1 / 12

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. Policy Position Statement. Portfolio of New Water Supply Options. Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) - by Monterey Regional Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD)

eman
Download Presentation

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Policy Position Statement

  2. Portfolio of NewWater Supply Options • Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) - by Monterey Regional Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) • Aquifer Storage (ASR) - by Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) & Cal Am • Pacific Grove Small Water Projects • Salt Water Desalination (Desal) - by Deep Water Desal (DWD), Peoples Moss Landing (PML), or Cal Am

  3. Criteria for Authority Support • Competitive Economics, Rate Payer Impact • Public governance, accountability, & transparency • Clear path to permits & construction as close to CDO deadline of Jan 1, 2017 as possible • Includes contingency plans

  4. Eight (8) Conditions for Support of Cal Am’s Project Financial Considerations 1. Cal Am must accept approx 50% public funds to reduce interest rate and profit expenses 2. Cal Am must diligently seek lowest electricity rates for Desal 3. Surcharge 2 revenues may only be spent on actual construction 4. Cal Am must provide proof of ability to borrow State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing and accept a public agency partner if required by the SRF.

  5. Cal Am’s Conditions (continued) Governance and Permitting consideration 5. Cal Am must agree to a Governance Committee for publically accountable project oversight 6. Cal Am must agree to address concerns about intake well permitting to include: -Testimony of Hydrologist Tim Durbin (Dec 2012) -Test wells and advanced geotechnical studies -Working with public agencies to expedite/facilitate permits -Clarifying if federal permits/approvals/ or NEPA compliance are required

  6. Cal Am’s Conditions (continued) Contingencies and Risk 7. Develop contingency intake water alternatives that: -Do not include wells in the Salinas Basin -Are developed concurrently with slant wells 8. Consider risks of coastal slant wells to include: -Sea level rise and coastal erosion -Vulnerability to earthquakes -Vulnerability to tsunamis

  7. Conditional Support for Cal Am’s Project Because: 1. Based on Current Information, The 9.6mgd Desal only, or 6.4mgd Desal with 3.2 GWR, appears consistent with WA policy of: • Replacement of Carmel River water & replenishment of the Seaside aquifer • Inclusion of lots of record, Pebble Beach allocation, and economic rebound • Reduction of risk through a “ Portfolio” approach • Meets Coastal Commission preference for defined service areas and known build-out

  8. Conditional Support for Cal Am’s Project Because: 2. Cal Am project is more advanced in planning stage than DWD and PML 3. Permitting agencies prefer subsurface wells may not approve open water intakes without first requiring slant well tests 4. Cal Am is the only Desal competitor to demonstrate an ability to finance a project 5. Cal Am has substantial corporate capital as well as access to Surcharge 2 and SRF which could reduce project costs

  9. Conditional Support for Cal Am’s Project Because: 6. Cal Am has access to alternative sources of electricity at competitive cost and which are subject to a larger degree of Authority control than for DWD or PML 7. Final costs of water from the 3 competing projects are close, especially in light of the wide range of variance in price estimates as noted by SPI 8. The DWD option may involve high risk of failure or delay due to need for complex relationships not fully established

  10. Conditional Support for Cal Am’s Project Because: 9. DWD and PML potentially carry risks associated with DESAL plant placement within the 100 year flood plain 10. The CPUC is conducting the CEQA review for the Cal Am project with less likelihood of successful court challenge than a local agency or private entity CEQA would experience 11. The draft Governance agreement ensures public agency decisions are made where appropriate, deferring to Cal Am decisions best made by the private sector.

  11. Additive Considerations • Water Allocation decisions about water use are to be made locally • The EIR should evaluate a full range of plant sizes up to General Plan build-out, though the Authority has only approved a maximum 9.6 mgd project at this time • Should circumstances trigger the need, the Authority will request Cal Am, in coordination with the CPUC, to initiate measures to match future water supply with future requirements • The Authority supports Cal Am’s collaboration with Pacific Grove to produce up to 500 af of recycled, non-potable water per year • Given the degree of Authority oversight and measures taken to control project costs, any costcaps should be calculated in a way to avoid project delay or frustrate funding • The Authority recognizes that contingency planning is critical for source water intake and brine disposal • The Authority approved the concept of a new water service connection fee subject to further analysis as to how, and to what extent, fees can refund project construction costs to current ratepayers

  12. Questions?

More Related