INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS
QUARTERLY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT STATUS REPORT
January 29, 2009
Line Item No.:
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A
This is a quarterly report on Monterey Peninsula Water Management District water supply augmentation projects for the October 1 through December 31, 2008 period. The next quarterly report will be written in April 2009. Limited background information is provided herein. A detailed historical overview of previous action may be found in previous year’s reports. Detailed quarterly updates are typically prepared for the January, April, July and October regular Board meetings. An abbreviated monthly report on Strategic Plan objectives is provided at each regular Board meeting. This information can be found by clicking on the pertinent agenda item on the District website at:
Updated weekly information is also available in the General Manager’s letter to the Board at:
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/gmletters/gmletters.htm. An MPWMD Board Special Workshop on water supply alternatives was held on March 27, 2008, which provides good background information. Please refer to the District website at:
For the past several years, the MPWMD Board has identified water supply goals and objectives at Strategic Planning Workshops, often held every six months. The most recent goals and objectives were adopted at the February 28, 2008 meeting as follows (due dates shown in italics):
Goal: Determine and participate in long-term water supply solution(s)
Ø LS1: Present to the Legislative Committee a briefing paper on the draft Cease and Desist Order (CDO) [issued by SWRCB] (02/15/08)
Ø LS2: Recommend to the Board for action a MPWMD position on the Draft CDO (02/28/08).
Ø LS3: Lobby local, state and federal legislators and boards regarding the MPWMD position on the draft CDO (prior to draft CDO hearing).
Ø LS4: Prepare and coordinate testimony for the draft CDO hearing based on Board policy and direction (prior to draft CDO hearing).
Ø LS5: Refine and present to the Board the matrix of water supply alternatives (using the quantified supply target) (03/17/08).
Ø LS6: Ensure that CAW presents updated water supply proposals, alternatives and timeline (03/27/08).
Ø LS7: Prioritize water supply alternatives (04/21/08).
Ø LS8: Ensure the remaining entities adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for participation in the Monterey Bay Regional Water Solutions Task Force to evaluate regional water supply solutions (4/21/08).
LS9: Provide technical support or
guidance to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) for
its Groundwater Replenishment Project in the
Goal: Complete ASR Phase 1 and Expanded ASR Project(s)
Ø ASR1: Notify and make a presentation to the Watermaster, informing them of MPWMD’s water storage rights (06/30/08).
Ø ASR2: Conduct a dual-well injection test and report results to the Board (06/30/08).
Ø ASR3: Achieve consensus with CAW on final MPWMD and CAW Phase 1 ASR facilities design, including a schedule (08/01/08).
Ø ASR4: Achieve consensus with CAW on the yield and schedule for the next phase of ASR expansion (08/01/08).
Ø ASR5: Complete negotiations with CAW for joint ownership of water rights to obtain future ASR and other water rights permit(s) (08/01/08).
The following paragraphs describe action on the water supply objectives identified above in the October –December 2008 period, with discussion about events in early January 2009, if needed. For clarity, background information is provided for certain objectives. The following paragraphs are organized as follows as certain objectives are related to the same subject:
Ø Draft CDO
Ø Water Supply Alternatives
Ø Complete ASR Phase 1 and Expanded ASR Project(s)
GOAL: DETERMINE AND PARTICIPATE IN LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY SOLUTION(S)
Objectives for Draft Cease and Desist Order
On January 15, 2008, the SWRCB issued a draft Cease and Desist Order
against CAW. The draft CDO refers to
SWRCB Order 95-10, issued in July 1995, and notes that compliance with Order
95-10 – that is, to find a replacement
water supply to offset unlawful diversions from the Carmel River Basin – has
not yet been achieved after 12 years.
The draft CDO notes that diversion to serve the community continue to
have adverse impacts to fish, wildlife and their habitat, with particular
reference to federally protected species such as the Carmel River steelhead
run. The draft CDO proposed a cutback
in CAW water diversions that would be equivalent to another 15% reduction from
current community use beginning October 1, 2008 to a 50% reduction in community
water use by the year 2014. Extensive
fines could be levied against CAW, which potentially could pass them on to the
community, if compliance was not achieved.
Given that the
CAW protested the draft CDO and was granted a formal hearing before the
SWRCB, similar to a court case. The
District and several other parties filed the requisite paperwork to be parties
in this proceeding. The hearings in
Ø Part 1: June 19 and 20, 2008; focus on compliance with Order 95-10 and state water code.
Ø Part 2: July 23-25, 2008 and August 7-8, 2008; focus on content of CDO, and rationale for suggested changes.
The SWRCB held a public hearing to take policy statements in
Objective LS1: Present to the Legislative Committee a Briefing Paper on the Draft CDO
Action in October-December 2008: None. Task completed on February 15, 2008, as scheduled.
Objective LS2: Recommend to the Board for Action a MPWMD Position on the Draft CDO
Action in J October-December 2008: None. The Board adopted Resolution No. 2008-08 in opposition to the Draft CDO at its May 19, 2008 meeting.
Discussion/Background: The committee was formed in February 2008; members are Directors Dave Potter, Bob Brower and Judi Lehman. It met throughout the spring of 2008. Information on the Legislative Advocacy Committee may be viewed on the District website at:
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2008/20080228/03/item3.htm. Information about the adopted resolution opposed to the CDO may be viewed at:
Objective LS3: Lobby Local, State and Federal Legislators and Boards Regarding the MPWMD Position on the Draft CDO
Action in October-December 2008: None. The Board approved a contract with a government relations consultant, JEA and Associates, at its April 19, 2008 meeting.
Discussion/Background: Legislative Committee members have contacted elected representatives and SWRCB Board members, as allowed. Notably, Assemblymember John Laird wrote the SWRCB on March 25, 2008 to request that the SWRCB defer action on the CDO until after the CPUC issues the EIR on the Coastal Water Project and evaluates alternatives to the Moss Landing desalination site. Information on the consultant contract with JEA and Associates may be viewed at:
Objective LS4: Prepare and Coordinate Testimony for the Draft CDO Hearing Based on Board Policy and Direction
Action in October-December 2008: District Counsel and the General Manager, as directed by the Board, engaged in activities related to settlement negotiations and preparation of final briefs (completed early October 2008) and response briefs (completed November 2008). The District and community await the determination of the SWRCB hearing officers.
Discussion/Background: Participation in the SWRCB hearing process is
an intensive effort led by District Counsel.
The District submitted a witness list to the SWRCB on March 14,
2008. Counsel attended the March 19,
2008 Pre-Hearing Conference in
Objectives for Water Supply Alternatives
Objective LS5: Refine and Present to the Board the Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives, using the Quantified Supply Target
Action in October-December 2008: None. Task completed in March 2008.
Discussion/Background: The 2008 updated matrix was received by the Board at its March 17, 2008 meeting, as scheduled. It incorporated the consultant information received in February 2008 and suggestions from an ad hoc Community Advisory Committee (CAC) received in September 2007, Minor refinements were made to the matrix for the March 27, 2008 special workshop on water supply alternatives. Refer to the website at:
Materials associated with each CAC meeting may be found at the District website at: http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/committees/cac/2007/2007.htm.
For more information on the CAC itself, refer to the District website at:
Since Fall 2004, the District has prepared an annual Comparative Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives spreadsheet to compare various projects for subjects such as cost and financing, implementation timeline, water yield, environmental review, and others. The current matrix includes three shore-based desalination projects as well as preliminary information on the ship-based Seawater Conversion Vessels (SCV) technology, now known as the “Offshore Desalination Project” (ODP). The matrix also includes information on the MPWMD ASR Project and two projects featuring purified recycled water, one combined with desalination. For background information on the 2004 and 2005 matrices, please refer to the District website at:
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/pae/matrix/matrix.htm. To review the October 2006 matrix, visit:
As part of development of the October 2006 matrix, in February 2006 the District Board approved retaining a team of water supply engineering design experts led by Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants to conduct an independent technical evaluation of three proposed desalination projects previously reviewed in the 2004 and 2005 matrices: (1) Coastal Water Project at Moss Landing proposed by CAW; (2) the Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project at Moss Landing proposed by Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District; and (3) MPWMD 8,400 AFY desalination project proposed in the Sand City area. This effort culminated in a report presented to the Board at its June 29, 2006 special workshop. Copies of the full report are available at the District office, and presentation materials may be viewed at the District website at:
At the June 2006 workshop, a number of questions and comments were posed by the Board and public. At its July 17, 2006 meeting, the Board determined it would defer action on amending the B-E/GEI contract and preparing a final report until after the September 25, 2006 Board Strategic Planning Workshop. A summary of comments by the Board, the public, and project proponents, including copies of written comments received was provided to the Board in a memorandum from the District Engineer dated September 12, 2006. At its October 16, 2006 meeting, the Board determined that it wished to add review of the ODP technology to the scope of work. The Board approved a B-E/GEI contract amendment at its February 22, 2007 Board meeting to include formal responses to questions and more detailed information about the ODP technology. For more information about the B/E-GEI contract review in January 2007, please refer to the District website at: http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2007/20070222/17/item17.htm .
B/E-GEI prepared a draft report evaluating four desalination projects in the matrix, which was received by the Board on July 16, 2007. Three sets of comments were received by the August 17, 2007 deadline. The consultant scope of work was amended by the Board on September 17, 2007 to address these comments, which included substantial new data from the ODP proponents. The B/E-GEI final report was received at the Board’s February 28, 2008 meeting. Consult the District website for more information at:
Water Supply Target: One Matrix component addresses how well various projects meet the water supply targets adopted by the Board in 2007, based on a series of meetings in 2006 and 2007. A staff-recommended value of 12,500 AFY for existing needs was presented to the Board for its consideration at the November 20, 2006 meeting. For more information, refer to the District website at: http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2006/20061120/12/item12.htm .
A special workshop was held on May 18, 2006 to address future water needs, based primarily on projections made by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of jurisdiction planning staff. The TAC evaluated water needs associated with various types of uses anticipated at “build-out,” based on current General Plans. The TAC estimated that 4,545 AFY above existing needs would be required, as described in the District website at:
No changes to the May 2006 estimate were proposed in November 2006.
The staff recommendation of 12,500 AFY for existing needs and 4,545 AFY for future needs was accepted by the Board in November 2006 to submit to the jurisdictions for comment with requested written comment by March 15, 2007. A special workshop of the jurisdictions’ TAC and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was held on January 9, 2007, where District staff reviewed the development of its assumptions in detail, with emphasis on existing needs. The TAC at its January 23, 2007 meeting accepted the information on existing needs. The jurisdictions provided feedback in February and March 2007. Jurisdiction comments were reviewed and the Board approved the 12,500 AFY and 4,545 AFY yield targets at its meeting of April 16, 2007. Refer to the District website at:
Objective LS6: Ensure That CAW Presents Updated Water Supply Proposals, Alternatives and Timeline
Action in October-December 2008: None. Task completed in March 2008. Beginning in December 2008, the Board has invited CAW’s General Manager, Craig Anthony, to provide a monthly report on CAW’s activities and answer questions about pertinent issues.
Discussion/Background: The Coastal Water Project is described above. As scheduled, CAW Vice President Tom Bunosky made a presentation to the MPWMD Board at its March 27, 2008 Special Workshop on the current regulatory situation, CAW efforts on the Coastal Water Project, and updated timelines. Project completion is not envisioned until late 2015 or early 2016, based on current progress on the EIR for the project. The CAW presentation is on the MPWMD website at:
A special meeting was held on October 30, 2008 which focused on coordination with CAW regarding water supply issues. Information is available on the District website at:
Objective LS7: Prioritize Water Supply Alternatives
Action in October-December 2008: Pursuant
to a revised contract authorized by the Board in August 2008, environmental and engineering
consultants presented a report to the Board on specific issues associated with
constraints and feasibility of seawater desalination in the former
Discussion/Background: At its March 27, 2008 Special Workshop on water supply alternatives, the Board received: (1) an update from CAW on its Coastal Water Project (see Objective LS6 above); (2) information on the cost and timeline associated with completing a Final EIR on the 8,400 AFY MPWMD Seawater Desalination Project in the Sand City area; (3) a brief presentation by Water Standard Company on offshore ship-based desalination facilities; and (4) an overview by MPWMD staff on the major water supply alternatives evaluated to date. The Board began initial discussions on which water supply alternatives should be pursued by the District in the near-term. The Board directed staff to revive pursuit of the MPWMD desalination project, which had been tabled in 2004. A new name, the “MPWMD 95-10 Project,” was suggested, as a key goal is compliance with SWRCB Order WR 95-10. The Board also directed staff to develop a scope of work and cost estimate for engineering and environmental consultant contracts associated with the certifying a Final EIR for the Project, to be considered at the April 21, 2008 Board meeting. Given uncertainties and disagreement about the feasibility of the project, the Board authorized retaining consultant to prepare Phase 1 Constraints Analysis report before committing significant funds and resources towards evaluation of the project in an EIR. The overview of the MPWMD 95-10 Project (8,400 AFY desalination), initial discussion of setting priorities, and information for the April 21, 2008 meeting may be viewed at the MPWMD website at:
Pursuant a contract authorized by the Board in April 2008, environmental and engineering consultants prepared and presented a Constraints Analysis for the MPWMD 95-10 Project (desalination) to the Board at its August 18, 2008 meeting. This analysis identified significant impediments to the MPWMD desalination project feasibility, and ranked various seawater intake and brine disposal sites and technologies. The Board directed that additional work be performed to address three specific policy issues related to the feasibility of implementing the project, with a report due in October 2008. Further scope and cost refinement was directed for review at the December 8, 2008 meeting. More information is available on the District website at:
the Remaining Entities Adopt an MOU for Participation in the
Action in October-December 2008: MPWMD staff continues to coordinate with
other entities on regional water supply solution opportunities in a variety of
settings. On May 19, 2008, the Board was
advised by Director Potter that
Discussion/Background: District staff has coordinated with MRWPCA,
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), Marina Coast Water District
(MCWD) and other entities on regional water supply solution opportunities. The District General Manager continues to
participate in Monterey County-led meetings of a Managers Working Group
comprised of water/wastewater districts and cities from the
At the February 13, 2008 Strategic Planning Session, Director Potter volunteered to ensure that all participating entities adopt the MOU by April 21, 2008. However, he reported to the Board in May 2008 that Monterey County has identified concerns with the MOU as currently crafted, and a renewed effort in is progress to develop a new mutually acceptable agreement. No timeline has been identified for this County effort.
Provide Technical Support or Guidance to
MRWPCA for its Groundwater Replenishment Project in the
Action in October-December 2008: MPWMD staff continues to meet and advise
MRWPCA staff and consultants, and provides technical review of technical and
planning documents prepared by MRWPCA, as requested. This objective is ongoing. In addition, The MPWMD and MRWPCA boards held
a special joint meeting on October 29, 2008 aimed at providing additional
structure and incentive for moving forward on groundwater replenishment. At its November 17, 2008 meeting, the District Board established a three-member ad hoc Water
Supply Planning committee to develop an MOU with MRWPCA regarding roles and
responsibilities related to water supply planning in the
Discussion/Background: The Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP)
entails potential injection or percolation of highly purified recycled water in
GOAL: COMPLETE ASR PHASE 1 AND EXPANDED ASR PROJECT(S)
ASR entails diverting excess
water flows (typically in Winter/Spring) from the Carmel Valley Alluvial
Aquifer through existing CAW facilities and injecting the water into the
On March 23, 2006, the District issued the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) on the MPWMD Phase 1 ASR Project, including information on a CAW temporary pipeline associated with the ASR Project. On August 21, 2006, the MPWMD Board certified the Final EIR/EA, including responses to comments, adoption of formal Findings of Approval, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to address project impacts, with emphasis on comments submitted by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also known as NOAA Fisheries). Notably, both CDFG and NMFS had previously filed water rights protests (see ASR1 below), so the EIR/EA responses and refinements were made with the intent to also resolve water rights concerns. Additional information on the Final EIR/EA is available on the District website at:
In Fall 2006, the certified
EIR/EA was used a primary decision-making tool by several permitting entities.
On September 19, 2006, the U.S. Army transmitted a signed Right-of-Entry
permit, a key approval needed to construct the Phase 1 ASR Project. The City of
An extensive multi-year water rights effort resulted in the SWRCB issuing Orders WR 2007-0041-DWR and WR 2007-0042-DWR and Amended Permits 20808A and 20808B on November 30, 2007. These Orders approve, in part, the District’s Petitions for Change to allow some of the water rights from the New Los Padres Dam and Reservoir Project in 1995 to be applied to the ASR Project. District staff continues to work on certain follow-up activities related to certain conditions of approval, such as working with CDFG regarding a stream alteration agreement or waiver equivalent. Please see Objective ASR5 below for more background on water rights.
Objective ASR1: Notify and Make a Presentation to the Watermaster, Informing Them of MPWMD’s Water Storage Rights
Action in October-December 2008: None. This item has been requested to be scheduled at a future Watermaster board meeting.
Discussion and Background: This objective relates to the
fact that the Seaside Basin Watermaster is the Court-appointed entity with
authority over storage and extraction rights of water in the
Objective ASR2: Conduct a Dual-Well Injection Test and Report Results to the Board
Action in October-December 2008: MPWMD staff continued to work with MCWD and
MCWRA to facilitate use of water from the MCWD system for roughly two weeks to
test the ASR project, particularly the use of Well #1 and the new Well #2
together. This alternative source of supply is needed as dry conditions have
not resulted in adequate
Discussion/Background: Typically, the Phase 1 ASR well testing would
be based on waters from the
The actual dual-well test was originally scheduled for completion by September 30, 2008, subject to completion of several required actions. If water from MCWD is to be used, prior to initiating the dual-well injection test (assuming 3,000 gallons per minute for up to three weeks), the following tasks must be completed: (1) make a temporary physical connection between the MCWD system and the ASR site; (2) complete the ASR Well #1 rehabilitation work and Well #2 development work that are underway; and (3) provide geochemical modeling results for review and approval by the RWQCB. These tasks took longer than expected due to additional review requested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a materials shortage associated with the motor for Well #2, MCWD information requests, and service interruptions associated with road grading and water pipeline installation for the General Jim Moore Boulevard realignment in the area of the test site.
Objective ASR3: Achieve Consensus with CAW on Final MPWMD and CAW Phase 1 ASR Facilities Design, Including a Schedule
Action in October-December 2008: District staff and consultants continued to
meet CAW representatives to coordinate on future ASR well sites, and to
continue design work on CAW infrastructure to ensure delivery of adequate water
volume to the Phase 1 ASR site. CAW
determined that full Phase
1 injection not feasible until improved CAW pipeline from
Discussion/Background: The Phase 1 ASR Project is comprised of the existing full-scale test well at the Santa Margarita site in addition to a new, second ASR well immediately adjacent to the site. The two wells would be operated in tandem during the injection season. The District began construction mobilization for the second well the week of December 4, 2006, as scheduled. A temporary sound wall was constructed and drilling began in early January 2007. The well was completed in early February 2007 and formal production testing subsequently occurred. In early April, while preparations were being made for the final well inspection video, it was discovered that rock formation materials from the aquifer system had entered the well, indicating a continuing problem with the integrity of the well casing, apparently due to failure of pipe threads on the contractor’s drill bit that allowed the well development pump to drop to the bottom of the well. Repair of the casing was completed in early May, and included a new bottom “swage” plate for the well, plus a concrete plug to ensure that the plate remains in place for the life of the well. The District was not charged for the repair, which was conducted by the well drilling contractor, under supervision from the District’s construction management consultant. A final acceptance video of the well construction was conducted in mid-May 2007. The U.S. Army executed a Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Department of Army Easement for Injection Test Well to enable the long-term Phase 1 ASR Project on September 21, 2007.
In related action, beginning in October 2007, ASR Well #1 underwent planned remediation, and repair of the well components are more extensive than originally anticipated. Also, unforeseen regulatory issues related to water quality and investigation of possible unexploded ordnance in the former Fort Ord Military Reservation have posed challenges that have delayed progress.
In coordination with CAW, District staff and consultants continue design of Phase 1 ASR support facilities such as a new well pump and motor in addition to electrical conduits, percolation basin, pipes and valving. Bids for initial facilities construction were received on November 13, 2007 to install permanent underground plumbing and electrical piping for ASR Well #2. The goal date for installation of these ASR well facilities was delayed to March 31, 2008, due in part to delays stemming from ordnance removal requirements and water quality concerns conveyed in Fall 2007. District staff coordinated with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA), U.S. Army and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to help address these issues. As of April 15, 2008, all of the underground utilities to the second ASR well have been installed.
Regarding water quality issues, in late November 2007, MPWMD and CAW staff met with RWQCB Executive Officer Roger Briggs to discuss questions about disinfection byproducts in CAW treated potable water, the injection source water for the Phase 1 ASR Project. These questions were raised due to concerns about ASR projects in other regions of the state, which triggered the Central Coast RWQCB’s need for consistent review of such projects. During the meeting, District technical staff presented the results of rigorous and detailed ASR water quality testing analyses we have conducted over the past several years. The consensus conclusion among representatives of all three entities present in the meeting was that the District’s ASR project source water conditions, Seaside Basin water use considerations, and aquifer characteristics are significantly different, and in large part not directly comparable, to the other ASR projects that raised the issue. It is anticipated that RWQCB staff will consider the Phase 1 Seaside Basin ASR project separately, and not require additional permit-related requirements that would adversely affect the project’s viability.
During the meeting Mr. Briggs assured District staff that their written waiver of discharge requirements, which was issued for the MPWMD Phase 1 Project in 2007, enables commencement of ASR operations in 2008. RWQCB staff also indicated that they would be developing formal criteria and guidelines to ensure that all ASR and similar projects in the Central Coast Region are reviewed for consistency with RWQCB policy. District staff intends to closely monitor this process to assist the RWQCB, and in order to ensure the long-term nature of RWQCB’s authorization or exemption determination for the Seaside Basin ASR operations.
unexploded ordnance, in late 2007, the District was advised by FORA that
there are additional required ordnance investigation activities that affect the
Phase 1 ASR Project site that must be completed prior to property transfer to
the City of
Regarding ASR Project financing, on June 18, 2007, the Board adopted the required resolutions for participation in the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) Water/Wastewater pooled bond program to finance the District’s Phase 1 ASR Project. Subsequently, a tax law attorney with the bond counsel firm that represents the CSCDA program determined that the ASR project is not eligible for regular tax-exempt financing because CAW, which is a private for-profit entity, will use water injected and recovered by the District-owned ASR wells in CAW’s distribution system. With the assistance of a financial advisor, District staff also pursued a financing alternative that would involve issuance of tax-exempt “private activity” bonds. However, due to two additional time-consuming and costly processes the District would have to complete in order to issue this type of debt, other alternatives were re-evaluated. Staff determined that delays in completing the ASR project in 2007 meant that a significant portion of the required funding would not be required until Fiscal Year 2008-09, and that the project could be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. That alternative was approved by the Board at its November 19, 2007 meeting. On November 17, 2008, two actions were taken to re-authorize the 1.2% existing water use fee used to fund ASR facilities and related water supply projects, including passage of an Ordinance. More information is available on the District website at:
In 2006, District staff
worked closely with CAW to help obtain permits and other approvals to construct
a temporary pipeline along the west side of
Objective ASR4: Achieve Consensus with CAW on the Yield and Schedule for the Next Phase of ASR Expansion
Action in October-December 2008: As noted above, District staff continues to coordinate with CAW staff and consultants on necessary action and facilities to enable expanded ASR.
Discussion/Background: As described above, efforts to date have focused on the Phase 1 ASR Project. However, meetings continue between District and CAW staff/consultants regarding future ASR phases. District staff has provided computer simulations for CAW consultant, ASR Systems, for their investigation of the ASR element of the proposed Coastal Water Project and potential expanded ASR projects. In mid-2007, District staff reviewed a CAW Technical Memorandum on a conceptual plan for expanded ASR.
Objective ASR5: Complete Negotiations with CAW for Joint Ownership of Water Rights to Obtain Future ASR and Other Water Rights Permits
Action in October-December 2008: Initial discussions with CAW have taken place, but were second priority to the follow-up tasks associated with the SWRCB hearings on the CDO. District and CAW counsel are tasked with assessing the ability of using existing permits associated with the formerly proposed New Los Padres Dam as the basis for future ASR water rights filings. On June 30, 2008, the District submitted a petition to change its existing Permit #20808B to serve Phase 2 of the ASR Project. This petition was noticed by the SWRCB in January 2009.
In late March 2006, the District and CAW finalized a Management and
Operations Agreement (MOA) regarding ASR testing, mutual aid, cost-sharing,
water rights and other issues. This
agreement satisfied the State Department of Health Services requirement that
the entities enter into a minimum 10-year agreement to operate the ASR
facilities. It also includes provisions
for sharing rights for the Phase 1 ASR project and to negotiate additional
agreements for acquiring and sharing ownership of water rights for present and
future potable water supplies for the
Water rights for Phase 1 ASR are based on two Petitions for Change, originally submitted by the District to the SWRCB in October 2001 and revised in September 2003. The SWRCB noticed the District’s Petitions on April 15, 2005. The District prepared formal responses to NMFS and CDFG protests in mid-June and July 2005, respectively. The District worked extensively with NOAA and CDFG through September 2007 to resolve water rights issues and also address CAW concerns (CAW and MPWMD had previously agreed to share water rights for the Phase 1 ASR Project). A mutually satisfactory resolution of agency and CAW concerns finally occurred in mid-September 2007, just before the scheduled September 24, 2007 SWRCB hearing, which was cancelled when the protests by CDFG and NMFS were withdrawn. This delay did not affect ASR water diversions in Water Year 2007 due to the critically dry streamflow conditions, which presented minimal opportunity to use the water rights permit, had it been issued.
District staff continues to
coordinate with CAW and SWRCB staff regarding water rights associated with the
New Los Padres Reservoir Project (issued in 1995). The reservoir water rights are relevant as
they are the basis for the Petitions for Change described above. The District transmitted a July 2006 letter
requesting an extension of time for the reservoir permits to maintain the water
rights associated with them. Five objections
were filed from entities including: CAW, CDFG, Carmel River Steelhead
Association, Esselen Tribe of
OTHER WATER SUPPLY ACTIVITIES
Though not formally a part of the Strategic Plan Water Supply objectives, the following water supply activities continued in the October-December 2008 period:
Continue Participation in CPUC Coastal Water Project Process, including Environmental Review and Department of Ratepayer Advocates Processes
Action in October-December 2008: MPWMD staff continued to participate in monthly CPUC/DRA meetings regarding water supply alternatives, and has assisted CPUC staff and consultants upon request.
Discussion/Background: District staff has met with and assisted CPUC
staff and consultants since mid-2006 to help the CPUC better understand
existing and future community needs, and how those needs may relate to the
Coastal Water Project proposed by CAW as well as various potential
alternatives. The CPUC issued a Notice
of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the CWP
on September 29, 2006, which will include information on alternative
desalination facilities to the plant proposed at Moss Landing. Beginning in January 2007, the DRA began
monthly meetings with a variety of agencies and public interest groups to
review alternatives to the CWP to serve as a regional water supply project (or
combination of projects) for northern
The primary components of the
CWP are a 10 million-gallon-per-day (mgd) desalination project at Moss Landing,
a conveyance pipeline to the
At its March 27, 2008 special
workshop on water supply alternatives, the District Board heard a presentation
on the “Sustainable Water Supply Program for Monterey County,” a conceptual regional
plan that has been developed by the Regional Plenary Oversight Group (REPOG),
sponsored by the CPUC/DRA. The “Sustainable
Water Supply Program for
Conduct ASR Operations in 2008
Action in October-December 2008: None. Injection ended in March 2008 due to lack of streamflow. ASR Well #1 was functional to enable diversion and injection of 60 AF at the ASR site in 2008. MPWMD continued monitoring as part of its ongoing ASR monitoring program.
Since 1996, the District has evaluated the feasibility of ASR at greater
levels of detail, including obtaining annual temporary water rights to divert
water from the
It is notable that
Action in October-December 2008: District staff and consultants worked to
carry out the many contractual tasks approved by the Watermaster in December
2007 for the Phase 2
Discussion/Background: The adjudication of the
A nine-member Watermaster Board
was created to implement the Decision with continued oversight by the
Court. The MPWMD holds one seat on the
Watermaster with two out of 13 votes. MPWMD
On November 15, 2006, the Watermaster selected the MPWMD/MCWRA team to carry out the project management function for the Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management Program. The firm of RBF Consulting was selected to implement the program (i.e., data collection, test well drilling, etc.). At its April 18, 2007 special meeting, the Watermaster approved agreements with MPWMD, MCWRA and RBF Consulting Engineers for Phase 1 of technical work needed to complete and implement the SBMMP required by the Basin adjudication court decision. The MPWMD agreement includes various SBMMP program management oversight tasks that are performed on an interim basis. Some of these tasks have been taken over by the Watermaster’s part-time Technical Program Manager, hired in June 2007, to facilitate completion of SBMMP tasks, among other assigned duties. The Watermaster also approved staff recommendations to increase its Administrative Fund Budget due to a higher-than-anticipated level of work in 2007 by its part-time Chief Executive Officer, as well as an adjustment in its SBMMP Budget to cover anticipated Phase 1 work by contract service providers and the Technical Program Manager.
In June 2007, District staff
delivered several database products to the Watermaster and its consultants
under the District’s Phase 1 contract on the Watermaster’s Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management
Program (SBMMP). This work is part of an effort to build a
comprehensive groundwater resources database to support various Watermaster
uses. The next major element of work for the District under this contract
included assistance in preparing analyses, based on data that have been
collected by the District and others, of the current status of seawater
intrusion potential and tracking in the
Beginning in July 2007, District staff worked with the consulting team headed by RBF Consulting to gather various sources of well data to facilitate development of the Watermaster’s groundwater resources database. District staff also assisted with the implementation of the seawater detection and tracking portion of the Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management Plan (SBMMP).
A specific budget for MPWMD professional services for Phase 2 of the SBMMP was approved by the Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee on November 14, 2007 and by the full Watermaster Board on December 5, 2007. The MPWMD Board approved the agreement on December 10, 2007, which includes a budget of $83,800 for MPWMD staff and consultants to provide a variety of technical hydrologic services during the 2008 calendar year related to groundwater monitoring, prevention of seawater intrusion and action plan development. The work to be performed includes:
Integrated Regional Planning
Action in October-December 2008: District staff continued to work with participating entities to implement the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP).
District staff led the effort to obtain $497,000 of Proposition 50 grant
funds to prepare an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the
Other Related Action
The following table summarizes other related District efforts relevant to overall water supply:
Seismic Retrofit and Sediment Removal from
District staff participated fully in the EIR/EIS process on the seismic retrofit of San Clemente Dam, including submittal of extensive technical comments on the Draft EIR/EIS issued in April 2006. The Final EIR/EIS was certified by California Department of Resources (DWR) on December 31, 2007. District staff also participates in technical meetings and provide technical expertise upon request. District staff efforts in 2008 continued to focus on concepts to address sedimentation and fish passage issues, including removal of the current dam in an effort led by the California Coastal Conservancy.
Implement and Refine Water Distribution System (WDS) Rules and Regulations.
No. 122 refining the Water Distribution System (WDS) process became effective
on September 14, 2005. The ordinance
created a Pre-Application process for all new wells in the District along
with an impact-based, multi-level permit process, based on the size, location
and water use of affected parcels.
Staff and consultants continue to refine Implementation Guidelines to
accompany the ordinance and improve public outreach, especially via the
District website. A total of 22
Applications and 39 Pre-Applications are currently at various stages in the
permit process. In October 2006, the
Board confirmed the administrative direction in WDS Memo #3, which addresses
environmental review and permit protocol for applications that include wells
located in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. The memo directs more rigorous review based
on letters received from NMFS and CDFG on the cumulative impacts on water
extractions from the
Review CEQA Documents for Other Projects
The District logs incoming CEQA notices and comments on selected documents prepared by other agencies for substantive projects within the District boundary that could potentially affect water supply, water quality or environmental resources managed by the District.