Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.
2.
Receive Report On The Status Of Bi-Lateral Agreements For The GWR Definitive
Agreement (Israel).
3.
Discuss Ground Water Replenishment and Desal Cost Comparison Study (Stoldt).
4.
Receive Report On Comparison Of Dana Point And Marina Slant Wells (Crooks).
5.
Receive And Discuss The Current "Detailed" Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Critical Path Schedule For Permits And Approvals (Crooks).
6.
7.
Discuss Preparations For Review Of The Desal DEIR Scheduled For Release In April
2015 (Cullem).
8.
Receive Updated MPRWA Fact Sheet and Discuss Authority Expectations Relative to
Each Project Cited (Cullem).
ADJOURNMENT
The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to including the disabled in all
of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Monterey City
Clerks Office at (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.10235.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For
communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to
City offices. 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 the Monterey City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a
device.
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.
M I N U TE S
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Regular Meeting
10:30 AM, Monday, December 1, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Members Present
Members Absent:
Huss, Lee
Staff Present:
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS
No reports.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Invited comments from the public and had no requests to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.
2.
On motion by TAC Member Stoldt and Seconded by TAC Member Israel and approved by the
following vote the Technical Advisory Committee approved the minutes of October 9, 2014.
Cullem, Israel, Narigi, Riley, Riedl, Stoldt
AYES:
6 MEMBERS:
NOES:
0 MEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
2 MEMBERS:
Huss, Lee
ABSTAIN:
0 MEMBERS:
None
RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS:
None
AGENDA ITEMS
3.
Receive Report on the Status of Bi-lateral Agreements for the Ground Water
Replenishment Source Water Definitive Agreement - Stoldt/Israel
Member Stoldt spoke to the hand out provided, Roadmap for a definitive agreement on source
waters and water recycling. He spoke to the eight definitive legal agreements that are needed
and the tentative dates for the execution for these agreements. The TAC discussed the
MPRWA Minutes
different agreements and the agencies that would be parties to them. The TAC also discussed
the sources of water included in the agreements and the total targeted acre/ft of water.
Chair Cullem invited public comment and had no requests to speak.
On question, Member Stoldt reported that the externality study contract selection should be
made this week and that staff is conducting an in-house cost analysis for a cost comparison
and feasibility study at this time. Member Israel reported that the application for SRF Funds
cannot be filed until a water purchase agreement is solidified but the state is working with the
Pollution Control Agency to qualify for a 1% financing ability.
The TAC discussed possibilities to meet the cease and desist order for either the GWR project
or the Desal facility which is anticipated to be in production near 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2017.
This item was for informational purposes and no action was taken.
4.
Receive Status Report on the Test Slant Well Construction and Update on the Current
Detailed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Critical Path Permits and Approvals
Schedule - Crooks
Ian Crooks, Cal Am provided an update on the Test Slant Well Construction progress and
presented the updated production schedule which included the GWR project to demonstrate
how the GWR will line up as compared to the Desal project approval and start up. Mr. Crooks
reported that Cal Am Staff is working with the Coastal Commission to fulfill the permitting
requirements. December 15th would be the start of the big rig for the test well. On question, Mr.
Crooks discussed the appeal filed against the Coastal Commission decision and reported that
pleadings will be done by declaration.
Chair Cullem invited public comment and had no requests to speak.
Mr. Crooks then presented the MPWSP Master Schedule which is updated through specific
milestones. He spoke to the progress anticipated to be made once the Test Well and the EIR
are complete, but cited land acquisition issues, including easements that are still unresolved.
The TAC discussed the future possible interactions with the City of Marina as it relates to the
Coastal Development Permit and indicated that it will be further discussed at future TAC
meetings. Member Stoldt left the meeting at 11:45 AM.
Member Riley spoke to the MPWSP anticipated schedule and the 24 month data collection
period. He questioned how much data can and should be collected to be able to make an
appropriate decision.
This item was for discussion only and no action was taken.
5.
Discuss Presentations and Site Visits to Deep Water Desal and The People's Moss
Landing Desal on November 17, 2014 and Make Recommendations to the Authority
Board - TAC members
MPRWA Minutes
Chair Cullem spoke to the site visits to both the Deep Water Desal Facility and the Peoples
Moss Landing Desal Project and invited comments from other present TAC members.
Member Riedl questioned how the Moss Landing Harbor District could be the lead agency for
the People's Moss Landing Desal EIR. He also questioned if they have the funding in place to
see the project to completion. He mentioned that they were proposing to put the intake next to
the surf zone which seemed problematic.
Member Narigi questioned if either project had produced definitive schedules, or proof of
permits that would provide proof of progress to which it was responded that they produced
aggressive schedules but may be unrealistic.
Chair Cullem invited public comment and had no requests to speak.
6.
ATTEST:
FROM:
06/12
Water Availability
Legal Agreements
O
N
D
J
F
Meet with
staff and
board/counsel
Important
Issues
Define Terms
Develop Scenarios
Propose Key Terms
Revise
Definitive
Agreement
Public
Outreach
Financial Issues
Water Rights
10% Design
Capital
Costs identified
Fisheries
Review
Discuss with
each provider
of water
Revised 10/23/14
Rate Study
to develop
interruptible
rate for cost
of treatment
Meet with
stakeholders to
discuss pro rata
share and
amount of
capital costs and
initial Prop 218
Strategies
Decide on
which waters
to incorporate
and phasing
Public
Outreach
Develop
alternative CSIP
funding
allocations &
Prop 218
strategies
Assess all
components of
Project for Progress;
Prepare Revision of
Water Rights
Application
Finalize
estimated
costs,
allocations, and
Prop 218
strategy
Incorporate into
Definitive
Agreement
Meet to Establish
Strategy for Water
Rights Application
When Definitive
Agreement is
Reached, File
amended Water
Rights Application
FROM:
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Keith Israel, General
Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and David Stoldt,
General Manager of the Water Management District on the status of the cost
comparison study of Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) vs Cal Ams Desal facilities.
DISCUSSION:
Integral to the CPUC decision process approving GWR as part of a new Peninsula
Water Supply system, a cost comparison between GWR and the Cal Am Desal facilities
is required.
This study have been approved and advertised by the Water Management District.
Keith Israel and Dave Stoldt will provide an update of the status of the cost comparison
study.
06/12
FROM:
SUBJECT: Receive Report on Comparison of Dana Point and Marina Slant Wells
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the TAC review available reports on the Dana Point test slant
well, discuss, and make recommendations as appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
At the request of the Water Authority at its meeting of Jan 8, 2015, Cal Am agreed to
discuss the results of the Dana Point test slant well in relation to the MPWSP test slant
well and potential production wells at the CEMEX site.
ATTACHMENTS:
Final Draft Report: www.mwdoc.com/documents/FinalDraftReport4-6-07.pdf
Final Report for Dana Point dated 2014
http://www.mwdoc.com/cms2/ckfinder/files/files/Final%20Summary%20Re
port%20FINAL%20January%202014%20KWS%20with%20cover.pdf
Huntington Beach technical report dated October 2014:
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/pdf/ISTAP_Final_Phase1_Report_10-9-14.pdf
06/12
MUNICIPAL1
WATER
DISTRICT
OF
ORANGE
COUNTY
Street Address:
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 20895
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-0895
(714) 963-3058
Scott McCreary
CONCUR
MEMBER AGENCIES
City of Brea
City of Buena Park
East Orange County Water District
El Toro Water District
Emerald Bay Service District
City of Fountain Valley
City of Garden Grove
Golden State Water Co.
City of Huntington Beach
City of La Habra
City of La Palma
Mesa Water District
Moulton Niguel Water District
City of Newport Beach
City of Orange
Orange County Water District
City of San Clemente
City of San Juan Capistrano
Santa Margarita Water District
City of Seal Beach
Serrano Water District
South Coast Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
City of Tustin
City of Westminster
Yorba Linda Water District
Due to limited funding, our Test Slant Well project was designed as a uniform 12-inch diameter well (blank
casing and screened interval) without a larger diameter blank pump housing. Consequently, the largest
diameter submersible pump that could be installed in the well was a 10-inch pump. The well was developed
at about 1,700 gpm. A key objective of our test work was to stress the aquifer as much as feasible over a
subsequent 18-month extended pumping test period so that we could gain as much information on the
ability of the well to connect to the ocean and to evaluate pumped water quality as the old marine
groundwater was being pumped out and replaced by ocean water.
This led to a decision to use a high speed, high capacity pump. The well was subsequently equipped in 2009
with a high speed, 2480 rpm, 2,200 gpm pump. We anticipated sand clogging of the gravel pack and
expected a drop off in the well efficiency over the extended pumping test since it was not possible to fully
develop the well at the required 3,300 gpm pumping rate, as a pump at this capacity was not available from
manufacturers. It is industry standard practice to develop wells at 1.5 times the design discharge rate. To do
that for the Test Slant Well would have required a pump capable of approximately 3,300 gpm (2,100 gpm x
1.5). As this was not feasible due to pump house casing diameter limitations, the Test Slant Well was never
fully developed. As such, over time material entered the well during the approximate two year pilot pumping
test which contributed to higher well losses and lower efficiency near the end of the test. This would not
occur with a full scale well.
Development pumping at a rate 1.5 times the desired production rate is typically performed to fully entrain
and remove finer grain materials from the near well zone. At the normal production rate, these materials are
no longer entrained and a clear producing well is developed. This was not possible with our decision to use
the high capacity pump and consequently it was expected that sand clogging and well deterioration was
experienced over the extended pumping test.
For the full scale project, the well will be designed with a larger diameter pump blank housing casing, which
will enable development pumping at 4,500 gpm to produce a clear production well at 3,000 gpm. We are
certain that a thoroughly developed well can be constructed which will minimize well deterioration over
time. In addition, the use of 2507 Super Duplex Stainless Steel should show very low rates of corrosion and
biofouling, based on our pilot testing work, which will allow long periods between well maintenance
(estimated at 5 to 10 yrs to perform major re-development work).
Slant well maintenance is not complex nor is it much more difficult than what is required for conventional
vertical wells, but it is just done at an angle. Proven well development methods of jetting, brushing,
swabbing/bailing, air lifting, and development pumping would be used for the full scale production well and
any future re-development work. We learned a great deal on how to work at an angle and we don't see any
significant difficulties in construction, development and maintenance of the full scale production wells. At
Doheny, we plan to install 9 wells, 7 would be operational at any one time and 2 would be in standby
rotational status. This allows the operation to continue through the summer period when beach access is
not permitted should a pump fail. The ITSAP conclusions regarding design consideration and maintenance
should show a low risk rather than medium risk, as the medium finding was based on incorrect interpretation
of our test work.
intrusion. This could be an added benefit of using slant wells, especially under future sea level rise
conditions.
Criteria
Subfactor
Hydrogeology
Design Considerations
Complexity of Construction
Performance Risk degree of
uncertainty of outcome
Reliability of Intake System
Frequency of Maintenance
Complexity of Maintenance
Sensitivity to sea level rise
Risk of adverse fluid mixing
Risk of clogging
Risk of significant change in
inorganic chemistry
Oceanographic
Geochemistry
High
Low
Low
Low Actually a positive benefit
Low
Low
Low
No precedent
None
Yes
This letter was jointly prepared with Dr. Dennis Williams, Geoscience and reviewed and concurred to by Dr.
Matt Charette, Coastal Geochemist, WHO' and Mr. Gerry Filteau, President, SPI (Desalination Process
Treatment). We would be most willing to meet with the ISTAP to go over our findings, answer questions, and
to provide clarifications to their report.
If you should have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at (714) 593-5003.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Bell, PE
Principal Engineer and Project Manager
cc:
FROM:
06/12
FULL SCALE PLANT & PIPELINES SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]
Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4
FROM:
06/12
FROM:
SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the General
Manager, or District Engineer, of the Marina Coast Water District
(MCWD) as a member of the Authority Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority invite Marina Coast Water District (MCWD)
participation on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and consider if it should make
a recommendation to the settling parties to add a MCWD hydrologist to the test slant
well Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG).
DISCUSSION:
During January and July 2014, the City of Marina has been heavily involved in the
permitting of the bore hole construction and in consideration of a mitigated negative
declaration (MND) and coastal development permit (DP) for Cal Am's test slant well at
the CEMEX site.
During public hearings, the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) raised a number of
concerns that suggest a lack of communication between MCWD and Cal Am, and with
the Water Authority as well. This situation has not only delayed progress on the desal
plant approval and construction, but has raised serious concerns on the part of the
MCWD and City of Marina that its water needs may be placed at risk as a result of the
desal plant slant wells.
To initiate a dialog on these issues, several informal MCWD/MPRWA management
level meetings were held during the week of August 4. Amongst other things, it was
concluded that participation by MCWD representatives on the TAC, and possibly on the
HWG, would provide early MCWD input on technical issues related to the Desal facility
and the slant wells, facilitate MCWD environmental review of the MPWSP EIR, insure
the concerns of Marina residents get timely consideration, and improve communication
between and amongst MCWD, Cal Am, and the Water Authority.
It should be noted that the TAC already has a member from the agricultural community
to articulate ag interests prior to Water Authority decisions and deliberations. Thus, the
Executive Director recommends the Authority extend an invitation to the MCWD District
Engineer (Interim General Manager) to join the TAC for the same purpose.
06/12
FROM:
06/12
GW2/sbf/avs 1/23/2015
FILED
1-23-15
01:36 PM
Application 12-04-019
(Filed April 23, 2012)
143858682
-1-
A.12-04-019 GW2/sbf/avs
Because of the duration required for a pump test from the test well, it is unlikely that
significant pump test data from the test well will be available for the DEIR. In addition, the test
well is subject to litigation that could delay its drilling and operation.
-2-
A.12-04-019 GW2/sbf/avs
has consulted with SWRCB on this issue, and it appears that the potential value
of the additional data and analysis that hopefully will become available
outweighs the cost of the minor delay that is contemplated.
Accordingly, the schedule is modified to be as follows:
April 2015 DEIR issued for comment.
60 days from DEIR Comments on DEIR.
75 days from DEIR Opening Briefs filed and served.2
15 days from Opening Briefs Reply Briefs filed and served.3
July 2015 All-party meeting.
October 2015 FEIR published.
December 2015 Proposed Decision issued.
January 2016 All-party meeting.
February 2016 Proposed Decision on Commission Agenda.
The schedule for Phase 2 of this proceeding may also need to be modified,
but we will not modify it at this time. As the proceeding progresses, we will
evaluate the need to modify the Phase 2 schedule.
IT IS RULED that:
1. The schedule for this proceeding is modified as described above.
Briefs shall use a common outline. Cal-Am shall consult with parties to develop a
common outline, and shall serve the common outline no later than 15 days after
issuance of the DEIR.
2
Reply Briefs will follow the same common outline as the Opening Briefs.
-3-
A.12-04-019 GW2/sbf/avs
-4-
23 January 2015
UPDATED Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 23 JAN 2015)
RED are changes from 7 Oct 13 Schedule.
CPUC Calendar Dates
Task
Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
Reply Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
Prehearing
Conference: Status of
Settlement Motion (if
any), of CEQA work
& other matters
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
Informational Hearing
on Settlement
Agreements
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
DEIR circulated for
Comment
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
Cal-Am to file and serve
a common outline for
legal and policy briefs,
after consulting with
parties
Comments on DEIR
Due
Common Outline
Opening Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues
Reply Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues
All party meeting
FEIR published
Proposed
Decision addressing
certification of FEIR and
issuance of CPCN
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
Target for Commission
Action on Phase I
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
Due Date
August 30, 2013
Responsible Party
Notes
Complete
Complete
Complete
October 2014
MPRWA
Complete
January 2015
MPRWA
all
MPRWA
all
all
all
CPUC
CPUC
July 2015
MPRWA
August 2014
Complete
all
CPUC
Complete
23 January 2015
Task
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
All party meeting
Due Date
October 2015
Responsible Party
MPRWA
January 2016
MPRWACPUC
Proposed Decision on
Commission Agenda
February 2016
CPUC
Testimony, settlement
discussions, hearings,
decisions from
Settlement K
December 2014-July
2015 November 2015June 2016
Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
MPWMD, CPUC
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
Notes
23 January 2015
GWR (Rev 5 JAN 2015)
Task
File Motion for
Bifurcation of the
GWR Decision
Board Actions to
Approve Revised
Governance Committee
Agreement
Executed Agreements
for GWR Source Water
and/or Declaratory
Relief
Due Date
August 2013
Responsible Party
MRWPCA
Notes
Complete and Granted
August/Sept 2013
MPWMD, MPRWA,
County, & Cal-Am
To be Completed in
October
MRWPCA
MRWPCA
Sept-Nov 2013
6 Party Joint MOU
Approved mid-Oct 2014
Draft WPA
Oct-Dec 2013
April 2015
Obtain Representations
from DPH re Use of
Extracted GWR Water
Oct-Dec 2013
June 2014
Obtain Representations
from RWQCB re Use of
Extracted GWR Water
Oct-Dec 2013
June 2014
Storage Agreement
with Seaside Basin
Watermaster
Oct-Dec 2013
April 2015
Oct-Dec 2013
October 2014
Oct-Dec 2013
May 2015
Agreement on Terms of
WPA
Perform Revenue
Requirement Analysis
Including Any Debt
Equivalency Effect
Perform Assessment of
GWR Positive and
Negative Externalities
for Any Premium
Showing
DEIR Circulated
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
MRWPCA
MRWPCA
complete
Jan 2014
June 2015
Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
&MPWMD
MRWPCA
23 January 2015
Dilution Water
Requirements
Project Approved and
FEIR
July-October 2014
Not Required
October 2014
September 2015
MRWPCA
CPUC Testimony
Phase Commences
November 2015
Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
MPWMD, CPUC
CPUC Evidentiary
Hearings
January 2016
Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
MPWMD, CPUC
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
MRWPCA
MRWPCA
January 2015
February 2016
June 2016
Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
MPWMD, CPUC
23 January 2015
Source Wells (Rev 5 JAN 2015)
Task
Drill Exploratory
Boreholes
Commence
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
Permits for CEMEX
Site Test Well
Due Date
Sept. 2013 February
2014
August 2013
Responsible Party
Cal-Am
Notes
Complete
Cal-Am / SVWC
Underway
Cal-Am
Coastal Commission
Approved CDP.
CEQA lawsuit pending
Cal-Am
Cal-Am
Cal-Am
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
June 2015
?
Nov. 2015, or sooner
?Nov 2016, or sooner
Cal-Am
Cal-Am
23 January 2015
Securitization (Rev 5 JAN 2015)
MPWMD
Complete
Complete
Retain Necessary
Additional
Financial/Legal
Consultants (Charles
Atkins)
October 2013
MPWMD
In ProgressComplete
Revise Financial
Comparison of
Securitization v. Cal-Am
Financing
October 2013
In ProgressOn-Going
Meeting with
Community/Interest
Groups and Cities
October-December
2013
In Progress Complete
Further Revise
Legislation as
Necessary
October-November
2013
Draft Summary of
Legislation
December 2013
Introduce Legislation
January 2014
Lobbying Effort
February-April 2014
Legislation Adopted
Governor Signed
April 2014
In Progress Complete
MPWMD
Complete
MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Cal-Am
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
April 2014
March 2015
In Progress Complete
Passed Senate
Unanimously; Referred
to Assembly Complete
MPWMD
March 2015
Perform Analysis to
Demonstrate Annual
Customer Benefits
Exceed 1.0% of Total
Annual Revenue
Requirement
Complete
23 January 2015
Motion Application for
Financing Order
May 2014
MPWMD
May 2015
Obtain CPUC Financing
Order
Preliminary Discussions
with Bond Underwriters
September-December
2014
MPWMD
Drafting of
documentation for bond
requestsDocuments
September
2014January-April 2015
Preliminary Discussions
with Rating Agencies
February-April 2015
MPWMD
MPWMD
015621\0002\11340073.1
1/30/15
Order on securitization
financing on satisfaction
of remaining criteria
from Settlement K
Complete??
FROM:
06/12
Portfolio Approach
To maximize our ability to resolve our water shortage by the CDO deadline (currently January 1, 2017, but an extension
is under discussion), the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) has adopted a portfolio approach to
move forward. All projects included in the portfolio must meet four conditions set forth by the Authority.
Desalination Plant
Publically Owned
Pumps water into the Seaside Basin for later use
Two sites already operational
20,000 Acre Feet (AF) available for storage
Receives water from GWR, Desal, Carmel River
overflow & Mother Nature
Watch video presentation on the ASR project at
http://bit.ly/asr_over
Publically Owned
Approximately 3.2 MGD
Recycles & cleans waste water & potentially storm
water & Salinas Produce wash water, then injects it
into the Seaside Basin for later use
Modeled after the successful plant in Orange County
Pilot Facility currently operating
Projected to begin operations end of 2017
Publically Owned
Includes rainwater collection, gray water and other
projects
Will reduce the water demand on the Peninsula
Decreases water run-off into the ocean
Why 15,296 AF per Year?
Existing Use + Lots of Record +
Economic Rebound Allowance + Pebble
Beach proposed Del Monte Forest.
The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is a Joint Power Authority (JPA)
with the goal to find a solution to the Peninsula Water shortage. It consists of six peninsula cities: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks,
Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside, with Monterey County participating on the Governance Committee.
www.mprwa.org
The state Water Resources Control Board decides California American Water is only entitled to about 30% of
what it had been pumping.
2003
A court order requires Cal Am to also reduce its take from the underground Seaside basin.
2009
The State Water Resource Control Board mandates Cal Am to cut back
use of Carmel River, with a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) effective
January 1, 2017.
2010
Cal Ams regional desal project approved by the state PUC. The project
later fell apart due to legal issues and conflict of interest accusations.
2012
Feb
Sept
Dec
2015
April
Oct
Dec
Storage Agreement with Seaside Basin Watermaster; Draft EIR Circulated for GWR; CPUC circulates
Draft EIR for desal project
Execute Agreements for GWR Source Water and/or Declaratory Relief for GWR;
CPUC circulates Final EIR for desal project
60% Desal Facility Design Completed; Obtain CPUC Financing Order & Certificate of Public
Convenience & Necessity (CPCN) for Desal; GWR Financing Plan Sufficient for SRF Funding
2016
Construction of Desal project; Construction & Facility Testing of GWR
June
CPUC Final Decision for GWR
Sept
Obtain Rating on Water Rate Relief Bonds for Desal project; 90% Desal Facility Design Completed;
GWR EIR Certification/Project Approval
Oct
Determine Desal Capacity (9.6 MGD if GWR is not approved, 6.4 MGD if GWR project is under
construction)
Nov
Finalize results of test slant well and receive permits for production wells; Final Desal Design
Completed/Construction Begins
EOY(?) Water Rate Relief Bonds Issued for Desal project
How Will My Water Bills Change?
4th Qtr GWR Construction begins
2017
Dec
2018
June
Videos to Watch
Overview of the Project
http://bit.ly/wsp_over
http://bit.ly/OCtour
http://bit.ly/SCdesal
For more information on the Monterey Peninsulas water projects and progress toward the CDO deadline,
visit ww.mprwa.org. You will also find links to GWR & Cal Ams Monterey Peninsula Water Supply project sites.