You are on page 1of 7

DRAFT MINUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – REGULAR MEETING Monday, May 7, 2012

    1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting was called to order on Monday May 7, at 2:00 p.m. Committee members: 1. George Riley 2. Bill Reichmuth 3. Roger Dolan 4. Rick Riedl 5. Dave Stoldt 6. Keith Israel 7. John Narigi 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2012 No motion to approve the minutes was made. 3. REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS Mr. Riley reported his submittal of a commentary to the Monterey Herald, which was published on May 2. Mr. Dolan stated that he has informed the MPRWA of his intentions to resign from the TAC unless an insurance policy is produced. Mr. Reichmuth expressed concerns about the commentary submitted by Mr. Riley. 4. SCREENING CRITERIA. UPDATE AND PLAN FOR HANDLING RESPONSES; CONSIDER THE USE OF THE CEQA PROCESS FOR COMPARISON OF SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Mr. Dolan reported that the sub-committee has created the screening criteria and mailed to the three proponents with a May 21 deadline. The committee members concurred to hold a special meeting on Wednesday, May 23, at 2 p.m., location to be determined. Mr. Dolan opened public comments.

 

Several members of the public recommended approaches the committee could take in their evaluation process. Mr. Dolan closed public comments. 5. PRESENTATION OF CALAM APRIL 23 PROPOSAL. REVIEW OF CAL AM'S DECISION MAKING, PER MPRWD DIRECTION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION (REPORT ATTACHED FROM GEORGE RILEY) Mr. Rick Svindland presented Calam’s project overview. Extensive discussion took place regarding this proposal. Mr. Dolan opened public comments. Mr. Bill Hood expressed concerns about the lack of leadership in this process. Mayor McCloud stated that the MPRWA was formed to work together with the other jurisdictions. She expressed concerns that TAC members are not accomplishing their purpose. Mr. Dolan closed public comments. 6. PROPOSED PROJECTS. EVALUATE THE CALAM PROJECT AND OTHERS USING SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS Item 6 was continued to a future meeting. The meeting recessed at 4:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:57 p.m. 7. SEASIDE BASIN. CONSIDER REPLENISHMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SEASIDE BASIN AND COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES Mr. Svindland presented an overview of Seaside Basin’s replenishment requirements. Extensive discussion took place regarding Seaside Basin’s replenishment requirements. Mr. Dolan opened public comments. Mayor McCloud commented on the limiting factors to pump out of the basin. Mr. Dolan closed public comments.

 

8. PROJECT SIZING. REVIEW SIZING OF THE TOTAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF AND TAKE ACTION AS APPROPRIATE It was concurred that a written report would be provided regarding project sizing. Mr. Dolan opened/closed public comments. Items 9 through 10 were continued to a future meeting. 9. TAC MEMBERSHIP. CONSIDER REQUESTING THAT BOARD APPOINT ANOTHER MEMBER TO THE TAC AND TAKE ACTION AS APPROPRIATE 10. SCHEDULE OF TAC ACTIVITIES. DISCUSS AND ACTIVITIES AND TAKE ACTION AS APPROPRIATE 11. MAY 21 AGENDA. PLAN NEXT TAC MEETING AGENDA - Discuss and decide form of report for proposed projects. 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE TAC NOT ON THE AGENDA Mr. Dolan opened/closed public comments. 13. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. SCHEDULE OF

 

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply System Sizing
D. Stoldt, General Manager Monterey Peninsula Water Management District May 7, 2012

Annual Demand This analysis examines only demand and supply related to existing Cal-Am main system customers, and does not include future demand for legal lots of record or general plan build-out. That is, it examines water supply required to replace unlawful diversions and be relieved of the Cease and Desist Order. Cal-Am average water production for eleven-year period, 1996-20061 , based on water years: Unadjusted Demand Normal Year Demand Dry Year Demand Critically Dry-Year Demand 14,710 AF 15,095 AF 15,474 AF 15,858 AF

Final EIR Cal-Am normal weather demand: 15,270 acre-feet per year (afy).2 Cal-Am average water production for 5-year period, 2007-2011 was 13,740 acrefeet (AF) on a water year basis. On a calendar year basis, for the same period, CalAm has indicated 13,290 AF average demand and 14,640 AF maximum annual demand for 2007.3 However, the lower than historical demand in recent years may be due the economic downturn beginning 2008, as well as wet weather in 2010 and 2011. Recently, Cal-Am has used 15,250 AF per year as its estimate of annual system demand. There is no preponderance of evidence to suggest that this number is not a reasonable measure of system demand. Peak Demands District data show 27 months with peak demand in excess of 16.0 million gallons per day (MGD) from 1996 to 2006, with no instances from 2007 to 2010. However, it is unclear if the reduction in peak demand may be due the economic downturn beginning 2008, or other factors. Cal-Am’s 5-year average maximum monthly demand is 1,388 AF and highest maximum monthly demand was 1,532 AF in July 2007.3

Cal-Am in the sizing criteria for the regional desalination plant had identified a need for periodic daily flow rate of 10 MGD during peak demand months in critically dry years.4 In its new application, Cal-Am is seeking a 9 MGD plant.3 Sizing for Replacement Sizing criteria: A) Must produce water to meet average annual demand B) Must meet peak month and peak day demands C) Must meet dry-year demands without the full benefit of ASR Average Annual Demand: Average Annual Demand less Carmel River Right less Seaside Groundwater Basin Right Less ASR long-term annual yield less Sand City yield apportioned to Order 95-10 Net Capacity Required 15,250 AF (3,376 AF) (1,474 AF) (1,300 AF) (94 AF) 9,006

At an equivalent of 1,120 AF annually per MGD, this translates to an 8.46 MGD plant operating at 95% capacity, or 10.05 MGD plant operating at 80% capacity. Peak Month/Peak Day Demand: Using the 1,532 AF peak demand from July 2007, this translates to approximately 16.4 MGD. However, in peak summer months the Carmel Valley pumps are assumed to operate at a baseline level of 0.72 to 0.85 MGD to minimize impacts on the river, Seaside wells could operate at 2.5 to 3.0 MGD, ASR would yield 2.3 to 2.5 MGD on average, and Sand City Desal would produce at approximately 0.09 MGD. Peak Demand less Carmel River Right less Seaside Groundwater Basin Right Less ASR long-term annual yield less Sand City yield apportioned to Order 95-10 Net Peak Capacity Required 16.40 MGD (0.85 MGD) (2.75 MGD) (2.50 MGD) (0.09 MGD) 10.21 MGD

This peak requirement can be reduced over the long-term by utilizing ASR to inject desalinated water during non-peak months and recover during peak periods. Such operations would allow the desalination plant to operate at a steady capacity factor year-round. Assuming 2 to 3 MGD available in peak months from desalination water banked with ASR, the Net Peak Capacity Required could be 7.21 to 8.21 MGD.

Dry-Year Demands Without the Full Benefit of ASR: This scenario is of a concern in the early years of operation, assuming that once the unlawful diversions are replaced, the permits for ASR will allow carry-over or banking of Carmel River water from year to year and supplies will be built up in the Seaside basin. Strategies to address a dry year in the period before water can be banked will be to use unallocated Sand City desalination water and Seaside basin pre-2020 production limits. Dry Year Demand less Carmel River Right less Seaside Groundwater Basin Right Less ASR dry year yield less Sand City available supplies Net Capacity Required 15,474 AF (3,376 AF) (1,820 AF) (150 AF) (290 AF) 9,838

At an equivalent of 1,120 AF per MGD, this translates to a 9.25 MGD plant operating at 95% capacity, or 8.78 MGD at 100% capacity. Conclusion A 9.0 to 10.0 MGD supply will meet existing area demand under most conditions, depending on capacity factor and duration of need. The lower end of this range is attainable by the conjunctive use of ASR for desalinated water, Carmel River water, and native inflows to the Seaside Groundwater Basin. This evaluation does not address the incorporation of groundwater replenishment (GWR), return water for Salinas Basin groundwater extractions, the decline in productivity of RO membranes, or water for future development.

Sources: 1) MPWMD Technical Memorandum 2006-02, Table 3 2) Cal-Am Coastal Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report, page 2-10 3) Testimony of Richard Svindland, CPUC Application A.12-04=019, page 21 4) Technical Memorandum: Changes to DEIR Phase 1 Project, Marina Coast Water District, California American Water, and Monterey County Water Resources Agency, October 15, 2009, page 2

Date

ASR

GWR

Seaside Basin

Project Sizing WMD to analyze sizing

Screen Proposals

Project Information gathering Subcom to prepare RFQ for tech analysis of 4 alternatives TAC arranges visits Sand City RO plant

Regulator Interface

Obtain Funding

Adm Activities

3/22

3/29

WMD report ASR sizing, scheduling WMD –sets optimal size ASR (

PCA report GWR sizing, scheduling PCA – sets optimal size GWR

Seaside basin, replenishment issues

form subcom to develop screening criteria Subcom presents screening criteria Review and revise criteria

Request funding 1/3 ea WMD, PCA, MPRWA. TAC learns no funding

4/02 4/09

4/16

4/23 (Conti nued)

Continue review of screening criteria and distribute to proponents Watermaster & CAW explain replenishment Consider sizing info

Review PUC process Consider scope of activities TAC meets w/ Peoples Desal Deep Water Desal TAC issues screening questions Discuss and respond to information from proponents

Ethics training, Consider new mbr, Plan SWRCB CPUC, CCC information gathering TAC approves public financing policy Review and consider revising TAC Activities schedule. Review and consider revising TAC Activities schedule.

5/07

CalAm invited to attend and present their plan, deliberate their proposal

Consider use of CEQA process for vetting proposals

5/21

TAC selects capacity for components

5/23

6/04

6/18

TAC selects final projects for detailed analysis

Consider responses from proponents on screening questions Follow up questions and deliberations Form subcommittee to draft report Follow up questions and deliberations Form subcommittee to draft report Subcom produces draft report to board

Discuss regulatory concerns with regulators Discuss regulatory concerns with regulators

Schedule of TAC Activities
Roger Dolan 05/08/2012