Meeting Date:

October 16, 2006





David A. Berger,




General Manager

Line Item No.:


Prepared By:

Henrietta Stern,

Cost Estimate:



Andrew Bell




General Counsel Approval:  N/A

Committee Recommendation:  N/A

CEQA Compliance:  N/A


SUMMARY:  The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) Board will receive a staff presentation on an updated matrix (Exhibits 13-A, 13-B, and 13-C) that compares information provided by the sponsors of six water supply projects.  The matrix purpose is to:


Ø      summarize and consolidate 2006 information provided by proponents about current water supply project proposals in a single format; and


Ø      facilitate Board discussion of next steps regarding water project implementation as it relates to use of MPWMD resources (staff, consultants, budget) in the coming year.  


The seven projects in the 2006 matrix include:

1.      Coastal Water Project (CWP) sponsored by California American Water (Cal-Am). 

2.      North Monterey County Desalination Project (NMCDP) sponsored by the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (P/SM). 

3.      Long-Term Water Supply Project/Desalination (WSP) sponsored by MPWMD. 

4.      Seawater conversion vessels, proposed by Water Standard Company

5.      Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Seaside Basin (ASR) sponsored by MPWMD. 

6.      Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) sponsored by Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA).

7.      Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP) sponsored by MRWPCA.


The fourth project in the list, seawater conversion vessels, was added to the matrix at the direction of the Board, following a presentation of the concept by the project proponents at an August 31, 2006 Board workshop.


As with the 2005 matrix, the 2006 matrix is divided into two parts.  Part I (Exhibits 13-A and 13-B) summarizes four relatively large desalination projects that would, at a minimum, comply with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10 with existing water demand on the Monterey Peninsula; two of the projects could also potentially meet future needs of the Peninsula and other coastal areas in northern Monterey County.  Part II (Exhibit 13-C) summarizes three projects that feature aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and reclaimed water technology.  These projects alone could not fully comply with SWRCB Order 95-10, but could be combined with each other or with any of the desalination projects to meet community water supply goals, serve as back-up supply, or help reduce costs. 


Please refer to the “Discussion” section below for an overview of each project, with an emphasis on new or updated information.  It is notable that all projects would require upgrades to the existing Cal-Am distribution system in order to receive the water. 


RECOMMENDATION:  The Board should receive the updated 2006 matrix information, ask questions, indicate whether follow-up work is needed by staff, and indicate whether a specific agenda item should be prepared for future consideration.  The Board may wish to defer this discussion to the Strategic Plan Workshop scheduled for September 25, 2006, which will include water augmentation issues.   


BACKGROUND:  At its July 19 and 29, 2004 meetings, the Board heard presentations by and posed questions to project proponents, with emphasis on water production capacity, cost, timeline and opportunities for MPWMD participation.  The Board directed staff to prepare a matrix summarizing information provided by project proponents related to these questions, and obtain and summarize regulatory process information for discussion on September 29, 2004.  The matrix was first presented on September 29, 2004 at the MPWMD Strategic Planning Session.  Refer to the following web address for the 2004 matrix and supporting information:


On March 21, 2005, project update presentations were made by Cal-Am, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), MPWMD, MRWPCA and P/SM.  At a special meeting on June 16, 2005, the Board determined that it would host an August 25, 2005 Town Hall Meeting with emphasis on public education about different water supply options.  The well-attended August 25, 2005 event featured four displays staffed by project sponsors, eight presentations to an audience of over 100 people, and a lively question/answer session.  Sponsor presentation materials may be found on the District website at:


The 2005 update to the matrix was presented at the September 8, 2005 Strategic Planning Session.  Refer to the following web address for the 2005 matrix and supporting information:


In previous years, all matrix information was submitted by the project sponsors with no independent analysis by MPWMD to assess the completeness or accuracy of the information.  Earlier in 2006, the District Board commissioned an independent review of the three desalination projects (Projects 1, 2 and 3 listed above).  At the June 29, 2006 Board Special Workshop, Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants (B-E/GEI) presented their June 26, 2006 report titled Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation.”  Copies of the full report are available at the District office, and presentation materials are provided at the following website location: 


During the workshop, B-E/GEI representatives responded to a number of questions and comments by the Board and public.  At the end of the workshop, the Board asked for the cost for additional work by B-E/GEI to revise the final report by including responses to comments and questions during the workshop.  At its July 17, 2006 meeting, the Board determined that additional funds should not be expended to revise the report at this time.  Staff was directed to solicit written comments from Cal-Am and Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services representatives and to prepare a summary of oral and written comments.  A summary of comments by the Board, the public, and project proponents, including copies of written comments received, included in this packet under Item 14, Exhibit 14-B.  


The City of Sand City is pursuing a 300 acre-foot per year (AFY) desalination project designed solely to meet the City needs.  In 2006, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified and California Coastal Commission approval was obtained.  The project could not be expanded to meet broader community water needs without jeopardizing the “benign by design” criteria; a larger project would result in brine salinity levels above ambient seawater levels.  Thus, the Sand City project was not included in the 2005 and 2006 matrices. 


The District Board held a special workshop on August 31, 2006 to hear a presentation on seawater conversion vessels (SCV) to provide an ocean-based (rather than land-based) source of desalinated water.  The presentation was made by representatives of PBS&J Inc., one of the country’s largest engineering design firms, Water Standard Company, and GE Energy, part of a team assembled to market this concept internationally.  MPWMD has neither analyzed nor endorsed the SCV project concept.  Pursuant to Board direction at the September 18, 2006, information on this project was solicited from the project proponents, and the information provided to staff is included in the 2006 matrix as Exhibit 13-B. 


The Monterey County Water Resources Agency, as directed by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, has led an interagency effort involving city managers and general managers of water and wastewater agencies, including MPWMD.  This effort has resulted in concept proposals for forming an inter-agency governance structure to evaluate water supply alternatives and create an integrated strategy for implementing a publicly-owned water supply project (or projects) that could serve regional needs on the Monterey Peninsula and the rest of northern Monterey County.  This entity is presently called the Monterey Bay Regional Water Authority (MBRWA).  A specific project has not been defined, and is thus not included in the matrix.  The interagency governance structure could potentially apply to any water project on the matrix.


DISCUSSION:  The October 16, 2006 updated matrix serves as a “snapshot in time” to help track progress on the six water supply projects.  The discussion below: (1) describes the matrix organization; (2) highlights each project with emphasis on what is new or different in 2006 as compared to 2005; and (3) describes next steps.


As part of the process of updating the matrix, District staff contacted proponents of each of the projects listed in Exhibits 13-A, 13-B, and 13-C and requested that updated information be provided not later than August 30, 2006.  Updated information in the form of e-mails and mark-ups of the 2005 matrix were received from MCWD and its consultant and MRWPCA.  Skip Griffin of PBS&J provided the matrix information shown in Exhibit 13-B and the PowerPoint presentation contained in Exhibit 13-D.  No response to staff’s request was received from Cal-Am or from Pajaro/Sunny Mesa.  As a result, staff used information previously obtained from Cal-Am and Pajaro/Sunny Mesa to update those portions of the matrix.  Those sources include information obtained by Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants for preparation of their June 26, 2006 report titled “Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation,” and information available to the District through its participation in the process for Cal-Am’s application to the CPUC for the Coastal Water Project.


Matrix Organization


Throughout the matrix, numbered rows provide the information requested for the matrix.  The following lettered columns are used in 2006:


Part I-A     Desalination Projects (Exhibit 13-A)

                  Column A -  Decision Element (topic)

                  Column B -  Coastal Water Project (Cal-Am)

                  Column C -  North Monterey County Desalination Project (P/SM)

                  Column D -  Long-Term Water Supply Project/Desalination at Sand City (MPWMD)


Part I-B     Desalination Projects (Exhibit 13-B)

                  Column A -  Decision Element (topic)

                  Column B -  Seawater Conversion Vessel (Water Standard Company)


Part II       Projects Other Than Desalination (Exhibit 13-C)

                  Column A -  Decision Element (topic)

                  Column B -  Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Seaside Basin (MPWMD)

      Column C -  Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (MCWD and MRWPCA)

                  Column D -  Groundwater Replenishment Project (MRWPCA)


As noted in the “Background” section above, proponent information provided for three of the four desalination projects was subject to independent review by Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants (B-E/GEI) and its subconsultants as presented in their June 26, 2006 report titled “Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation.”  Thus, numerical cost data and certain other technical information submitted by the project proponents may differ from results of the evaluation by the consultant.  In cells of Part I of the matrix where information differs, the proponent’s information is shown in regular font and the conclusion by the B-E/GEI team is shown in bold italics.


The primary matrix topics (“Decision Elements”) remain:


Ø      Project description,

Ø      Water yield, including recipients and phasing,

Ø      Project cost to customers, including detailed cost breakout,

Ø      Financing and assumptions,

Ø      Timeline and key milestones,

Ø      Permits needed and regulatory agencies involved,

Ø      Site control,

Ø      Project operations and proponent capabilities,

Ø      Project participants including MPWMD opportunities,

Ø      Public involvement,

Ø      List of acronyms found in the matrix.


Numbered line items refer to specific subtopics.  By necessity, the information presented in the matrix is in abbreviated form.





Coastal Water Project (Sponsor: Cal-Am – Exhibit 13-A, Column B)

The major components of the proposed Coastal Water Project (CWP) are a seawater desalination plant in Moss Landing at the “Duke East” site on Dolan Road about one-half mile east of Highway 1; use of the intake and outfall for LS Power Group’s Moss Landing Power Plant (MLPP), formerly owned by Duke Energy.; a desalinated water conveyance system to the Monterey Peninsula, including a transmission pipeline, terminal reservoir and pumping stations; and an ASR project in the Seaside Groundwater Basin.  Cal-Am plans to use a site on the MLPP property for a one-year pilot project, but does not yet have a long-term lease agreement for the proposed CWP facilities.  The yield goal for the “basic project” is defined as 11,730 AFY to: (a) provide 10,730 AFY to replace Cal-Am’s Carmel River withdrawals to comply with SWRCB Order WR 95-10, and (b) 1,000 AFY to help alleviate over-pumping in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. 

New and Changed Information in 2006:  On July 14, 2005, Cal-Am announced completion of the 1,700-page Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA), a comprehensive environmental review document required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) before the CPUC will consider Cal-Am’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to allow rate increases to fund the CWP.  The September 2004 CPCN application was also amended in July 2005 to reflect information provided in the PEA for the 11,730 AFY Proposed Project.


The PEA also analyzed five alternatives in detail, four of which could potentially be approved by the CPUC as a new water project.  The five alternatives are listed below.  More complete descriptions are provided in the 2005 matrix materials:


Ø      Alternative 1 (Regional Alternative) -- would provide 20,272 AFY of water for both Cal-Am and the neighboring communities.

Ø      Alternative 2 (Over-sized Pipeline Alternative) – would include the same features as the proposed CWP, except that all pipelines would be larger to facilitate increased production to meet future needs. 

Ø      Alternative 3 (MLPP HDD Intake Alternative) -- would utilize Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) intake wells as feedwater supply.

Ø      Alternative 4 (North Marina Site Alternative) – would locate the seawater desalination facility in the City of Marina Sphere of Influence at Armstrong Ranch.  The project could be sized to meet either the CWP or Regional Alternative water demands. 

Ø      Alternative 5 (No Project Alternative) – would entail existing programs to conserve and recycle water. 


Cal-Am consultants performed extensive engineering analyses to prepare cost estimates in 2005 for the proposed CWP.  The June 2006 report by MPWMD consultants evaluated project facilities and estimated costs for the desalination portion of the CWP only and did not review or evaluate the ASR component.


With the submittal of the PEA, the CPUC staff began its formal environmental review as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  In 2006, the CPUC retained the firm of ESA Water to prepare the Draft EIR for the CWP.  The ESA Water consulting team and CPUC staff met with MWMD staff on two occasions (June 28 and August 3, 2006) to better understand the water supply setting and to ask questions about potential CPUC-developed alternatives that may be included in the EIR. The current schedule calls for the Draft EIR to be prepared in Spring 2007 and the Final EIR to be completed in Summer 2007.   This is roughly one year later than projected in September 2005. 


The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) requires a pilot project for a desalination facility to demonstrate reliable water quality and quantity.  In early 2005, Cal-Am submitted an application to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for a waiver of a Coastal Development Permit to construct a 200,000 gallon-per-day (gpd) pilot project at the MLPP.  In 2005, Cal-Am anticipated that permits for the pilot project would be issued in September 2005 by the CCC, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Monterey County.  At the time the 2005 matrix was prepared, Cal-Am anticipated pilot project installation in late 2005, with a one-year test period beginning January 2006.  The actual timeline appears to be running about one year later.  The County of Monterey approved the Cal-Am pilot project in August 2006, and the RWQCB approved the pilot project at its September 7, 2006 meeting.    CCC consideration is anticipated later this year.  Various components of the pilot project have been delivered and are being assembled, but operation of the pilot project is not anticipated to begin until June 2007 at the earliest. 


Other Related Events in 2006: 


Ø      Cal-Am and MPWMD entered into a Management an Operations Agreement as of April 1, 2006 for Phase 1 of MPWMD’s Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.  In accordance with this agreement, Cal-Am and MPWMD representatives have coordinated planning, permitting, and construction of facilities that will comprise the Phase 1 ASR Project. 

Ø      The Decision on the Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication (California American Water v. City of Seaside, et al.) was issued on March 27, 2006.  This decision may affect planning for the CWP.

Ø      The Moss Landing Power Plant, previously owned by Duke Energy, was purchased by LS Power Systems in 2006.

Ø      In May 2006, Cal-Am and its parent entities filed application with the CPUC for authority to sell up to 100% of the stock of American Water Works Company, Cal-Am’s parent company, through public stock offerings.  CPUC Public Participation Hearings are scheduled in September 2006.  It is not known if this potential change will affect the CWP.


North Monterey County Desalination Project (Sponsor: P/SM – Exhibit 13-A, Column C)

Information about the North Monterey County Desalination Project (NMCDP) is very similar to that provided in 2005.  Project components include a seawater desalination plant in Moss Landing, transmission pipeline to the Monterey Peninsula, and a potential 30-acre solar energy power production facility to reduce energy costs.   The proposed site is the former National Refractories and Mineral Corporation’s Moss Landing facility, with planned use of existing intake/outfall pipelines, with possible use of LS Power Group intake and outfall, if needed.  A lease agreement with the property owner has been in effect since March 2004.  The yield goal is 20,000 to 23,000 AFY or more, depending on purveyor demand.  A 20 MGD project, capable of producing up to 22,400 AFY, was used for cost estimates provided in 2006.  Total demands of 20,930 AFY are identified in P/SM materials provided to MPWMD.  The project is intended as a regional project, including meeting the needs of the expanding P/SM service area in northern Monterey County.  P/SM has entered into a management agreement with Poseidon Resources, a private corporation experienced in desalination technology.


New and Changed Information in 2006:  Pajaro/Sunny Mesa partner Peter MacLaggan of Poseidon Resources provided refined project description, cost and timeline information to MPWMD consultants for the 2006 evaluation of desalination projects, but no updated information was provided in response to MPWMD staff’s request to update information presented in the 2005 matrix.  The total estimated capital cost provided by Poseidon was reduced from $175,831,000 in the 2005 matrix to $132,000,000.  The total estimated O&M cost provided by Poseidon was increased from $13,360,000 in the 2005 matrix to $16,900,000 per year.  Although the total estimated costs were disclosed by Poseidon, the breakdown of capital and O&M costs were provided to MPWMD’s consultants on a confidential basis.  Therefore the costs by category (e.g., desalination plant, intake and outfall, transmission pipelines, etc. for capital costs, and energy and facilities costs for O&M costs) are not available to be presented in the matrix.


The County of Monterey approved the P/SM pilot project in March 2006, but the County’s approval was appealed to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).  The RWQCB approved the pilot project at its September 7, 2006 meeting.  An application to the CCC for a Coastal Development Permit for the pilot plant was submitted in March 2006.  CCC consideration of that application and the appeal of the County of Monterey approval is anticipated later this year. 


P/SM intends to be the lead agency for CEQA review of its desalination project.  The target completion date for environmental review and permitting is June 2008, as compared with a date of December 2006 for certifying the Final EIR in the 2005 matrix.  The target completion date for beginning water delivery is July 2010, as compared with a date of 2009 in the 2005 matrix.


Long-Term Water Supply Project/Desalination in Sand City (Sponsor: MPWMD – Exhibit 13-A, Column D)  

The MPWMD Water Supply Project (WSP) is comprised of a seawater desalination plant in the Sand City area with new seawater intake/brine discharge facilities at Seaside State Beach, Sand City and/or former Fort Ord.  The project design envisioned HDD wells for intake/discharge, but the geology of the former Fort Ord coastal area requires use of the existing MRWPCA outfall for large volumes of brine discharge.  The basic yield goal set in 2003 is 8,400 AFY to legalize existing community demand.  Specifically, the project goal is to meet local, near-term needs, including compliance with Order 95-10, assuming Cal-Am diversions from the Carmel River do not exceed 11,285 AFY and total Cal-Am production remains under 15,285 AFY.  Production up to 11,000 AFY may be possible, depending on the outcome of hydrogeologic and engineering investigations that must first be performed. 


An administrative “Board Review Draft EIR” for the MPWMD Water Supply Project was received at the December 15, 2003 meeting.  To date, it has not been authorized to be refined to a formal Draft EIR to be circulated to the public pursuant to CEQA.  The MPWMD Board continues to place this project “on hold” pending evaluation of regional projects. 


New and Changed Information in 2006:  There has been no Board action to pursue the WSP since it was tabled in October 2004.  District efforts have focused on ASR and participation in interagency discussions about governance structure for regional water supply projects. However, the WSP was one of the three desalination projects subject to independent consultant review in June 2006.  The MPWMD consultants determined that the estimated capital costs, including the 25% contingency amount, are reasonable.  The MPWMD consultants determined that the estimated energy use should be reduced by 33% due to the higher energy efficiency of currently-available reverse osmosis equipment.  This would reduce annual O&M costs by about $2 million per year.


Seawater Conversion Vessel (Proponent: Standard Water Company – Exhibit 13-B, Column B)

New and Changed Information in 2006:  This project was not included in prior years’ matrices.  Representatives of three firms participating in the project, Standard Water Company, PBS&J, and GE Energy, presented the concept to the Board at a workshop on August 31, 2006.  The seawater conversion vessel project, proposed by Standard Water Company, is based upon an offshore “mother ship” containing a seawater desalination plant using reverse osmosis technology and one or more gas turbine engines to provide energy for the desalination process and associated shipboard facilities.  Treated water would be delivered to an onshore water distribution system such as Cal-Am’s using either a pipeline placed on the seabed or a “shuttle ship” tanker to deliver water to a shoreside facility for unloading.  At the September 18, 2006 regular Board meeting, the Board directed that the project be added to the matrix.  The information shown in Exhibit 14-B, Column B, was provided by Skip Griffin of PBS&J.  Mr. Griffin also provided a PowerPoint presentation on the project that is a revised version of the presentation made at the August 31, 2006 Board workshop.  This document, titled “The Benefits of a Seawater Conversion Vessel” and dated September 27, 2006, is attached as Exhibit 13-D.





Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Seaside Basin (Sponsor: MPWMD – Exhibit 13-C, Column B)  

The MPWMD Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project would divert “excess” flow from the Carmel River in wet periods, as defined by state and federal resource agencies, which would then be treated and transmitted via the Cal-Am distribution system to special injection/recovery wells in the Seaside Groundwater Basin on the former Fort Ord.  Available storage capacity in the Seaside Basin Coastal Subareas serves as an underground reservoir for the diverted water for use during dry periods.  ASR can help improve environmental conditions in the Carmel River and Seaside Basins by reducing Carmel River diversions in dry periods, when the river environment is most vulnerable, and helping to replenish the Seaside Basin in wet periods.  MPWMD already owns and operates one successful full-scale test well at the proposed site.  The proposed Phase 1 ASR Project would add a second well immediately adjacent to the current site, along with some additional transmission pipeline and other minor structures.  The Phase 1 project envisions a maximum annual Carmel River diversion and injection of up to 2,420 AFY into the Seaside Basin.  The maximum extraction from the Seaside Basin would be 1,500 AFY.  Average values would be lower and depend on long-term weather conditions.  Revised computer modeling performed in mid-2006 indicates that the average project yield would be about 920 AFY with operations that maximize use of Seaside Basin water to offset Carmel River pumping in dry periods.  The MPWMD ASR project could relatively easily combine with any other project described above.


The Phase 1 ASR Project assumes use of a primarily above-ground, near-term Cal-Am pipeline to more efficiently deliver water to the Santa Margarita injection well site than the existing temporary pipeline.  The pipeline was approved by the City of Seaside in June 2005, and is anticipated to be constructed by Cal-Am in late 2006 pending U.S. Army approval expected in September 2006.   Once the final location of the new General Jim Moore Boulevard road alignment is approved and funded, a realistic plan for a permanent below-ground pipeline to the injection well can be formulated.  


The MPWMD Phase 1 ASR is similar to, but not the same ASR project described for Cal-Am’s CWP proposal.  The District and Cal-Am signed a Management and Operations Agreement (M&OA) regarding near-term and long-term ASR projects.  Cal-Am and MPWMD technical staff continue to coordinate on means to engineer the Cal-Am’s system to facilitate ASR.


New and Changed Information in 2006:  On August 21, 2006, the MPWMD Board certified the EIR/EA for the MPWMD Phase 1 ASR Project.  This completion date matched the completion estimate provided in the September 2005 matrix.  Permits from the U.S. Army and City of Seaside for the ASR well are expected in September 2006.  SWRCB water rights approval is expected in Fall 2006 as protest dismissal agreements are being finalized in September 2006.   Design and construction of the Phase 1 ASR Project is anticipated through December 2006.  Financing for the Phase 1 ASR Project was approved by the MPWMD Board in August 2005 and entails a 1.2% user fee on water bills of Cal-Am customers.  This user fee will provide approximately $300,000 per year to fund the Phase 1 ASR Project.   These dates are consistent with the schedule estimated in the September 2005 matrix.


The importance of ASR in the management and stewardship of the Seaside Basin gained importance as it is a key component of the “physical solution” described by the Monterey County Superior Court’s March 2006 Final Decision on the Seaside Basin water rights adjudication.  Notably, the Phase 1 ASR Project purpose is solely geared toward improved environmental protection of the Carmel River, with secondary benefits to the Seaside Basin.  There is no water supply increment for new construction or remodels identified as part of this project, and it is not geared toward resolving Seaside Basin problems.  However, future EIRs will address yet-to-be proposed ASR Phases, once more information is known about regional land use plans and infrastructure.  These future ASR phases are likely to include improvement to the Seaside Basin as a primary project purpose.


Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (Sponsors: MCWD and MRWPCA – Exhibit 13-C, Column C)

The Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) involves two major water augmentation supply projects: seawater desalination and recycled water. In the 2004 matrix, a previous variation was referred to as the Regional Urban Recycled Water Project, and focused solely on the use of reclaimed water.  Only 300 AFY is designated for use by Cal-Am customers for non-potable uses such as golf courses, cemeteries, parks and other landscape open space.  The RUWAP could be combined with ASR or the other desalination projects described in the matrix. 


New and Changed Information in 2006:  The RUWAP project goal is to provide 2,400 AFY of water to the former Fort Ord area to meet redevelopment requirements described in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. In addition, 300 AFY is being considered to replace potable uses on the Monterey Peninsula (defined as Cal-Am’s Monterey District service area). The EIR for the project was certified in October 2004; the “Hybrid Alternative” was endorsed by the MCWD and FORA boards of directors in 2005.  The EIR identified evaluated several alternatives, including:


Ø      “Seawater Desalination Alternative” -- a new 3,000 AFY desalination facility in the area currently occupied by the MCWD’s existing desalination plant. The proposed replacement desalination project meets the project objective of 2,400 AFY, replaces the District’s existing 300 AFY desalination plant, and also provides 300 AFY for use within or outside of the District service areas, e.g., on the Monterey Peninsula.


Ø      “Recycled Water Alternative” -- provides 3,000 AFY of recycled water, which meets the project objective of 2,400 AFY, but would also provide 300 AFY of recycled water to the Monterey Peninsula and an additional 300 AFY for use within or outside District service areas.


Ø      “Hybrid Alternative” -- includes a water supply of up to 1,500 AFY from an expansion of MCWD’s seawater desalination plant (including replacement of the existing 300 AFY capacity plant) and the production and distribution of up to 1,500 AFY of recycled water for landscape irrigation. The EIR concluded that depending upon the recycled water needs at the former Fort Ord, the remainder would be used for MCWD’s other service areas and potentially, the Monterey Peninsula, via a new recycled water distribution system.


In the 2005 matrix, the project yield for the desalination component was listed as “amount to be determined.”  In information provided by MCWD in 2006, the yield of the desalination component is stated to be 1,500 AFY, with 1,200 AFY of this amount to be available for the Ord Community and 300 AFY to replace MCWD’s existing desalination plant.  The reclaimed water project yields in 2005 were stated to be 1,700 AFY in Phase 1 and 3,100 AFY in Phase 2.  The 2006 information provided by MCWD states the yields to be 1,500 AFY in Phase 1 and 3,300 in Phase 2.


New cost information provided by MCWD’s consultant RMC Water and Environment indicates that the capital cost of the Phase 1 reclaimed water project is estimated to be $54 million, up from $19 million in the 2005 matrix.  No new capital cost information was provided for the Phase 2 reclaimed water project or the desalination project, and no updated annual operation and maintenance cost estimates for either project were provided.


Groundwater Replenishment Project (Sponsor: MRWPCA – Exhibit 13-C, Column D)

A second, related concept known as the Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP) is currently being evaluated by MRWPCA.  The GRP concept was not included in the 2004 matrix because little information was available, and MRWPCA was determining if the concept has merit to warrant further study.  The concept envisions treatment of recycled water to near-potable condition for groundwater percolation or injection into the Seaside Basin.  Similar to the ASR project described above, the purified, recycled water source would be available in winter, when it is not used by food crops such as artichokes, and could be put to a beneficial use rather than be discharged into the ocean.   After meeting State DHS treatment and migration standards, this supplemental source of water could be made available for recovery and potable reuse.  Similar technology has been very successful in Orange County in Southern California for many years by operation of the Water Factory 21 plant, which creates recycled water for injection into its groundwater basin as a seawater intrusion barrier.  Expanding on that success, the Orange County Water District is implementing an 80 million-gallon-per-day purified, recycled water project that will substantially augment their long-term potable water supply.


New and Changed Information in 2006:  In 2005 MRWPCA retained an expert consultant from the Water Factory 21 facility to help the agency assess and pursue the GRP locally.  In the 2005 matrix, the GRP was stated to initially produce 2,800 AFY, with possible expansion in the future, and that a pilot project was anticipated in 2006.  New information provided by MRWPCA in August 2006 states that the initial project would produce 2,400 AFY, and that a pilot project is anticipated in 2007.  In the 2005 matrix the estimated capital cost is stated to be $26.9 million, and no annual operation and maintenance cost estimate was provided.  New information provided by MRWPCA indicates an estimated capital cost of $37.9 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated to total $1,325,000 per year (August 2006 dollars).  The new information states that the goal for the unit cost of water remains at $1,200 per acre-foot, the same as stated in 2005.  The agency states that it is continuing to pursuing Proposition 50 and other funding sources.  The agency has coordinated with MPWMD, DHS and other regulatory agencies regarding hydrogeology, health issues and engineering. 

Year 2006 Comparison of Projects


Because three of the four desalination projects were compared in detail by Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants in June 2006, this 2006 matrix update will not repeat that work.   Information on the fourth seawater desalination project, seawater conversion vessels, is new this year, provided to the District by project proponents in August and September 2006.  The other projects lend themselves to combining with or augmenting a larger, primary project and could potentially proceed on an independent path from the desalination projects.  As noted in 2004 and 2005, varying levels of effort have been expended by proponents to estimate the respective project capital and operating costs.  Though the Cal-Am project has the most extensive cost documentation as of September 2006, District staff and consultants believe that cost estimates for all projects in the matrix are not fully developed and are potentially inaccurate.  A contingency factor of 25% to 30% has been suggested by District consultants for the three desalination projects, and similar factors are likely applicable to the non-ASR other projects in Part II.


Next Steps and Concepts for Future Action

The 2006 comparative matrix continues to refine water supply project information, but many information gaps still exist.  Except for the MPWMD Phase 1 ASR Project and MCWD’s RUWAP, major environmental review must be completed for each of the water supply proposals.  Also, the county-initiated Monterey Bay Regional Water Authority governance structure is still evolving and consensus has not yet been obtained on its specific function and authority. 


The MPWMD Board should consider various options of how the 2006 matrix should be used.  These options may include, but are not limited to: 


Ø      Use the matrix solely as an informational snapshot in time.  Update the matrix in six or 12 months, when more information is available. 

Ø      Use the September 2006 matrix to make a policy decision on what project(s) to support now. 

Ø      Defer a policy decision on water project alternatives described in the matrix (other than ASR Phase 1), and the role the District should assume in pursuing supply solutions, until more definitive information is available.

Ø      Consider other policy choices that may be identified by the Board during the September 25, 2006 Strategic Planning Workshop.



13-A    MPWMD Comparative Matrix, Part I-A, Desalination Projects

13-B    MPWMD Comparative Matrix, Part I-B, Desalination Projects

13-C    MPWMD Comparative Matrix, Part II, Projects Other than Desalination

13-D    September 27, 2006 PowerPoint presentation by PBS&J for Water Standard Company, “The Benefits of a Seawater Conversion Vessel”