Business Coalition Five Questions to the JPA TAC MRWPCA Responses
~06/12
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/3/2014 , Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1 MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , tem No. 4., tem Page 16, Packet Page 36
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
FOCUSED Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)
CPUC Calendar Dates NOTE: Sept 10th entries shown in BLUE and rev Oct 7th entries in italics
Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes
Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
August 30, 2013 Complete
Reply Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
September 13, 2013 Complete
Prehearing
Conference: Status of
Settlement Motion (if
any), of CEQA work
& other matters
September 16, 2013 Complete
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
October 2013 MPRWA In Progress
Informational Hearing
on Settlement
Agreements
December 2-3, 2013
January 2014 MPRWA
DEIR circulated for
Comment
February 28, 2014
April 2014 MPRWA
Comments on DEIR
Due
April 14, 2014
Common Outline
Opening Briefs due
April 29, 2014
Reply Briefs due May 14, 2014
FEIR published June 17, 2014
Proposed
Decision on Phase I
Mailed
July, 2014 Phase 1
July 2014 MPRWA
Commission Action on
Phase I
August, 2014
October 2014 MPRWA
GWR Phase -Testimony
of Interested Parties
(from Settlement K)
December 2014
January 2015 MPRWA
GWR Phase -
Settlement discussion
commencing (from
Settlement K)
January 2015
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4.1
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
FOCUSED Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)
GWR Phase -
Concurrent Rebuttal
Testimony (from
Settlement K)
January 2015
GWR Phase -
Evidentiary Hearings
(from Settlement K)
February 2015
GWR Phase - Briefing
(from Settlement K)
March 2015
April 2015 MPRWA
GWR Phase - Proposed
Decision (from
Settlement K)
June 2015
July 2015 MPRWA
GWR Phase - Final
Decision (from
Settlement K)
July 2015
October 2015 MPRWA
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4.1
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/3/2014 , Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 4
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4
SECURITIZATION Due Date Responsible Party Notes
Task
Draft Timeline and August 2013 MPWMD Complete
Implementation Plan
Meet with Legislative August 2013 MPWMD & MPRWA Complete
Delegation re: Timeline
and Implementation
Plan
Initial Revision and Early September 2013 MPWMD Complete
Redline of Legislation
Obtain Cal-Am Input on Late September 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA, & In Progress
Draft Legislation Cal-Am
Retain Necessary October 2013 MPWMD In Progress
Additional
Financial/Legal
Consultants (Charles
Atkins)
Revise Financial October 2013 MPWMD & Cal-Am In Progress
Comparison of Early October 2013
Securitization v. Cal-Am
Financing
Draft 1-2 Page Fact
sheet describing
legislation
Meeting with October-December MPWMD & MPRWA In Progress
Community/Interest 2013
Groups and Cities
Further Revise October-November In Progress
Legislation as 2013
Necessary November 2013
Draft Summary of December 2013 MPWMD
Legislation
Legislative Counsel Early January 2014 Legislative Counsel
Prepares Cover and
Digest
Introduce Legislation January 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Meet with Legislative Late January 2014 Cal-Am
Delegation re strategy
Lobbying Effort February-April 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Cal-Am
Legislative Committee February-March 2014
Hearings
Legislation Adopted April-May 2014
Initial Draft of Motion for April 2014 MPWMD
Financing Order June 2014
Perform Analysis to April 2014 MPWMD & Cal-Am
Demonstrate Annual June 2014
Customer Benefits
Exceed 1.0% of Total
Annual Revenue
Requirement
Motion for Financing May 2014 MPWMD
Order July 2014
Obtain CPUC Financing August 2014 Order on securitization
Order With Commission financing contingent on
. 1
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
Task Due Date on on Pha Responsible Party Notes a
satisfaction of remain
crit from setl K
Preliminary Discussions
with Bond Underwriters
September-December
2014
MPWMD
Drafting of
documentation for bond
requests
September 2014-April
2015
MPWMD & Cal-Am
Preliminary Discussions
with Rating Agencies
February-April 2015 MPWMD
NEW ITEM
Obtain Rating on Water
Rate Relief Bonds
July-August 2015 MPWMD
Determine internal costs
of Cal-Am and AW to
comply with
securitization structure
to be included in rates
to Monterey District
customers
July-August 2015 Cal-Am NEW ITEM
Obtain Letters From
Ratings Agencies
Demonstrating No
Impact to American
Water
July-August 2015 MPWMD NEW ITEM
Obtain Legal Opinion
that Securitization Does
Not Create a Taxable
Event for Cal-Am
July-August 2015 MPWMD
Verification of Annual
Customer Benefits
Exceed 1.0% of Total
Annual Revenue
Requirement
July-August 2015 (or
prior to Issuance of
Bonds)
MPWMD & Cal-Am
Cal-Am Creates SPE September 2015 MPWMD & Cal-Am
Water Rate Relief
Bonds Issued
TBD
(End of 2015?)
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4.1
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
GWR FOCUSED Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb 2014)
File Motion for
Bifurcation of the
GWR Decision
August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted
Board Actions to
Approve Revised
Governance Committee
Agreement
October 2013
August/Sept 2013
MPWMD, MPRWA,
County, & Cal-Am
To be Completed in
October
Executed Agreements
for GWR Source Water
and/or Declaratory
Relief
June 2014
Sept/Nov 2013
MRWPCA Meet & Confer in
Progress
Draft WPA
Mar 2014
Oct/Dec 2013
MPWMD & MRWPCA
Obtain Representations
from DPH re Use of
Extracted GWR Water
Oct 2014
Oct/Dec 2013
MRWPCA
Obtain Representations
from RWQCB re Use of
Extracted GWR Water
Oct 2014
Oct/Dec 2013
MRWPCA
Storage Agreement
with Seaside Basin
Watermaster
Jul 2014
Oct/Dec 2013
MRWPCA & MPWMD
GWR Basis of Design
Complete with At Least
10% Design
Jul 2014
Oct/Dec 2013
MRWPCA
GWR Financing Plan
Sufficient for SRF
Funding
Aug 2014
Oct/Dec 2013
MRWPCA & MPWMD
Agreement on Terms of
WPA May 2014
January 2014
Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
&MPWMD
Perform Revenue
Requirement Analysis
Including Any Debt
Equivalency Effect
Jul 2014
Jan-Mar 2014
MRWPCA & MPWMD
Perform Assessment of
GWR Positive and
Negative Externalities
for Any Premium
June 2014
Jan-Mar 2014
MRWPCA & MPWMD
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4.1
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
Showing
DEIR Circulated July 2014 MRWPCA
Dilution Water
Requirements
July-October 2014 MRWPCA
Project Approved and
FEIR
October 2014 MRWPCA
All Permits for GWR
Construction Obtained ???
January 2015
MRWPCA
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4.1
O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 1 3
Source Wells FOCUSED Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 3 Feb
2014)
Drill Exploratory
Boreholes
Sept. 2013 February
2014
Cal-Am PENDING
Commence
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
August 2013 Cal-Am / SVWC Draft completed. ?
Permits for CEMEX
Site Test Well
January 2014 Cal-Am NOV 2014?
Drill CEMEX Site Test
Well
February 2014 Cal-Am DELAYED
Results of Test Well
Operation Obtained
February 2014
February 2016
Cal-Am DELAYED
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
Complete and Results
Filed with CPUC
June 2015
Cal-Am DELAYED
Necessary Agreements
from CEMEX for
Source Wells
Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?
All Necessary Permits
for Construction of
Source Wells Obtained
Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?
0 1 562 1 \0 0 0 2 \1 0 7 6853 4.1
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

2
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
,

I
t
e
m

N
o
.

2
.
,

I
t
e
m

P
a
g
e

9
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

9

M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
7
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

2
4
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

4
4
Business Coalitions Five Questions to the JPA TAC
MRWPCA Responses
1. Is there an agreement with the local governments that clearly states the
wastewater fromthese jurisdictions is available for GWR?
a. MRWPCA Legal Counsel has determined that, pursuant to State
law, once wastewater flows are provided to or delivered to the
regional conveyance lines then that wastewater is owned by the
MRWPCA to use 1) as it so determines, or 2) as agreed upon in
previous agreements.
2. Who currently has rights to the water in the reclamation ditches and will
producers of the source wastewater have rights to the reclaimed
wastewater?
a. For the MRWPCA EIR, the Reclamation Ditch and the Blanco
Drain are being classified as alternative supplemental source
water components. It is our understanding that flows in both the
Reclamation Ditch and Blanco Drain may be considered waters of
the state under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and would be comprised of precipitation-
driven runoff, urban runoff, and agricultural return flows. For the
points of diversion being considered in the Reclamation Ditch and
Blanco Drain, the SWRCBwebsite, http://www.waterboards.ca .
gov/waterrights/waterissues/programs/ewrims/index.shtml shows
that no permits have been issued to divert surface flows
downstreamof these points of diversion. However, there appear
to be pending permit applications for diversions in some of the
streams in the upland areas of the Reclamation Ditch watershed
(i.e., upstreamof the City of Salinas). Staff is preparing an
application to request that the SWRCBmake a determination to
allowthe use of these sources. In coordination with MPWMD, staff
will be consulting the SWRCBfor the correct determination of uses
for these sources which may result in the preparation of an
application.
Joint Powers Authority Member Entities:
Boronda County Sanitation District, Castroville Community Services District, County of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Fort Ord, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey,
Moss Landing County Sanitation District, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside.
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/3/2014 , ItemNo. 2., ItemPage 10, Packet Page 10 MPRWA TAC Meeting, 4/7/2014 , tem No. 4., tem Page 25, Packet Page 45
Response to Business Coalition
January 29. 2014
Page Two
3. Who has to approve the injection of the advanced treated water into local
aquifers as part of the GWR process; in other words, from whom and how
many permits are needed?
a. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) formally
approves a project after review and approval of the projects
comprehensive engineering report. One permit is issued to inject
the water into local aquifers by the Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCBG). The permit includes CDPH
and RWQCB requirements to protect all groundwater beneficial
uses and water quality. A USEPA permit for a Class V
underground injection well is not required. In July 2014, the CDPH
Drinking Water Program is tentatively scheduled to become a
Division within the State Water Resources Control Board. As part
of this transition, the CDPH/RWQCB approval and permitting
process may be modified, but the permit issued for an injection
project that uses recycled water will still be crafted to protect
beneficial uses of groundwater and groundwater quality. Other
permit(s), authorizations, or approvals will be required from local
entities including: MPWMD, Seaside Basin Watermaster,
Monterey County Environmental Health, City of Seaside, and Fort
Ord Reuse Authority to construct the injections and monitoring
wells for the project.
4. What is the projected timeline for the GWR process from today to the time the
first gallons of water are pumped from the recharged aquifer into the CAW
distribution system?
a. Our target for project completion is January 1, 2017.
5. What is the projected cost per AF (+/- 10%) of the GWR water at the time it is
taken from the recharge aquifer for delivery to Cal Am (or other distributor)
and what is a definitive estimate of the cost of water to Cal Am customers?
a. The range in cost per acre foot is still estimated to be $2,500/AF.
As the feasibility and facilities planning documents begin to shore
up some project costs this summer, the figure will have more
clarity. We have contacted Cal Am regarding the estimate of the
cost of water to Cal Am customers as we currently do have not the
cost for distribution. Additional information is attached regarding
anticipated Cal Am water costs.
Z:\General Manager\Mayors JPA-MPR Water Authority\Business Coalitions GWR Questions-Responses 1-29-14.doc
MONTEREY
MAIN SYSTEM
Based en actual 2052 residential
fnefage use ef 74 els, the base b.
ha4ld be as follo.s,
MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
2 013 -2018 Bill Impacts - 6.4 IYI6D
BILL COMPARISON
I 2018
Rate
(Projected)

Charge
(Proj
including
Rate
(Cr
1* te
2013
I Teat)
Charge
/ 2013
Rate
(Projected]
Charge
I 2014
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
12015
(Proj
Rate
[led)
Charge
i 2016
(Pro}
Rate
cted)
Charge
I 2017
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
2818
Lied
MWSP)
Charge
MEIMM I CM:11MEM E=1 MEM ECM MEM 1=1 MEM OEM MEECI MEM ME 1=1 MEEE MEI MEM
MI. =MEM =I MEM 1=1==IEEE EC=MEM =IEEE! EXIM MEM=MEM
0111 MEM 8000 Mil
$000
UM
$000
ES=1
*00
EME1
$000
MEM 1000 EEE1 OW
136671 0000
1231 11=11 5903 CCM
*000
EMI
6600
IMO
*000
MEM 390* CEO 1000 CE311 $999 =1000
EM: IME1
0000
Enn
6000
=I 9000 =I
*000
MEM 1909 [2:1=1
1000 854554
0000 MEM
0000
I=E: M:13IMEM IMEM IMEE IMEM IMEM IMEM II1MEM
E:=3:1MII113:13 IM:E=3 IMEM IM33 IMEM IKM=MEM Kt=1I1=E1
LE:1= EMM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM EMMEN ECM REM MEM EMM Ems MI lEriN
5352
li=13 MEM ME MN MEM EMIR=IEVEMIXEMMI MEM IIII1 1I1I11=1111111=
111:= III 09 5
54 91085
4 4 091
02504
MEM IZEI MI
$3405
1211=2 MEM
COM
I
II
1I
MEM
MEM
I
I
KM
MEM
I
I
WM
MEM
I
I
MEM
MEM
II
IMEM
I
I
MI
MEM
MI
II1
II1
KIM LE=1II
EZIE I
II1
MIMI= EMM IMEN IWM IMEM IMEM IMEM IMEM
1=1:I
Daher Difference
IEOM I=El I1203 I1=1IEEO NEM LEM IIE:=1Iamm
EZIE ZEE IIMIII IE311IMMI EMM NMI EMI I11=1
1:1=CIIMI MIN II1 II1=II 1I13313 II1
28 4 2 %
1111E31MIll ECM IEXIM
CE:=IIIIEl=lICM 1I1:1=11I11:121MIMI KIM MIMI MI IIEMI
MONTEREY
MAINSYSTEM
BaseJGI &lull 2012resizmal
s.erage use or 7,1Os. tee base OM
hcula oe as[Woes:
(Curre
Rate
2013
t Year)
Clsarge
MONTEREY
(Pro]
Rate
2013
cted)
Charge
COUNTY
2013-2018 BillImpacts
DISTRICT
- 9.6 MGD
BILLCOMPARISON
I 2017
(Projected)
1
Charge
(Proj
I 2014
Rate
(Projected)
Charge
I 2015
(Pro]
Rate
cted)
Charge
12016
(Pro'
Rate
elm()
Charge
2018
clod)
Charge
Including
Rate
201B
(Projected
MINSP)
Charge
ITM:21 MEM MEM 1=1E=ECM MEM DM MEI EEEMMEM EOM MME MEM MEM MO MEM
1313 11=1103 MEM MEM Ens==1MEM DIEM==19:seg 99 6185 11133111=1 139 4 0
Birth 30 Emu 0000 12.2183 *000Em 1000 023810 6000 62.3874 6000 12.3014 1000am 3000com so 00
IZIEE EMI 9000 MEM
8000
=MI
0000
MUM
$000
MEM 1003 =El
*000
OM
*000
=I
*000
Mot 5 0 *4192* SO00 96.0724 SO00elm 50. ,13 3660 SOCA 08.2071 1000Emmi 10oo Eirm $o oo =1.8000
Er Drew 74
MEM IMEM IMEM INOM IMEM IMEI IMEM IMMI MEIE
CII:=2IImomIMEM IEMI IMEC] IMI=3I=ElIZEE IWEE
F lS.rrv .rrr
MEM KM EOM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM =MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MIEIMMEM
=MEM IDEM=mm IIIMINI 1=1II1III
EM1111: IIIIIIIMME MEM ECM MEM MEM EEE3 E=91E1=EI
Gantlet Can Bat h00
99 39 EMM IMEM IMEM IMZEMIIIIII
1=02 ILIM IMEM IMEM IMIME IECBMIEMM ILEM IMEM
1=111:
1198 01.90 51.96 $1.98 81.98 *1.98 Mill91.96 51.98
1:13:2= MEM IMEE IEEO IE=E1 IEOM IEZEI I
$99.99 $103.66
Deem0111emee
MN NM MU 1123711Mil EMEilIII1EMU NM MEI MMI1HI 64 UM IEM11
ES:=I1 II1II I111M11111111MI LEM 1II =I 1I111E3 MIME=IEMI NMI E=1
1:1=MM=M1111111MIIMI IIMMI 10991% I111=211111M11=1 IEE11 MEM 13:133 =II II1CIES
ggigew_LAnorggol
2015-2017 Rates based on filed CRC
2018Rate estimate inflation of
2015-2018MPW1410Surcharge estimated at 52.5M urination 10%
Surcharge N2- rate changes within each year. Used average rate
each year
Gen Erie Sal Acct estimate lully recovered by 3rd Qtr 2016
WRAM Surcharges included in base rates through 2016
San Clemente Dam Surcharge included in base rates
NOAA Surcharge ncluded in base rates through 2016
6.4 MOD Plant
Total capital is 5277.2M
Funded with 586.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of retti
$66.4M of SAPdebt at 2.5'
Surcharge 2o1S71.5M
Public Financing ISecurituatien} of $64.5M
Company's standard 53W47% capital structure
FirSt year rate base is expected to oe 150M
Yr I Revenue Requirement of 536.2* 4
Ground Roarer recharge expense of $8.75MM per annum . -icluded
hiuD Plant
Total capital is $320.814
Funded with $86.5M CAW Equity at a 9.99% required rate of return
Surcharge 201$71.51h
Public Financing (Securitizationt of $86111
Company's standard 53%/47% capital structure
First year rate base is expected to be $79.7M
Yr 1Revenue Requirement of 533.311
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
(888) 237-1333 www.califomlaarmvater.com
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
7
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

2
9
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

4
9
M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

2
/
3
/
2
0
1
4

,

I
t
e
m

N
o
.

2
.
,

I
t
e
m

P
a
g
e

1
6
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

1
6

M
P
R
W
A

T
A
C

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

4
/
7
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

4
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

3
1
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

5
1

Agenda Report

Item No: 5.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Consultant Selection for GWR Externalities Study (Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:
. Section 4.2 of the Large Settlement Agreement states:
(a) The parties agree that a revenue requirement premium for the
combination of the GWR Project and a smaller MPWSP desalination project may be
determined just and reasonable, for some, but not necessarily all of the following reasons, if
the combined GWR/smaller desalination project affords significant net benefits in comparison
to a larger desalination project alone upon a consideration of all positive and negative
externalities associated with the GWR Project. Significant positive benefits that could
support the Commissions approval of such a premium, include, but are not limited to, the
following: (i) a material schedule advantage in that the GWR Project is anticipated to be
operable sooner than the desalination plant; (ii) water supply resilience and reliability (benefit
of the portfolio approach); and (iii) other positive externalities of the GWR Project, including,
but not limited to reduced atmospheric carbon emissions, reduced brine discharge, and the
implementation and encouragement of State policies regarding water recycling through early
adoption of a water reuse project. The Parties anticipate that the evidentiary hearings in the
separate phase will support findings by the Commission of an upper range of reasonableness
for the price of GWR Project water for inclusion in the WPA based upon consideration of all
positive and negative externalities associated with the GWR Project.
Dave Stoldt will provide an update on how the Externalities will be identified and
quantified.

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 04-07-14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 04-07-14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

You might also like