Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, February 4, 2013
Few Memorial Hall of Records
Council Chamber
Monterey, California





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.


1. January 24, 2013 Special Meeting


2. Receive Presentation from California American Water Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project Status of Project Test Wells, Discuss Water Rights in the Salinas Valley Aquifer
and Provide Direction to Staff

3. Receive Oral Report From Executive Director Regarding The Department of Water
Resources Funding Consideration, Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff

4. Receive, Discuss and Provide Direction To Staff Regarding Update from California
American Water On Compliance With MPRWA Conditions That Must Be Met Prior to
Receiving MPRWA Support for Desal Project


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 Clerk’s 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 Clerk’s Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.
Created date 02/01/2013 1:39 PM Monday, February 4, 2013

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 Clerk’s 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.

Special Meeting
2:00 PM, Thursday, January 24, 2013

Members Present: Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Siegfried, Israel, Narigi, Riley

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Interim Executive Director, Clerk to the Authority





Chair Burnett invited public comments for items not on the agenda. David Armanasco spoke to
communicate the status of the Deep Water Desal (DWD) project, who filed their application with
the State Lands Commission to begin the CEQA process to begin developing an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). They have also been responsive to the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) requests to supply information for use as alternative information for the
Cal Am Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) EIR. He then described how the
DWD project will have reduced facility energy costs. The intake facility will bring raw, cold sea
water to cool down the data center which will in turn pre-heat the water to proceed to the desal
unit. DWD is also in the process of securing a power purchase agreement with the City of
Salinas, to purchase directly from a power wholesaler further reducing costs. The data center
and desalination facility will be located on the Dynagy property, eliminating the need to pipe
water across Elkhorn Slough.
Member Reichmuth questioned screenings for marine life and chemical pre treatment abilities.
Mr. Armanasco responded that the process includes a screen open intake and conclusions of
first study indicated that there was a .007% chance of entrainment or impingement. If there is
pre-treatment required, it would happen after the water went through the data center.
Interim Executive Director Meurer requested an update of the status of the permitting and the
current proposed time line. Mr. Armanasco responded that DWD will not apply for permits until
the project has completed the environmental review. Once completed, they will apply for
necessary permits from the Coastal Commission. With no further requests to speak, Chair
Burnett closed public comment.

1. Discuss Project Decision Matrix and Provide Recommendation to Authority
Action: Discussed and Drafted Recommendation to Authority Directors
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 1., Ìtem Page 1, Packet Page 1
MPRWA TAC Minutes Thursday, January 24, 2013


TAC Chair Burnett introduced the item explaining the purpose of the agenda item and recused
himself from decisions made at the TAC today due to his position on the Authority Board. He
indicated that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District was not able to complete the
matrix due to time and scheduling constraints therefore only two matrix would be presented to
the Authority. The Purpose of the matrix is to illustrate the range of opinions to be a tool to
make side by side comparison, with a number of key variables, assumptions and decision
points. Chair Burnett acknowledged the task to be ambitious and thanked the TAC members for
their effort then answered questions from the TAC.
Member Riley questioned the usefulness of the exercise concerned it will reflect more opinion
rather than research. Chair Burnett responded that information has changed. Before, the TAC
identified questions and the purpose of this exercise is to answer the questions and provide
recommendations, with opinions and judgment.

Chair Burnett opened the item for public comment. Sue McCloud questioned the status of the
People's Moss Landing project asking if information contained in the SPI report was still
accurate. Chair Burnett asked if any member of the public was present representing the
People's project and could answer the question posed by Ms. McCloud. With no further
requests to speak, public comment was closed and Member Stoldt spoke to Ms. McCloud’s
question reporting that PML has been working to pull together a project team because the
previous project is gone, and a replacement project does not yet exist. In response to the
discussion Chair Burnett indicated the focus today will be on two projects, Cal Am and the
DWD project only information about the PML project’s viability is questionable and the TAC
should only present accurate, verified data to the Authority.

Member Riley expressed concern that the Authority is focusing on only one project and not
making room for a contingency plan. Legal Counsel Freemen responded that the Authority
requested the CPUC to look at all three projects in the environmental review and his question is
not what is up for discussion today.

The TAC discussed and completed the matrix line by line discussing what the TAC felt was
missing or was different than the SPI matrix.
The first topic discussed was facility size and TAC questioned if changing the size of Cal Am's
project changed parameters of the CEQA process and also discussed replenishment rates of
the Seaside Basin and operating levels of the facility. TAC agreed the facility should not run at
98% capacity but the norm should to run at 80% capacity due to regular maintenance, daily
operations of back flushing and long term maintenance requirements. Chair Burnett opened the
item regarding facility sizing for public comment.
Dennis Ing responded that the DWD desalination plant will have a number of trains of reverse
osmosis that is equivalent to 2,000 acre feet and will always have a 25% back up ready for
demand or maintenance. The 98% operation capacity is how you run your main system, not
your total capacity. Doug Wilhelm spoke to demands to change the plant operating capacity
indicating it will only increase the cost, but demand will not change and referenced Cal Am’s
presentation on the price elasticity of demand. Tom Rowley said consumption has been
consistent for the last 10 to 15 years and the community has demonstrated voluntary cutbacks
on consumption, but has not significantly been reflected in the demand. Eric Sabolsey spoke to
the operation of the facility indicating there is a peak capacity that the plant will have. The
MPWSP is using those numbers from the critically dry years for the function to ensure that they
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 1., Ìtem Page 2, Packet Page 2
MPRWA TAC Minutes Thursday, January 24, 2013

have capacity in the critically dry years. On GWR and go no go, our schedule is fluid and may
shift. The 2015 no/no go was accurate. With no more requests to speak, Chair Burnett closed
public comment and responded that the TAC is not designing the plant but want to ensure that
regardless of which option is chosen, the capacity factor is not an issue again in a few years,
and that the redundancy is accurate.

TAC discussed the different methods of intake and agreed that there are problems with the
proposed intake methods and agreed that it is necessary to have modeling over a period of
time to determine if there are any long term potential damages. They concluded that this is a
policy question and that the State Water Resources Board and The Coastal Commission are
determining policies for this issue. Chair Burnett opened the item of intake for public comment.
Dennis Ing spoke about the presentation of entrapment and impingement and explained how
DWD will use a passive intake system which will reject any organism that comes near it. He
explained that with a wedge/wire passive intake system, as long as the flow rate is less than 1/2
foot per second organisms can swim away. There is an abundance of laboratories that has
made 10 years of data with organisms and flow rates available. All species are documented
from peer reviewed research labs. Additional studies are being done beginning with Tamera
Environmental and are 9 months into the study. He closed comment by indicating that open
ocean intake was approved in Southern California this week, after 10 years of debate.
Nancy Isakson, Salinas Valley Water Coalition questioned the recommendation for intake
source and expressed appreciation for addressing Hydrologist Tim Durbin's concerns. She then
requested the TAC to look beyond that as there are issues with the shallow aquifer and test
wells which need to be monitored for at least 2 years for real world results. She closed by
saying it would be in everyone's best interest to look for a source that is outside of the Salinas
basin. Chair Burnett closed public comment and continued to the next topic of pretreatment.

Member Seigfried shared skepticism about the SPI report on this item of pretreatment as it will
change over time unless you have a dynamic situation whens occasional blooms reduce
oxygen levesl and will have a constant nitrate source from the Salinas river which feeds
blooms. Member Israel indicated it is important to ensure specific chemicals are neutralized so
that the water has the ability to be recycled. Member Reichmuth indicated at the Santa
Cruz/Soquel Creek project had unanticipated manganese/boron pretreatment needs, which do
not pre-treat well. Regardless of the types of wells, pretreatment is not significant. Importance is
organisms. TAC agreed that they would support and require a partial second pass.
TAC Member Burnett called a recess for 10 minutes at 3:18 p.m, reconvened at 3:28 p.m. and
temporarily tabled item one to take up item two. When finished, returned to item one.

TAC took up the discussion of economics and discussed from the November to the December
report, the Cal Am annualized costs had a huge increase but are unclear if the other projects
have commitments for financing. Still unclear if the other two projects have the financial ability
to complete the project as well a determination of the final cost of water and acknowledged that
many of the details could be flushed out after a project is supported. Interim Director Meurer
responded it should be very uncomfortable for the JPA to look at water rates based on hopes
vs. a true provable financing plan. The public needs to know the reliability of those cost abilities.
Member Stoldt clarified the financial strategies of the DWD and PML projects indicating their
intentions for public ownership access to public financing. Mr. Meurer responded about the
unknown viability and the fact the lowest price to the consumer cannot be determined as there
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 1., Ìtem Page 3, Packet Page 3
MPRWA TAC Minutes Thursday, January 24, 2013

are too many variables unknown that affect the price. The TAC agreed to request in writing the
ability of Cal Am project have access to SRF Funds.
The item was opened for public comment and Dennis Ing spoke about the DWD project being a
private venture supported by entrepreneurs with an interest in the region who desire for the
water problem solved permanently. DWD has been in operation for 27 months and have paid
all of their expenses to date and have not incurred any debt. All money is currently at risk,
unlike Cal Am. The project structure is going to be a joint power authority and wants to partner
with the public authority to finance the project with municipal bonds, with ways to accomplish
with no equity investors. This is a regional project and is trying to solve regional issues with no
guarantee of a return, but believe in the science and ability to deliver. Member Riley followed up
on a previous comment about no demonstrated ability to finance the project and asked Mr. Ing
to respond. Mr. Ing stated that they have demonstrated they have the funds by always being
able to meet all costs when they are encountered.
TAC then took up the discussion of the Surcharge 2 proposed by Cal Am. TAC agreed that in
order to avoid rate shock and to reduce risk that the surcharge 2 be structured such that it goes
to low risk parts or phases of the project and Cal Am equity goes to higher risk parts/phases of
the project.
TAC then took up the item of scheduling and permitting and opened the item for public
comment. Dennis Ing indicated that with the DWD facility choice a permit from Monterey
County would entail modification of an existing use permit but the County permit is not the
primary permit, the Coastal development permit would be. He indicated the time analysis for the
DWD project was captured in the SPI report. With no further requests, closed public comment.

TAC discussed the timeline of the Cal Am test wells indicating the current timeline includes up
to two years with the testing and design and 6 months to flesh out the contentions with up to
two years if significant changes with quality and time. The TAC acknowledged that permits are
not the problem, but rather the possibility of litigation.
TAC moved on to the section regarding technical feasibility and questioned the possibility of
being able to produce the quantity of water from slant wells while not harming the aquifer.
Concern was expressed that only a fraction of water be returned to the Salinas Basin. It was
agreed that open technical questions should include situations such as sea level rise,
earthquakes, aquifer replenishment and amount of water that can be returned to the aquifers
and basins.
TAC then discussed the importance of the Authority endorsing a project and acknowledged
that all of the three proposed projects are relatively immature and young in their processes and
unlikely that any would meet the cease and desist order. Yet, the current state of project
development is currently unimportant to picking the right project and facilitating its
development. Two have the potential to finish if they have the full support to facilitate the
project. Don freeman identified that the Cal Am project has revealed their hurdles while the
other projects have not been as forthcoming therefore it would be difficult to make an equal
comparison. The topic of technical feasibility was opened for public comment.
A Cal Am representative responded the 2017 proposal does include the test well running for
two years. Dennis Ing spoke to the question of triggering NEPA and or CEQA for a lead
agency. NEPA may be triggered with either slant wells or brine discharge. If NEPA is triggered
who would be the federal agency? TAC responded that State Lands Commission would be the
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 1., Ìtem Page 4, Packet Page 4
MPRWA TAC Minutes Thursday, January 24, 2013

lead agency for CEQA and the National Marine Sanctuary would be the lead agency for NEPA.

TAC moved on to discuss public ownership and governance. On question, Mr. Meurer
responded that the Monterey City Council made a statement of policy position to support public
ownership of a desalination facility. The policy was not made based on a true analysis. Member
Riley spoke to the reasons for favoring public ownership based on the laws that require access
to the public information, meetings, and elections. Interim Director Meurer responded that
public agencies are supposed to provide for the required services, in ideology. In practical
aspects, a manufactured government structure would only go so far. With public ownership it is
all there. Public financing is more stable and it is a public agency responsibility to provide these
services. Cal am has a bad track record for environmental protection. Public records, access,
transparency, etc. There are great public agencies and less, we are getting wrapped around an
emotional issue of ownership that will take our eye of the ball of getting water supply and need
a non emotional analysis.

2. Discuss and Provide Recommendation of Options for Providing Source Water for Ground Water
Replenishment Project
Action: Tabled

In the respect of time, TAC Chair Burnett postponed item 1 to take up item 2. He invited public
comment on the item. Nancy Isakson from the Salinas Valley Water Coalition presented
comments from Dave Chardavoyne of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency position
on ground water replenishment. A copy of the correspondence was provided to the Authority
Clerk. Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to a comment Mrs. Isakson made at the previous meeting
regarding the participation of recently appointed Member Dale Huss. Ms. Isakson clarified that
she does not have a personal conflict with is participation, but wants the public to have full
disclosure of his affiliations. With no further comments on the item, TAC Chair Burnett and the
TAC agreed to table the item.


Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority TAC Chair
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 1., Ìtem Page 5, Packet Page 5

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: February 04, 2013
Item No: 2.


FROM: Clerk of the Authority

SUBJECT: Receive Presentation from California American Water’s Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project Status of Project Test Wells and Discuss Water Rights in
the Salinas Valley Aquifer and provide Direction to Staff


There is no written report for this item. A presentation will be provided by representatives from
California American Water.
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 2., Ìtem Page 1, Packet Page 7

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: February 04, 2013
Item No: 3.


FROM: Clerk of the Authority

SUBJECT: Receive Oral Report From Executive Director Regarding The Department of
Water Resources Funding Consideration, Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff


There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation from the Executive Director will be
provided at the meeting.
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 3., Ìtem Page 1, Packet Page 9

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: February 04, 2013
Item No: 4.


FROM: Clerk of the Authority

SUBJECT: Receive, Discuss and Provide Direction To Staff Regarding Update from
California American Water On Compliance With MPRWA Conditions That Must
Be Met Prior to Receiving MPRWA Support for Desal Project


There is no written report for this item. An oral update and discussion will take place at the


1. Approved Position Statement
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 4., Ìtem Page 1, Packet Page 11
Deliberative Document
The following draft position statement is provided to stimulate discussion. The
Water Authority is considering this position statement as potential direction to our
staff and consultants in preparing PUC testimony due February 22
, 2013. This
position is being proposed now, in advance of a completed EIR and in recognition
that more information will be forthcoming, because the PUC decision process is
underway and the Water Authority seeks to have a voice in that process.
Proposed Position Statement:
Reiterate our support for a portfolio approach. This includes GWR, ASR, and PG
small projects, all of which have public ownership, in addition to a desal project
described here.
Reference our previously adopted policy points regarding public contribution.
Any project must meet four basic criteria:
1. Project economics must be competitive.
2. Project must have suitable public governance, public accountability and
public transparency.
3. Project must have clear path to permitting and constructing the facility as
near to the CDO deadline as feasible.
4. Project must have contingency plans to address significant technical,
permitting and legal risks.
None of the three projects (Cal-Am, Deepwater Desal or DWD, or People’s Moss
Landing or PML) as proposed meet these criteria. Therefore, none of the three
projects as proposed warrant Water Authority support. However, at this time Cal-
Am’s proposed project appears to be closest to meeting these four criteria. Cal-Am’s
Project would earn our support if Cal-Am makes certain modifications.
Consequently, the Authority’s support for the Cal-Am Project is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Cal-Am must accept a significant contribution of public funds. Without the
interest rate advantages afforded by such approach, the costs of water from
the Cal-Am Project will be materially higher, and likely substantially in excess
of the cost of water from the alternative projects. A significant contribution of
public funds will avoid such an unwarranted expense to Cal-Am’s rate
2. Cal-Am must agree, upon mutually-acceptable terms, to form a Governance
Committee to provide publicly-accountable oversight of the project;
3. Cal-Am must diligently seek to secure lower electricity rates for the project
(e.g., $0.08-$0.09 cents/kWh as most recently estimated by Cal-Am)
including agreement to purchasing power through a municipal electrical
utility, generation of on-site power if necessary, other public entity or other
source of low-cost power;
4. Cal-Am must agree to limit the use of revenue from Cal-Am’s Surcharge 2 to
reduce risk to Cal-Am ratepayers in the event the Cal-Am project does not
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 4., Ìtem Page 2, Packet Page 12
Deliberative Document
move forward. For example, Cal-Am could agree only to use Surcharge 2 to
fund lower risk parts and phases of the project (such as only the construction
phase after the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal
Commission) or could provide other mechanisms of reducing the risk to Cal-
Am ratepayers.
5. To promptly address concerns pertaining to Cal-Am’s proposed intake wells,
Cal-Am must:
• Address or cause to be address all issues raised in the December 2012
Tim Durbin testimony;
• proceed with the planned test wells and any other advanced
geotechnical work to support the proposed intake wells as soon as
practically feasible;
• collaborate with local public agencies to advance permitting efforts
with other responsible agencies, including the California Coastal
• seek to clarify whether the installation of Cal-Am’s intake wells will
require approval from any federal agency, which would, in turn,
require NEPA compliance; and
6. Continue to explore and advance alternative intake strategies as a
contingency if Cal-Am's proposed intake wells prove legally or technically
• Cal-Am must fully develop a contingency plan or plans and implement
that plan or those plans for source water that do not involve wells in
the Salinas Basin. This must be done concurrently along with Cal-Am
planning and testing of slant wells.
7. Cal-Am must show something in writing from the State demonstrating its
ability to secure SRF financing. Absent such a document, the Water Authority
will work with the Water Management District to secure SRF financing as
public agencies. Cal-Am must accept a public agency partner for SRF
purposes if necessary, even if doing so results in a reduction in Cal-Am’s
equity position.
8. Cal-Am must address questions about sea level rise and coastal erosion with
respect to the placement and longevity of their proposed slant wells. Coastal
sands are also prone to liquefaction in seismic events and coastal facilities
are susceptible to damage from tsunami events as well.
If Cal-Am meets the above conditions, the Authority conditionally supports the Cal-
Am Project because:
1. Cal-Am’s desal project size appears to be consistent with the Water
Authority’s position of focusing on water for “replacement and
replenishment” including lots of record and economic rebound and
accommodates the policy desire to pursue a portfolio of projects to meet the
needs of our communities, thereby reducing the risk associated with any
project failing or being delayed. The Coastal Commission identifies proposed
projects with a “defined service area with a known level of build-out” as
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 4., Ìtem Page 3, Packet Page 13
Deliberative Document
involving an “easier” review while projects with an “unknown or extensive
service area” as involving a “more difficult” review. Cal-Am’s project would
involve this “easier” review while DWD would involve a “more difficult”
2. Cal-Am’s project, DWD project and PML project are all in the planning stage
although Cal-Am’s project is the most “advanced” according to both SPI and
the TAC.
3. permitting agencies will require the “least environmentally harmful feasible
alternative” for source water intake. The Coastal Commission states that a
subsurface intake (such as Cal-Am’s proposed slant wells) involve an “easier”
review while an open-water intake involves a “more difficult” review. State
Water Board staff likely will recommend that subsurface is “preferred.” If
subsurface is not feasible, consider Track 2 (infiltration galleries or open
water intake). It is unlikely that open water intake will be permitted unless
test slant wells have shown subsurface intake to be infeasible. Any project
must therefore include a test slant well. Only Cal-Am’s project proposes to do
4. only Cal-Am has demonstrated ability to finance a project. Their financing
plan is comprised of four different sources of capital; short-term construction
financing, Surcharge 2, SRF, and equity. Neither of the other two projects
have a detailed financing plan and neither would likely have access to short-
term construction financing, Surcharge 2 or SRF, all advantageous forms of
financing (Cal-Am offers the short-term construction financing but only for
their project. Surcharge 2 is only permitted for a Cal-Am facility. SRF is
unlikely to be available for open water intake.) We propose to include a
significant public contribution as a fifth source of capital. Doing so would
significantly lower the Net Present Value (NPV) cost of the project.
5. Cal-Am has the capital necessary to complete the permitting of its project.
Neither of the other projects have demonstrated this ability.
6. Cal-Am has indicated the potential for securing electricity at $0.087 per kwh
and could possibly purchase electricity at a lower rate through a municipal
electrical utility formed by a local public agency. DWD’s proposed municipal
electrical utility involves the City of Salinas and its success is therefore
outside of the direct control of the Water Authority.
7. the ultimate unit cost of water from the Cal-Am Project in comparison to the
cost of water from the DWD and PML projects are close in amount presuming
a significant public contribution is made to lower the financing costs of the
Cal-Am Project and that Cal-Am secures electricity in the $0.08-0.09 per kwh
a. SPI estimates that Cal-Am’s production cost would be $2,310/$3,015
per acre foot for the larger/smaller desal projects respectively if the
cost of financing is brought down to 4% and the cost of electricity is
reduced to $0.087 per kwh. This is within about 10% of the unit
production costs of DWD ($2,100/$2,670) and is largely due to the
increased cost of slant wells.
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 4., Ìtem Page 4, Packet Page 14
Deliberative Document
b. The range of these estimates is minus 30% to plus 50%. The TAC
recommends the Water Authority focus its attention on the ranges.
c. For the larger plant, the range of the cost per acre foot of Cal-Am’s
project with Water Authority conditions is $1617 to $3465. The
corresponding range for DWD is $1470 to $3150.
d. For the smaller plant, the range of the cost per acre foot of Cal-Am’s
project with Water Authority conditions is $2110 to $4522. The
corresponding range for DWD is $1870 to $4005.
8. The DWD project involves a “complex” relationship of various entities,
including a municipal electrical utility, a data center, the formation of a
regional JPA, a water purchase agreement with Cal-Am. The Water Authority
is not aware that any of these relationships have been established. This
unresolved complexity leaves more room for possible delay or failure. In
contrast, Cal-Am’s organization structure is described as “good” by SPI.
9. Both DWD and PML will likely face questions from permitting agencies
regarding the placement of the desalination plant in relationship to the 100
year flood plain and sea level rise. It is unclear how either project will
respond to such questions.
10. The CEQA review for Cal-Am’s project is well underway and is being handled
by the Public Utility Commission as the lead agency. Any court challenge to
the CPUC’s EIR must be made by a petition directly to the State Supreme
Court (very few petition are granted), reducing the legal risk of a challenge
and also reducing the likelihood of project delay in comparison to a CEQA
challenge to a project involving a local lead agency. Moreover, the Authority
reiterates its request that both alternatives be reviewed at a project level
such that no further environmental review would be required if the Cal-Am
project fails in whole or part.
11. The draft Governance Committee agreement strikes the right balance of
ensuring that the most important decisions are either made by public
agencies or are fully informed by recommendations from public agencies.
The draft Governance Committee agreement avoids inserting the public
agencies into decisions that are judged to be better made by a private entity.

*This document was Adopted at January 31, 2013 MPRWA Special Meeting
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 2/4/2013 , Ìtem No. 4., Ìtem Page 5, Packet Page 15

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful