Transcript Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Policy Position Statement




Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) - by Monterey Regional
Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District (MPWMD)
Aquifer Storage (ASR) - by Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District (MPWMD) & Cal Am
Pacific Grove Small Water Projects
Salt Water Desalination (Desal) - by Deep Water Desal (DWD),
Peoples Moss Landing (PML), or Cal Am
•Competitive Economics, Rate Payer Impact
•Public governance, accountability, &
transparency
•Clear path to permits & construction as close
to CDO deadline of Jan 1, 2017 as possible
•Includes contingency plans
Financial Considerations
1. Cal Am must accept approx 50% public funds to reduce interest
rate and profit expenses
2. Cal Am must diligently seek lowest electricity rates for Desal
3. Surcharge 2 revenues may only be spent on actual construction
4. Cal Am must provide proof of ability to borrow State Revolving
Fund (SRF) financing and accept a public agency partner if
required by the SRF.
Governance and Permitting consideration
5. Cal Am must agree to a Governance Committee for publically
accountable project oversight
6. Cal Am must agree to address concerns about intake well
permitting to include:
-Testimony of Hydrologist Tim Durbin (Dec 2012)
-Test wells and advanced geotechnical studies
-Working with public agencies to expedite/facilitate permits
-Clarifying if federal permits/approvals/ or NEPA
compliance are required
Contingencies and Risk
7. Develop contingency intake water alternatives that:
-Do not include wells in the Salinas Basin
-Are developed concurrently with slant wells
8. Consider risks of coastal slant wells to include:
-Sea level rise and coastal erosion
-Vulnerability to earthquakes
-Vulnerability to tsunamis
1. Based on Current Information, The 9.6mgd Desal only, or
6.4mgd Desal with 3.2 GWR, appears consistent with WA
policy of:
◦Replacement of Carmel River water & replenishment of
the Seaside aquifer
◦Inclusion of lots of record, Pebble Beach allocation, and
economic rebound
◦Reduction of risk through a “ Portfolio” approach
◦Meets Coastal Commission preference for defined
service areas and known build-out
2. Cal Am project is more advanced in planning stage than
DWD and PML
3. Permitting agencies prefer subsurface wells may not
approve open water intakes without first requiring slant well
tests
4. Cal Am is the only Desal competitor to demonstrate an
ability to finance a project
5. Cal Am has substantial corporate capital as well as access
to Surcharge 2 and SRF which could reduce project costs
6. Cal Am has access to alternative sources of electricity at
competitive cost and which are subject to a larger degree of
Authority control than for DWD or PML
7. Final costs of water from the 3 competing projects are
close, especially in light of the wide range of variance in
price estimates as noted by SPI
8. The DWD option may involve high risk of failure or delay
due to need for complex relationships not fully established
9. DWD and PML potentially carry risks associated with DESAL
plant placement within the 100 year flood plain
10. The CPUC is conducting the CEQA review for the Cal Am
project with less likelihood of successful court challenge
than a local agency or private entity CEQA would experience
11. The draft Governance agreement ensures public agency
decisions are made where appropriate, deferring to Cal Am
decisions best made by the private sector.
•Water Allocation decisions about water use are to be made locally
•The EIR should evaluate a full range of plant sizes up to General Plan build-out,
though the Authority has only approved a maximum 9.6 mgd project at this
time
•Should circumstances trigger the need, the Authority will request Cal Am, in
coordination with the CPUC, to initiate measures to match future water supply
with future requirements
•The Authority supports Cal Am’s collaboration with Pacific Grove to produce up
to 500 af of recycled, non-potable water per year
•Given the degree of Authority oversight and measures taken to control project
costs, any cost caps should be calculated in a way to avoid project delay or
frustrate funding
•The Authority recognizes that contingency planning is critical for source water
intake and brine disposal
•The Authority approved the concept of a new water service connection fee
subject to further analysis as to how, and to what extent, fees can refund
project construction costs to current ratepayers