MPRWA FINAL Agenda Packet 10-09-14 PDF

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, October 9, 2014
Monterey Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approve and File Checks - Milton

2. Approval of Minutes from September 11, 2014 - Milton

3. Approve A One-Year Extension With Environmental Resources, Inc. For Public Information
Services At A Total Price Not-To-Exceed $15,000 And Authorize The Executive Director
To Negotiate The Terms Of The Contract Extension And To Award The Contract - Milton

AGENDA ITEMS

4. Receive Report, Discuss, And Provide Direction On California Public Utilities Commission
Decision On Surcharge 1 & 2 Schedules - Stoldt

5. Receive Report, Discuss, And Provide Guidance On Ground Water Replenishment Source
and Product Water Negotiations And Schedule - Stoldt/Israel

6. Receive Report And Discuss The Latest Information On Public Funding, Including Bond
Funding, For The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Ground Water
Replenishment Project - Stoldt

7. . Receive Report And Discuss Status Of The Deep Water Desal And Peoples Desal
Projects, Including The Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Cost Comparison Study - Stoldt

8. Receive And Discuss Report Made On September 30, 2014 to the Monterey County Board
Thursday, October 9, 2014
2

Of Supervisors For Consideration Of Fair-Share Funding For The Water Authority Budget,
And Provide Staff Direction - Cullem

9. Receive Separation Processes Inc. Analysis Of The Value Engineering Alternatives And
TAC Recommendations, Discuss, And Provide Water Authority Recommendations To The
Governance Committee - Cullem/Crooks

10. Receive And Discuss The Current Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Critical Path
Schedule (Summary Version) With Emphasis On Permits And Approvals, Including Cemex
Access, As It Pertains To The November Coastal Commission Meeting On The Coastal
Development Permit For The Test Slant Well - Crooks

11. Receive Report, Discuss, And Provide Guidance, Including The Nature And Timing Of A
Water Authority Letter To The State Water Resources Control Board On Current Efforts To
Seek An Extension Of The Cease and Desist Order Date Based On Circumstances
Beyond Community Control - Cullem

ADJOURNMENT

The City of Monterey 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 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 35.102-35.104 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 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.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report

Date: October 09, 2014
Item No: 1.

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton
SUBJECT: Approval and File Authority Checks through October 9, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable payments
made during the period August 14, 2014 through October 9, 2014 with total payments
for the above referenced period of $47,829.23 from the general fund account and
$95,795.14 from the special reimbursement account and authorize the Directors to sign
for such checks.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff
recommendation to provide the Directors a listing of general checks issued since the last
report so that it can inspect and confirm these checks. Each invoiced expense has been
reviewed and approved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel prior to payment
to insure that it conforms to the approved budget.
The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and
confirmation.
$ 900.00 to Access Monterey Peninsula for Video Production Services
$ 550.00 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach Services
$ 4,697.28 to Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck for Special Legal Counsel
$ 6,681.95 for Special Liability Insurance Policy (Annual Expense)
$ 5,000.00 to Perry and Freeman for Legal Services for September and October
2014
$ 30,000 to the City of Seaside for Administrative Services contract approved at
the September 11, 2014 meeting.

The bank balance as of September 8, 2014 is sufficient cover the above checks
therefore, staff is recommending approval of the above checks.

The following check is submitted to the Authority for inspection and payment from the
separate account established for the Value Engineering study, which is fully
reimbursable by Cal Am. The Authority has adequate funds to cover the balance of this
invoice.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 1., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1

$95,795.14 to Value Management Strategies for Value Engineering Services for
the MPWSP. (This invoice will be paid through the separate account set up for
expenses pertaining to this project. It is fully reimbursable.)

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, September 11, 2014
MONTEREY COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio

Directors Absent: Burnett

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel Conners, Clerk of the Board

ROLL CALL

Vice President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

Executive Director Cullem reported on the completion of the Value Engineering study
completed by Value Management Services and status of the additional, independent review
being completed by Separation Processes Inc. He noted the final recommendation from SPI will
be ready next week and will come back to the Authority at the next meeting. Most of the
discussion focused on the issue of risk. The recommendations could save money but the
analysis was done targeting the impacts to the schedule as well as to the risk assessment.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Vice President Kampe invited comments from the public.
Ron Nelson, speaking on behalf of Public Water Now, questioned why Cal Am believes
slant wells are a feasible solution. He expressed concern regarding speculated costs,
past failed water projects, and public coercion from Cal Am.
CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority continued Items 1 and 2 on the consent
agenda to the next meeting:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Burnett
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved items 3 and 4 on the consent
agenda.
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, September 11, 2014

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, September 11, 2014
2

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:

1. Approve Minutes from July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting
Action: Tabled

2. Approve and File Authority Checks Through August 2014
Action: Tabled

3. Authorize The Executive Director to Execute Contracts with the City of Seaside and the City of
Monterey for Continuation of the Clerk of the Board Services and the Principal Office of the
Authority Services for a Price not to Exceed $35,000.
Action: Approved

4. Discuss Formation of Ad Hoc Committee Of Board Members To Discuss County
Support/Participation With Affected Supervisors In Advance Of Executive Director's Briefing To
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors Sept 30, 2014
Action: Approved

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive Report, Discuss Memorandum of Understanding for Ground Water Replenishment
Source and Product Water

Keith Israel, General Manager from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
presented and update on the Ground Water Replenishment project including status of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiations, the status of CEQA activities, the
requested schedule adjustment by the CPUC and the overall project schedule.
He noted the following additional details:
The project is at a 10% cost and design review
The proposed draft, MOU for source water is before the Monterey County Water Agency
for approval next week
Mr. Israel answered questions from the Board. Director Pendergrass questioned why if the
projects have different source waters, why are we relying on the desal EIR for completion. Mr.
Israel spoke to the interrelating aspects of the two projects which makes the EIR completion
necessary to determine the cumulative effects of both projects. Director Kampe suggested to
take up this discussion under Item 7 where Cal Am could also participate in the explanation.

Vice President Kampe invited public comment on the item.
Nelson Vega identified that the projects are comingled because of the redundant
components and questioned the impacts if the desal plant location is moved.

3
Executive Director Cullem spoke to the additional information provided within the agenda
packet regarding the MOU components. Mr. Israel spoke to Mr. Vega's comment indicating
that this issue still needs to be resolved but staff is working on a strategy to request a partial
project or solution if the desal is further delayed.
The Board discussed the details of the agreement and the quantities of water available,
including allocation for the CSIP project. Director Pendergrass clarified and reiterated that the
Authority has not backed away from supporting the GWR project.

6. Receive Update On Securitization Legislation And Possible Funding Options For The Desal
And Ground Water Replenishment Projects

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item for Mr. Stoldt from the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District and indicated that the securitization legislation is on the Governors desk
for signature which will allow for equity financing of desal projects, and use of public financing
which would reduce costs of overall projects and impact to the rate payers. Once signed into
law, the settling parties have to agree to ask the CPUC to issue a Financing Order in concert
with its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the project directing Cal
Am to utilize the Water Rate Relief financing as a component of the funding plan.
Vice President Kampe invited public comment and had no requests to speak. There was no
discussion on the item it was for information only.

7. Receive Draft Comments from the Settling Parties on the CPUC Administrative Law Judge's
Ruling of August 21, 2014 Which Updates the Schedule and Delays the ALJ Hearing

Executive Director Cullem presented the report and spoke to the Administrative Law Judges
decision regarding the sliding of the schedule. The judge felt that there was an un-syncing of
the GWR and the Desal projects. Mr. Cullem reported that representatives of the settling
parties have prepared responses and comments to the ALJ for a September 15
deadline which were included in the packet. He noted that the two extensions total an 11
month delay which would put the GWR project at June of 2016. Mr. Israel commented that a
few of the settling parties have voiced that they do not oppose the extension, but want to stay
with the original cease and desist order, therefore will not sign.

Director Kampe questioned if there is any choice from the MRWPCAs view to not accept
this delay to which Mr. Israel spoke to the experts they have been in contact with, who all agree
that this is the best path otherwise the risk is exponentially higher.
Vice President Kampe invited public comment and had no requests to speak. The report was
received and discussed.

8. Receive Report, Discuss, Take Action, and Direct Staff with Respect to the Marina City
Council's Decision to Reject the Test Slant Well Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and
Decision Not to Issue the Test Well Coastal Development Permit (CDP).

4

Ian Crooks from Cal Am reported on the recent City of Marinas Council decision to reject the
Test Slant Well Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Development Permit. He
reported that the notice of appeal has been filed with the Coastal Commission which will be
heard at the November 2014 Coastal Commission meeting in Half Moon Bay. If approved, the
test well construction could be completed by March 2015.
The Board questioned if the Coastal Commission decision is appealable, to which Interim Legal
Counsel Conners indicated that once the administrative process is complete, the legal system
is the next appealable route. Any appeal to the Coastal Commission decision must be made to
the Supreme Court.
Vice President Kampe invited public comments.
George Riley indicated that Public Water Now is beginning to prepare a report to
challenge the definition of feasibility. Since there is no proven data for slant wells on
cost and duration, all predictions are based on no operational experience. What is not
considered is the cost and it is an experimental project at the cost of the rate payers.
They are going request a definition to determine at what point the project is determined
infeasible.
Mr. Crooks spoke to the issue of feasibility, and reported to the Board and the Public that Cal
Am received a grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to offset the costs of the
test wells.

Director Della Sala spoke in support of Mr. Riley plan to request a definition feasibility, and
the development of objective criteria. Vice President Kampe agreed with Director Della Sala.
The Directors discussed action that could be taken to assist with the process.
On motion by Board Member Rubio and Seconded by Board member Edelen and passed by
the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority directed staff to write and
send a letter to the Coastal Commission supporting the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project request for approval for the Coastal Development Permit.
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:

9. Select Chair for the Technical Advisory Committee

5

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the past consensus that a Director not sit as a member of
the TAC. He reported that the TAC again discussed the issue and formally requested that a
Director participate on the TAC for communication efficiency. Mr. Cullem noted that business
has been conducted but no volunteers have stepped forward become chair and he requested
the Board provide direction on how to proceed.
Director Pendergrass spoke in support of the TAC but indicated that they should be separate
from the Directors so their recommendations can be independent.
Director Rubio suggested that Executive Director Cullem act as the interim until a permanent
Chair can be found. The Directors agreed.

the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the Executive Director to serve as
Chair for the Technical Advisory Committee on an interim basis.
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Della Sala, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio

Vice President Kampe invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no more business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 PM.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk of the Authority Bill Kampe, Vice President


Agenda Report

Item No: 3.

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Approve a one-year contract extension with Environmental Resources,
Inc. for public information services at a total price not-to-exceed $15,000 and authorize
the Executive Director to negotiate the terms of the extension and to award the contract.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a one-year contract extension with Environmental Resources, Inc. at
the current hourly rate for a total price not-to-exceed $15,000, to provide public
information services to the Water Authority for FY 2014-2015, and also recommends
the Authority authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the terms of the extension
and to award the contract.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on April 25, 2013, the Water Authority approved a Public Outreach
budget of $49,000 of which $20,000 was budgeted for Speakers Bureau Support.
Following an RFP process in September 2013, the Water Authority awarded a contract
to Environmental Relations PR for Public Outreach Services for the FY 2013-2014 at a
price not-to-exceed $15,000. A copy of the current Scope of Work is at Exhibit A.
The Executive Director has been satisfied with the quality and quantity of the services
provided by Environmental Services, Inc. Accordingly, and in light of the fact that the
contract is relatively small and re-advertisement of the Public Outreach Services
contract is relatively costly and time consuming, the Director recommends that the
Water Authority extend the contract for another year, as permitted under paragraph 3 of
the contract.
However, in light of last year's experience with the public outreach needs of the Water
Authority and in anticipation of requirements in the coming year, staff revised the Scope
of Work for the FY 2014-2015 contract extension and the draft is at Exhibit B.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At fiscal year end, the Authority had expended quite a bit less than $49,000 in FY 2013-
2014 for Public Outreach, and actual contract expenditures for the Public Outreach

Services contract were substantially less than $15,000 as well. Since the FY 2013-2014
budget was approved by the Authority Board on April 10, 2014, prior to fiscal year
closeout, the Public Outreach budget for FY 2014-2015 was left at $49,000.
The contract for the Public Outreach contract, at a total cost not-to-exceed $15,000, is
at attachment C. The cost of the contract is included in the approved budget. If
authorized by the Authority Board, this contract would be extended to September 30,
2015.

EXHIBITS:
A-Public Outreach Scope of Services for FY 13-14
B-Draft Public Outreach Scope of Work for FY 14-15
C- Contract for Public Outreach Services

EXHIBIT A- Public Outreach Services
Scope of Work: October 2013-2014

The Scope of Work is:
- Develop a master plan for Public Outreach and Information
- Work with Board members and staff on identification of issues & Message
Development
- Establish and maintain contacts with the media and prepare periodic op-eds
- Prepare articles for the newsletters of each Authority member periodically
- Prepare and maintain power point presentations for use by staff & Board
members
- Prepare and maintain handout materials for use by staff & Board members
- Prepare and maintain a list of Frequently Asked Questions
- Assist in presentation of messaging on Water Authority Web site
- Recommend Public Outreach options on social media
- Monitor Water Authority meetings and proceedings (attendance is not required)
- Coordinate all public outreach & messaging with MPWMD and MRWPCA via
the MPWMD Public Outreach Committee

Aug 2013

Public Outreach Services
Scope of Work: October 2014-2015

A. Update master plan for Public Outreach and Information
B. Work with Board members and staff on identification of issues & Message
Development
C. Establish and maintain contacts with the media
D. Propose and prepare periodic op-eds as needed
E. Maintain and update all presentation materials for use by staff & Board members
F. Develop and update audience specific handout materials
G. Update, expand Frequently Asked Questions for print and on website
H. Develop social media, including feedback opportunities
I. Maintain and update Water Authority website
J. Monitor Water Authority meetings and proceedings
K. Coordinate all public outreach & messaging with MPWMD and MRWPCA via the
MPWMD Public Outreach Committee
T00008-CA (v. 1.0 06/04/2013)

CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Public Outreach Services Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this ____ day of ___________, 201_, by and between
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called
"Authority", and Environmental Relations PR, hereinafter called "Consultant".

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Consultant hereby agrees to provide to the Authority, as the scope of
services under this Agreement, the following services: Public Outreach Services, as further
described on the following attachments: the Scope of Work under this contract (attached hereto
as Exhibit A), and the approved Consultants Proposal dated September 13, 2013 (attached
hereto as Exhibit B). In case of any conflict between these documents, the Scope of Services
shall take first precedence over the Consultants proposal.

2. Timely Work. Consultant shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth
more specifically in paragraph 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material
breach of this Agreement, and Authority may terminate this Agreement with no further liability
hereunder, or may agree in writing with Consultant to an extension of time.

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence October 1, 2013 and
shall be completed by September 30, 2014 unless Authority grants a written extension of time
as forth in paragraph 2 above.

4. Compensation. Authority agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to accept as full
and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, an hourly fee as set forth in
Consultants Proposal (Exhibit B), in a total amount not to exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars
($15,000.00). Compensation under this Agreement shall become due and payable 30 days
after Authoritys approval of Consultants submission of monthly written invoices to the Authority
Executive Director. Written invoices shall clearly identify the work elements and shall include a
copy of timesheets or invoices from any sub-consultants. The payment of any compensation to
Consultant hereunder shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement to the satisfaction of the Authority. If Authority determines that the work set forth in
the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement,
Authority shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily
performed.

5. Additional Services. In the event that Authority should request additional
services not covered by the terms of this Agreement, said services will be provided by
Consultant and paid for by Authority only after a fee for said services has been agreed upon
between Consultant and Authority Executive Director and the Authority Executive Director
provides written authorization for the additional work.

6. Schedule for Performing Services. For the work subject to this Agreement,
Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with a schedule as established during the
term of the contract.

2
7. Staffing Plan. Consultant shall provide Authority with the names of the key
professional personnel assigned to perform the services under this Agreement as well as a
general description of the services they will be assigned to perform.

8. Subconsultant Plan. If Consultant intends to utilize the services of any
subconsultants to perform the services under this Agreement, the names of those
subconsultants and a general description of the services they will be assigned to perform shall
be attached hereto as Exhibit C Subconsultant Plan.

9. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with Authority or its
agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by Authority
to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.

10. Indemnification. Consultant hereby agrees to the following indemnification
clause:

To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code
Sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably
acceptable to the Authority), indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and its officers,
designated agents, departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively
"Indemnitees") from and against claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability
(including incidental and consequential damages, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection
therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, any Subconsultant, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively "Liabilities").
Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the
extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence, or willful misconduct of such
Indemnitee.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the above paragraph, Consultant agrees to indemnify
and hold harmless the Authority from and against any and all claims, demands, defense costs,
liability, expense, or damages arising out of or in connection with damage to or loss of any
property belonging to Consultant or Consultant's employees, contractors, representatives,
patrons, guests or invitees.

Consultant further agrees to indemnify Authority for damage to or loss of Authority
property to the proportionate extent they arise out of Consultant's negligent performance of
the work associated with this agreement or to the proportionate extent they arise out of any
negligent act or omission of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, agents, contractors,
representatives, patrons, guests or invitees; excepting such damage or loss arising out of the
negligence of the Authority

11. Insurance. Consultant shall submit and maintain in full force all insurance as
described herein. Without altering or limiting Consultant's duty to indemnify, Consultant shall
maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with
the following minimum limits of liability:
3
Commercial general liability insurance including but not limited to premises, personal
injuries, bodily injuries, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit
of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 in the aggregate.
Professional Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain in effect throughout the term
of this Agreement professional liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000
per claim and $1,000,000 in the aggregate. Consultant will either maintain or cause to be
maintained professional liability coverage in full force or obtain extended reporting (tail)
coverage (with the same liability limits) for at least three years following City's
acceptance of the work.
Commercial automobile liability insurance covering all automobiles, including owned,
leased, non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing services under this
Agreement, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

Workers' Compensation Insurance. If Consultant employs others in the performance of
this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in
accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of $100,000
per occurrence for employer's liability.

Other Insurance Requirements

A. All insurance required under this Agreement must be written by an insurance
company either:

admitted to do business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no
less than A:VI;
or

an insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:
VII.

Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund when
not specifically rated.

B. Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state
that Authority shall be given notice in writing at least thirty days in advance of
any cancellation thereof, except 10-day notice for nonpayment of the
premium.

C. The general liability and auto policies shall:

Provide an endorsement naming the Authority, its officers, officials, and
employees as additional insureds under an ISO CG 20 10 07 04 or ISO 20 37
07 04 or their equivalent.
Provide that such insurance is primary and non-contributing insurance to any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Authority.
Contain a "Separation of Insureds" provision substantially equivalent
to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or their equivalent.
4

Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against the Authority via an
ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or its equivalent.

D. Prior to the start of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall file
certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required
by this agreement with the Authority. Consultant shall file a new or amended
certificate of insurance promptly after any change is made in any insurance
policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file.

E. Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or approval of
Consultants insurance, nor whether any claims are covered under any
insurance, shall in any way modify or change Consultants obligations under
the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force
and effect. Notwithstanding the insurance requirements contained herein,
Consultant is financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this
Agreement.

F. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved
by the Authority. At the option of the Authority, either: the insured shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects
the Authority, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Consultant
shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Authority guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and
defense expenses.

12. Ownership of Work and Copyrights. Upon completion of the work under this
Agreement, ownership, title and copyrights to all materials and deliverables produced as part of
this Agreement will automatically be vested in the Authority and no further agreement will be
necessary to transfer ownership to Authority.

13. Licensing Standard of Care. Consultant represents as follows: that it is
experienced in the professional services and a specialist in the work performed under this
Agreement; is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law; and is
properly licensed and/or certified to perform the work specified under this Agreement, including
but not limited to possession of a current City of Monterey business license, and will only
employ persons and subconsultants with all required licenses and certifications.

14. Substitution of Consultant Personnel. The key personnel of Consultant or any
subconsultants listed in Consultants proposal or in Subconsultant Plan (Exhibits C hereto) and
assigned to perform the work under this Agreement may not be substituted with or replaced by
other personnel or subconsultants without the advance written consent of Authority.

15. Termination. Authority may terminate this Agreement upon ten days' written
notice. The amount of damages, if any, as a result of such termination may be decided by
negotiations between the parties or before a court of competent jurisdiction.

16. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Consultant
is hereby deemed to be an independent Consultant and not an agent or employee of Authority.

5
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to
the subject matter thereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in
writing signed by both parties hereto.

18. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full
force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

19. Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Agreement shall not be assignable,
delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of Authority. Any such purported
assignment, delegation, or transfer shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon
which Authority may terminate this Agreement and be entitled to damages.

20. Conflict of Interest. Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor
shall it acquire any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of
services under this Agreement.

21. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of
which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.

22. Laws. Consultant agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will
reasonably comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations. This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California and the City of Monterey.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the
day and year first above written in Monterey, California.

AUTHORITY CONSULTANT

__________________________ __________________________
James M. Cullem P.E. Ashley Beleny
Executive Director MPRWA Environmental relations PR

Agenda Report

Item No: 4.


SUBJECT: Receive Report on the Status of CPUC decision on Surcharge 1 & 2 ,
discuss, and provide staff direction.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from MPWMD General
Manager Dave Stoldt on the status of proposed changes in the surcharge schedule
being considered by the CPUC.

DISCUSSION:

On May 2, 2014 the CPUC issued an initial decision to retain Surcharge 1 at its current
level resulting in a credit towards surcharge 2. On May 12, 2014 Comments were
forwarded by the settling parties agreeing with Cal Am's request to reduce surcharge 1,
in light of project delays, in order to provide some immediate rate relief and to avoid
collecting surcharge 2 funds (including credits from surcharge 1) until construction is
assured.

On June 13, 2014 the CPUC made a final decision to finalize its initial decision and
extend surcharge 1, with the resultant effect that surcharge 2 ( scheduled to start July
2015) will be capped at 45% rather than at 60%.

Dave Stoldt has been requested to provide an update on the surcharges at today's
Water Authority meeting

Agenda Report

Item No: 5.


SUBJECT: Receive report on the status of the Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)
for Ground Water Replenishment Source and Product Water, discuss, and
provide staff direction.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority receive a report on the current status of
negotiations on source water for the MRWPCA Pure Water Monterey (PWM) / Ground
Water Replenishment (GWR )project, discuss, and provide staff direction if appropriate.

DISCUSSION:

A MOU for GWR source water was to have been completed by June 30, 2014.
However, the CPUC hearing on the MPWSP scheduled for December 2014 is now
delayed to April 2015 as a result of problems by the CPUC consultant in completing the
EIR. As a result, the deadline for GWR decisions at the CPUC is likely to be extended
as much as 11 months. This situation allows much needed time to complete the MOU,
related water agreements, and the Water Purchase Agreement (WPA).

Substantial progress has been made on the MOU and Keith Israel, General Manager of
the MRWPCA, and Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District will present the latest information on that subject at today's Water
Authority meeting.

The draft MOU considered by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency on Sept
19, 2014 is at Exhibit A.

EXHIBIT:

Draft MOU
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
SOURCE WATERS AND WATER RECYCLING

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is made this _______ day of
________________ 2014, by and between Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency,
the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the City of Salinas, the Marina Coast Water
District, and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, collectively the Parties.

The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (PCA) was formed as a California
Joint Powers Agency by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency, effective June 29, 1979. The Monterey County Water Resources
Agency (WRA) was established in 1995 pursuant to the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency Act. The City of Salinas (Salinas) is a California charter city and municipal
corporation. The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) is a county water district established
in 1960 pursuant to Water Code 30000, et seq. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (MPWMD) was established in 1977 as a California special district pursuant to the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Law (Chapter 527 of the Statutes of 1977, as
amended, found at Water Code Appendix (Water C. App.) 118-1, et. seq.)

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, PCA entered into an Annexation Agreement, dated April 25, 1989, with MCWD
providing, among other things, annexation of MCWD and for it to become a member entity of
MRWPCA; and,

WHEREAS, the Annexation Agreement between PCA and MCWD provides MCWD a water
right entitlement equal, as a minimum, to the volume of MCWD wastewater treated by PCA;
and,

WHEREAS, PCA entered into an agreement with WRA, dated June 16, 1992, for construction
and operation of a tertiary treatment system (the 1992 Agreement), with subsequent
amendments thereto, as follows: Amendment No. 1 on May 30, 1994; Amendment No. 2 on
February 16, 1998; and, Amendment No. 3 on May 28, 2002; and,

WHEREAS, the 1992 Agreement, as amended, caused WRA to finance $29,763,849.56 in
tertiary treatment and related facilities; and,


Revised 9-19-14 MPWMD Page 2 of 9

WHEREAS, PCA and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District on May 20, 2013
entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement for the planning and development of the Pure Water
Monterey Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) Project for the advanced treatment and
recycling of a variety of source waters for indirect potable reuse;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in reliance on the foregoing, the Parties hereby agree to negotiate
a Definitive Agreement to establish contractual rights and obligations of all Parties, containing,
as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Protection of MCWDs Recycled Water Right Entitlement

a. Reaffirmation by PCA of MCWDs recycled water right entitlement granted to
MCWD pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the April 25, 1989 Annexation Agreement
between PCA and MCWD.

b. Reaffirmation that MCWDs recycled water right is the senior right.

c. MCWD, in use of its recycled water entitlement, will comply with all applicable
requirements set forth in Contract No. 5-07-20-W1284, between the Bureau of
Reclamation and WRA including, but not limited to, those contained in
Paragraphs 10b and 10c, all at MCWDs sole cost and expense.

d. MCWDs recycled water right entitlement may be made contractually available
by MCWD to another Party and may be made available to WRA for CSIP if not
utilized by MCWD, or its assignee, in any given year.

2. Provision of Recycled Water to WRA

a. WRA to be supplied recycled water during the agricultural growing season in a
minimum volume equal to the wastewater flows to the Regional Treatment Plant
from all existing PCA members, plus treated waters originating from a variety of
newly identified additional incremental and interruptible sources described in
Section 3.a. hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 3.a.iii.

b. The cost of primary and secondary treatment of Salinas agricultural wash water,
estimated at $179/acre-foot in 2014, to be paid to PCA by Salinas, the future rates
for which to be established pursuant to Section 3(o) hereof.

c. The cost of tertiary treatment of agricultural wash water to be paid to PCA by
WRA, the future rates for which will be established by a protocol to be set forth in
the Definitive Agreement.


3. Phase I GWR Project Water and CSIP Area Additional Water

a. Phase I to provide water from newly identified sources that are incremental
additions over and above the incoming wastewater flows as identified in the 1992
Agreement, which consists of Salinas agricultural wash water, Salinas
stormwater, all recoverable Reclamation Ditch water diverted at Davis Road, a
portion of Tembladero Slough water diverted at Castroville, all recoverable
Blanco Drain water, Lake El Estero stormwater, and reoperation of the Salinas
ponds to store winter flows for summer use. Such waters may also include
additional stormwater from other locations on the Monterey Peninsula. Phase I
includes both (a) improvements to the SVRP in order to provide winter water to
offset pumping at CSIP (contingent upon WRA completing hydraulic
modifications to the existing CSIP system), and (b) treatment of wastewater from
the Regional Treatment Plant that has been determined to be excess and not
processed by the SVRP, provided, however, that PCA not curtail SVRP
operations to produce said excess water, but in both cases such sources are not
considered incremental additions.

i. Projected annual amounts are 4,320 acre-feet for GWR
Project, and 5,292 acre-feet for CSIP Area Replacement
Water, and 248 acre-feet GWR to be held in drought
reserve. These are approximate amounts based on average
year conditions, but actual amounts will vary annually;

ii. Projected costs of Phase I water are to be defined in the
Definitive Agreement, consistent with Sections 3(k) and
3(l) below and subject to third party review as discussed in
Miscellaneous below;

iii. Except for the commitments under Section 3.j. below, the
Parties agree that Salinas agricultural wash water may be
utilized by PCA for the time period necessary for an
average annual amount of 4,320 acre-feet for the GWR
Project to be achieved from Phase I Additional Sources.
However, PCA is obligated to endeavor to develop the
additional supplies identified under Section 3.a. and
transition a portion of the agricultural wash water for the
benefit of CSIP and WRA.



iv. The Definitive Agreement to only apply to wastewater
from existing PCA members and derived from the PCAs
2001 Service Area and water sources identified in Sections
3.a. and 3.q. Any future additions or annexations to the
PCA Service Area or future sources outside of the 2001
Service Area will be subject to future agreement(s).

b. Phase I to be operational in 2017, but the Parties will adjust schedule for
construction and operation if and as needed.

c. WRAs participation in Phase I to be contingent upon its successful completion of
the Proposition 218 process, if applicable.

d. In 2014 WRA filed an application with the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) for water rights to appropriate waters of the Blanco Drain for the
purpose of providing additional waters for CSIP and for domestic supplies within
the Salinas River Valley; and, for water rights to appropriate waters of the
Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough for the purpose of providing
additional waters for CSIP and for domestic supplies within the Salinas River
Valley. The Parties agree that such water rights shall be retained exclusively by
WRA. The Parties to pay pro rata all costs associated with WRAs procurement
and retention of Blanco Drain, Tembladero Slough, and Reclamation Ditch water
rights. The Parties agree to work jointly on obtaining the water rights. The
Parties may agree to apply for water rights in increments to facilitate issuance of
permits.

e. CSIP participants to be separately responsible for the tertiary treatment costs of
the water processed and delivered through the SVRP. GWR participants to be
separately responsible for the costs of advanced water treatment through the
GWR facilities.

f. The Parties to work cooperatively and collaboratively among themselves, in good
faith, to determine appropriate crop irrigation water quality standards for water
supplies.

g. The Parties to work cooperatively and collaboratively among themselves, in good
faith, to determine if, when, and how much of each water will be collected and
sent to the RTP for treatment.



h. Excess flows to be made available to each other Party, as may be desired.
Excess flows to be defined in the Definitive Agreement, but are generally
accepted to mean waters available for treatment at the SVRP or GWR facilities,
but not desired by the project participants to be processed and delivered at that
period of time.

i. PCA to have rights to the first 4,320 acre-feet annually of the new incremental
waters defined under Section 3.a. above, plus amounts in the six winter months to
produce 200 acre-feet to be placed in drought reserve. WRA can request that
PCA schedule withdrawals from the drought reserve in lieu of processing the
incremental waters in order to make a like amount available to CSIP in time of
need. Withdrawals will be limited to no more than the amount on deposit in the
drought reserve.

j. WRA to receive the agricultural wash water on terms similar to the Produce Wash
Water Agreement, dated 1 July 2014, in 2015, 2016, and 2017 until the GWR
project becomes operational.

k. PCA, at its cost and expense, to use its consultant to prepare a comprehensive rate
analysis, to devise appropriate Interruptible Rates that will likely be less
expensive than current non-Interruptible Rates for pumping, odor control, primary
and secondary treatment. Separate Interruptible Rates to apply to each water
source, but each separate Interruptible Rate to be subject to future escalation
consistent with standard factors for operation and maintenance inflation over
time. WRA will not pay rates for water it does not receive.

l. Capital costs to be shared by PCA and WRA proportional to the waters projected
to be made available on an average annual basis. Fixed pro rata capital costs to be
paid annually by the Parties, irrespective of water requested or received.
However, the calculation of pro rata shares of capital costs to be based only upon
facilities actually built and average annual water expected to be made available
vis the constructed facilities. In recognition of potential, yet undetermined,
benefits of the existing operations of the Salinas Industrial Ponds to the recharge
of the groundwater basin and the Salinas River for purposes of calculating water
made available to CSIP 33% of the water attributable to the Salinas agricultural
wash water would not be counted in the calculation of the proportional cost to
WRA. Annual recovery of fixed capital costs to include any annual capitalized
costs for facilities leased by PCA for the furnishing of water to the Parties.



m. PCA subject to concurrence by the rate study to waive all capacity charges for use
of water on an Interruptible basis from presently identified water sources to be
included in Phase I or Phase II.

n. Pursuant to subsequent agreement and lease, PCA and Salinas to negotiate a
separate agreement and lease and develop a seasonal working protocol for
diversion of Salinas Industrial Ponds (Agricultural Wash Water) and storm water
as allowed by available storage. PCA to pay Salinas an annual lease payment to
be recovered in the cost of water in accord with criteria to be established in the
Definitive Agreement.

o. PCA, if it uses tertiary treated water for the GWR Project, to comply with all
applicable requirements set forth in Contract No. 5-07-20-W1284, between the
Bureau of Reclamation and WRA including, but not limited to, those contained in
Paragraphs 10b and 10c, all at PCAs sole cost and expense.

Phase II CSIP Area Additional Water
p. Phase II to provide water from newly identified sources that are incremental
additions over and above the incoming wastewater flows as identified in the 1992
Agreement, as amended, and may consist of diversion of remaining Tembladero
Slough water, potential future advanced treated water, and UniKool water.

q. Phase II to approximate up to 3,754 AFA of new water.

r. Phase II to be operational by 2022.

s. Projected costs of Phase II will be determined in the future, consistent with
engineering feasibility analysis, preliminary design, and third party rate consultant
analysis.

t. Phase II would be contingent on its successful completion of the Proposition 218
process, if applicable.

4. Accounting Protocols

PCA to enter into a separate agreement with WRA by December 31, 2014 to achieve the
following:



a. PCAs adoption of activity-based costing for all its CSIP, SRDF and SVRP
activities.

b. Revision of the various financial protocols currently utilized to achieve one
standard protocol for each of CSIP, SRDF and SVRP.

c. Allocation methodologies for costs associated with CSIP, SRDF, and SVRP.

d. An annual audit of PCAs financial transactions related to CSIP, SRDF and SVRP
at WRA expense.

e. PCA to credit to the CSIP and SVRP accounts any pro rata revenues it receives
from byproducts of tertiary treated wastewater.

f. A third-party agreed upon by both PCA and WRA to be hired to design and
implement these Accounting Protocols.

MISCELLANEOUS
1. This Memorandum of Understanding is intended to provide a framework for negotiation
of a Definitive Agreement. This Memorandum is not intended to create binding
contractual obligations and other essential terms in addition to those set forth in this
Memorandum are to be negotiated and agreed upon before the Parties reach a Definitive
Agreement.

2. It is recognized and acknowledged that the Parties may not agree upon or enter into a
Definitive Agreement. In such an event, no Party shall make any claim against any other
Party related to the failure to enter into a Definitive Agreement.

3. An independent third-party review of proposed capital and operating costs to be
performed before WRA Board approval of the Definitive Agreement.

4. The term of the Definitive Agreement to be 30 years or as subsequently agreed upon in

5. The Definitive Agreement may result in an Amendment to the 1992 Agreement and the
amendments thereto. All previous Amendments will be reviewed to ensure conformity
and continuity of relevant provisions. Amendment No.3 to be novated by the Definitive
Agreement and any terms of Amendment No.3 that remain applicable will be restated in



6. The Definitive Agreement will incorporate standard contract language to govern
enforcement and resolution of disputes.

7. This Memorandum of Understanding will expire the earlier of (i) execution of a
Definitive Agreement, or (ii) March 31, 2015.

8. Individuals whose signatures appear on this document represent, warrant, and guarantee
they are authorized to execute this document on behalf of those entities on whose behalf
they purport to execute this document.

##########
WITNESS, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Monterey County
Water Resources Agency, the City of Salinas, and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District entered into this Memorandum of Understanding as of the date first written above.

MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
By:
Its:

MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
By:
Its: Chair of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board of Supervisors

CITY OF SALINAS
By:
Its:



MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
By:
Its:

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By:
Its:

Agenda Report

Item No: 6.

FROM: Dave Stoldt, General Manager MPWMD

SUBJECT: Receive report and discuss the latest information on public funding,
including bond funding, for the MPWSP and for GWR.

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive an update on the detailed
report on Public funding that was previously provided to the Water Authority.

DISCUSSION:
Below is the information provided by Dave Stoldt in an addendum to the Water Authority
on Sept 11;
"Senate Bill 939 is the legislation that allows a contribution of public financing in support
of the Cal-Am desalination facility in order to reduce the costs to ratepayers. On August
19, 2014 the bill passed the Assembly in a 77-0 vote. On August 20, 2014 it was
passed by the Senate 32-0. It has now been signed by the Governor.
As now permitted by the new law, the Settling Parties have agreed to ask the California
Public Utilities Commission to issue a Financing Order in concert with its Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the desalination project that would direct
Cal-Am to utilize the Water Rate Relief financing as a component of its funding plan.
On August 13, 2014 the California Legislature also approved AB 1471, a new Water
Bond that will be placed before the voters in the November election.
A summary of the bill has been posted on the Water Authority web page. Of the $7.5
billion, only approximately $2.4 billion will be relevant to the needs of the Monterey
Peninsula, with Chapter 9 specifically allocation $725 million to water recycling and
desalination."


Section
Amount
in
AB 1471
($million)
Amount
Relevant
To
Monterey
Peninsula

Discussion
Ch. 5 $520 $0 Water quality for small and disadvantaged
communities; Unlikely to help Peninsula, but would be
relevant to assist Watsonville and other impaired
areas of the County; However, limits construction
grants to $5 million ($20 million for regional projects)
which doesnt help enough.
Ch. 6 $1,495 $505 Most of this money is earmarked. Of $302.5 million in
Section 79731 only $100.5 is to the State Coastal
Conservancy and most of that will be expended
elsewhere; Other possible moneys include Section
79733 with $200 million for enhanced stream flows,
Section79735(b) with $20 million for urban
watersheds, but 25% is earmarked for disadvantaged
communities, and Section 79737 with $285 million for
watershed restoration outside of the Delta. All other
monies in this Chapter are earmarked for elsewhere in
the State.
Ch. 7 $810 $343 Section 79744 is $510 million of geographic funding
through the IRWM program. The Central Coast has
only $43 million authorized. In earlier Rendon and
Hueso bills, $58 million was targeted for the Central
Coast region. In the June revision to SB 848 (Wolk)
the regional amount was $85 million. This is a
reduction.

However, we favorably view Section 79746 with $100
million for water conservation and Section 79747 with
$200 million for stormwater. However, this is a
reduction for stormwater from $500 million in the June
version. We on the Central Coast are faced with other
California regulatory mandates to eliminate stormwater
discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance
(i.e. Monterey Bay) so a higher funding level is
preferred and assurances that ocean dischargers can
compete for the funds is needed. Prop 84s
stormwater rules excluded ocean dischargers.
Ch. 8 $2,700 $0 State Water Project, CALFED, Bay-Delta only.
Ch. 9 $725 $725 We love this. Includes water recycling, desalination,
and potable reuse. This is up from $500 million in the

June version.
Ch. 10 $900 $730 We might be able to apply for funding of the Aquifer
Storage and Recovery or Groundwater Replenishment
projects here, but will be a stretch. 10% set aside for
disadvantaged communities.
Ch. 11 $395 $100 This is primarily a Delta levee protection chapter.
However, the Carmel River lagoon barrier and other
flood control measures would compete for crumbs of
the remainder.
TOTAL $7,545 $2,403 Source: MPWMD 8-19-14


Agenda Report

Item No: 7.


SUBJECT: Receive report on the status of the Deep Water Desal (DWD) and Peoples
Desal projects, including the Kennedy/Jenks (K/J) Consultants Cost
Comparison Study of DWD, discuss, and provide staff direction if
appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the TAC receive and discuss the Kennedy/Jenks Cost
Comparison Study addressing the costs of water from Deep Water Desal (and possibly
Peoples Water) as compared to the estimated cost of water from Cal Am's MPWSP and
make recommendations to the Water Authority Board as appropriate.

DISCUSSION:

An extract from the Kennedy/Jenks Study is attached at Exhibit A. Note that the report
states as follows: "Both elements { data center and desal } of the proposed project are
important to the success and proposed benefits of the overall project. The major
challenges to this co-location concept could come from the permitting and regulatory
perspective." Also note that the cost differences between the K/J estimates and that of
DWD is that the former estimates power costs at 12 cents per KW while the latter
assumes 4 cents per KW.

The SPI Cost Comparison Study completed in 2012 is available by link at the Water
Authority web site www.mprwa.org. The key cost comparison tables are included as
Exhibit B.

Dave Stoldt has been requested to discuss the report at today's TAC meeting.

EXHIBITS:

Extract from Kennedy/Jenks (Tables 9 and 10)
Cost table from SPI

EXHIBIT 3-A
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
303 Second Street, Suite 300 South
San Francisco, California 94107
415-243-2150
FAX: 415-896-0999
Evaluation of the
Deep Water Desalination
Project Costs
12 September 2014
Prepared for
Soquel Creek Water District
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District
K/j Project No. 1468018.00
EXHIBIT 3-A
Section 5: DWD Project Unit Water Cost Evaluation
This section presents an evaluation of the DWD Group's projected unit water cost (capital and
O&M) costs for the JPA Desalination Facility part of the overall DWD Project. The section also
provides estimated O&M costs for the treated water distribution pipelines to develop a unit cost of
water delivered to SqCWD and MPWMD customers.
5.1 Comparison of Desalination Facility Projected Unit Water Costs
Table 9 compares the projected total unit water costs ($/AF) for the JPA Desalination Facility
providing 1,500 AFY of water to SqCWD. Table 10 compares the projected total unit water costs for
the JPA Desalination Facility providing 6,000 AFT of water to MPWMD. The unit cost of the JPA
Desalination Facility component is based on 10,000 AFT production and relies on full JPA Member
subscription to the take or pay contract. If the project is not fully subscribed, the JPA Desalination
facility would have a higher unit cost. The lower delivery volume for SqCWD increases the unit
water cost as compared to MPWMD with the larger assumed water delivery.
Table 9: Comparison of Probable Unit Water Costs for SqCWD Share of a
10,000-AFY JPA Desalination Facility
Kennedy/Jenks
Project Cost Component
Estimate
Desalination Facility Annual Bond Payments
$600
Desalination Facility O&M
$800
Site Rental and Intake/Ouffall O&M Share
$65
JPA Desalination Facility Subtotal, $/AF $1,465

SqCWD Distribution System Annual Bond Payments
$1,350
SqCWD Distribution System O&M
$130
Distribution System Subtotal, $/AF $1,480
Total Unit Water Cost ($/AF) $2,945

DWD Group
Estimate
$500
$500
$50
$1,050
$1,350
$130
$1,480
$2,530
EXHIBIT 3-A
Table 10: Comparison of Probable Unit Water Costs for MPWMD Share of a
10,000-AFY IPA Desalination Facility
DWD
Estimate
$500
$500
$50
$1,050
$500
$120
$620
$1,670
Kennedy/Jenks
Project Cost Component Estimate
Desalination Facility Annual Bond Payments $600
Desalination Facility O&M $800
Intake/Outfall O&M Share $65
JPA Desalination Facility Subtotal, $/AF $1,465

Distribution System Annual Bond Payments $500
Distribution System O&M $120
Distribution System Subtotal, $/AF $620
Total Unit Water Cost ($/AF) $2,085

Kennedy/Jenks opinion of probable total unit water cost for the JPA Desalination Facility part of the
DWD Project is approximately 15 percent higher than the projected DWD unit water cost, primarily
due to the higher unit energy costs ($300 per AF for renewable energy) and the higher percentage
of contingency. With a focus on project cost control during construction, and a low energy rate
obtained through the City of Salinas, it is reasonable that the proposed JPA Desalination Facility
could provide delivered water to SqCWD in the range of $2,600 to $3,000 per AF and to MPWMD in
the range of $1,700 to $2,100 per AF.
=EMI

Cal-rn
9 kAFY 5.5 kAFY

PML

9 kAFY 5.5 kAFY

CAPITAL COSTS (n Millions 2012 Dollars)
Intake/Outfall Facilities
$23.0 $17.7 $-0- $-0- $-0- $-0-

Pretreatment & Residuals Handling
$10.6 $7.94 $11.2 $7.94 $20.2 $13.6

Desalination System
$22.4
Post-Treatment
$1.48
$15.0
$0.88
$19.4
$1.48
$13.2
$0.88
$19.9
$1.66
$14.0
$1.07
Energy
$2.69 $2.36
$5.38 $3.26 $3.44
$0.52
$1.59 $1.45
$2.69 $2.36
$0.76
$10.2 $7.68
$1.09 $0.65
Chemicals
Expendables
Other Proponent Expenses
O&MLabor
Equipment Replacement
2
TOTAL $10.6 $7.49
ANNUAL COST OF WATER (in Millions 2012 Dollars)
$7.06
Capital Recovery3
$29.7 $23.7 $18.9 $14.7
$2,100 $2,670
$1,470 - $3,150 $1,870 - $4,005
$4,310
53,017 - 66,465
$3,300
02,3t0- $4,950
Production Cost of Water ($/AF)
RANGE ($/AF)
$11.0 $9.37
$20.9 $16.3
$2,320 $2,965
51,625 - $3,4. -
$2.43
$0.57
$2.36
$0.92
$6.93
$2.69
$1.16
$9.85
roject roponent
Distribution Facilities $6.14 $5.08 $3.35 $3.26 I $0.35 $0.26
Site Structures $11.5 $10.8 $3.65 $2.52 $10.0 $7.00
Offsite Trenched Pipelines $24.9 $24.9 $23.0 $22.7 $25.1 $25.1
Indirect Costs, $57.5 $50.3 $52.9 $42.7 $67.9 $62.3 ,
Contingency Allowance (30%) $47.2 $39.8 $34.5 $28.0 $43.6 $37.0 '
Mitigation Allowance (1%) $1.60 $1.30 $1.20 $0.90 $1.50 $1.20
TOTAL $206 $174 $151 22 $190 $161
ANNUAL O&MCOSTS (in Millions 2012 Dollars)
I includes implementation costs at 25%; ROW easement/land costs, mobilization/demobilization at 2%; electrical and l&C
systems at 187t; engineering and startup at 157t; and additional project proponent prescribed costs. Ah percentages a -pphed
to plant facilities costs.
2 Calculated as 1.5% of plant facilities costs.
Capital recovery factor for DWD and PML based on an interest rate of 4.0% and term of 30 years; based on an interest rate of
8.49% and 30 years for Cal-Am; see additional discussion in Section 5.
40verail accuracy of costs is estimated at AACE Class 5 with an accuracy of -30% to +50%; range values indicate potential
spread.

Agenda Report

Item No: 8.


SUBJECT: Receive and discuss report on the Sept 30 Board of Supervisors
consideration of fair-share funding for the Water Authority budget, and
provide staff direction.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority ad hoc committee discuss justification for
past and future "fair-share" funding support for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority (MPRWA).

DISCUSSION:

As reported in previous meetings, the Water Authority has requested "fair-share "
contributions from Monterey County in the order of approximately 34% of the Authority
budget. At Exhibit A is a letter dated Sept 12, 2014 from the Executive Director which
updates what has been requested from the County and estimates future budgetary
requirements.

Although the County has now paid $83,300 for FY 12-13, and budgeted $153,000 for
FY 14-15, it has not approved requests for additional FY 12-13 funds or for FY 13-14
funds.

The following e-mail was sent to the Authority in July:
"Additional Funding: At the Boards Budget Hearings in June, at the recommendation of
Supervisor Potter, the Board requested a presentation from the Authority on the
Authoritys activities, strategic plan, and budgetary requests prior to authorizing any
additional payments or funding. As you know, Ive calendared that for the afternoon of
September 9
th
, and have reserved 1 hour for this item. As part of the presentation we
will seek direction from the Board regarding how they want to handle funding and
participation. Depending on what the Board directs us to do we may need to return to
the Board at a future date to seek additional funding beyond what they budgeted in
June."
The Executive Director made a report to the Board of Supervisors on Sept 30th in
response to this request.
Agenda Report

Item No: 8.

Following the presentation, Board members made a number of statements and asked
rhetorical questions, and for the most part, did not allowa response from the Executive
Director.
Supervisor Calcagno expressed dismay that the Monterey Peninsula communities were
selfish by limiting the desal facility to 10,000 AFY, failing to consider the larger Salinas,
Marina, North County and regional water needs. He stated that GWR would be far more
expensive that desal and was require Salinas River basin water to satisfy Peninsula
water demands. Finally he sympathized with Marina and MCWD in the denial of the Cal
Am test slant well permits arguing that the Cal Am project would be taking water that
Marina needs for future development.
Supervisor Potter stated that the Governance Committee operated on a much lower
budget than the Water Authority and was more directly involved with desal project
execution than was the Water Authority. He expressed concern that the Authority had
no sunset date and he cautioned about the County joining a JPA that would replicate
the mission of other existing agencies such as the MPWMD. He further stated that that
Water Authority support and involvement with GWR was mission creep and added to
the expense of the Authority. Potter also had a problem with the Authority directors
adopting budgets prior to getting advance budget guidance from their City Councils and
he expressed dissatisfaction with the increased budget requirements since its inception
of the Water Authority in 2012.
Supervisor Salinas agreed that Authority involvement with GWR consisted of mission
creep.
Supervisor Parker voiced concern about the extent and costs of contracts awarded by
the Authority and expressed a desire to see the Water Authority sunset soon.
In the end, the Supervisors voted unanimously to accept the staff report and the
information provided by the Executive Director but gave no indication whether they
would support joining the Water Authority or paying future or past due fair-share
contributions.
EXHIBIT:
A- Copy of Executive Director Letter to the County Administrator's Office date Sept 12,
2014.


580 PACIFIC ST, ROOM 6 MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 93940 www.mprwa.org
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

September 12, 2014

Nicholas E. Chiulos
Assistant County Administrative Officer
County of Monterey Administrative Office
168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901

Directors:
J ason Burnett, President
Bill Kampe, Vice President
David Pendergrass, Secretary
J erry Edelen, Treasurer
Chuck Della Sala, Director
Ralph Rubio, Director

Executive Director:
J im Cullem, P.E.
Re: Updated MPRWA Projected Budgets through FY 2017-2018

Dear Nick;

As requested, I am providing updated budget projections through FY 2017-2018 for the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) in support of the J anuary 6,
2014 letter (attached) to the Board of Supervisors requesting a 34% fair-share
contribution towards funding the Water Authoritys expenses. This update replaces my
letter dated February 18, 2014.

Projections for FY 2015-2016 and beyond are tentative since approximately 40-50% of
our budgets have been consumed by our Legal Counsel and contracted Special
Counsel (Counsel of Record). Legal expenses have proven difficult to predict as the
Authority is actively participating as an "Intervener" in the CPUC process for Cal Am
application A.12-04-019 for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP.)
Counsel has had to respond to periodic requests and requirements from the CPUC
Administrative Law J udge , as well as providing guidance to the Authority in support of
Cal Am's efforts to obtain permits and approvals for the MPWSP from a variety of public
agencies.

All expenditures, including legal expenses, for FY 2011-2012 (partial year) and FY
2012-2013 have been paid and were addressed in the recently completed audit of the
Water Authority. Accordingly, the request for an increase in the FY 2012-2013 County
fair-share from $83,300 to $162,000, as requested in the J anuary 6th letter, is well
established.

The FY 2013-2014 budget was approved at $423,680 and although the year-end
finances have not yet been audited, expenditures should fall well within budgeted
amounts. Accordingly, at 34%, the County fair-share for FY 2013-2014 would be
$144,051.20.

The adopted budget for FY 2014-2015 is $458,680 and the County fair-share would be
$155,951.20.

September 12, 2014
2

We now expect legal expenses to remain at about $200,000 per year, and by increased
staff efforts to reduce other expenses, we hope to keep the total budget at or below
$450,000 per fiscal year for the next 4 years. At 34%, the County fair-share would be
approximately $153,000 per year during that time period.

Please do not hesitate to contact me for discussion or additional information at 831-241-
8503 (cell) or cullem@monterey.org.

Sincerely,

J ames M. Cullem P.E.
Executive Director
MPRWA

C: MPRWA Letter to the Board of Directors dated J anuary 6, 2014
Agenda Report

Item No: 9.

SUBJECT: Receive SPI Analysis of the Value Engineering Alternatives and TAC
recommendations, discuss, and provide Water Authority
recommendations to the Governance Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority review the Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI)
analysis of Monterey of the Final Value Engineering ( VE) Study of the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and make recommendations to the
Governance Committee.

DISCUSSION:
The Final Value Engineering (VE) Study for 30% design of the desal facility was
completed by Value Management Strategies (VMS) and briefed to a joint meeting of
the Governance Committee and the MPRWA at a special meeting on July 10 and to the
TAC on Aug 4. The VE study focused on value improvements, in particular potential
cost savings. Requirements mandated by the settlement agreements, as well as
directions from the Governance Committee on environmental and aesthetic issues,
should still be incorporated into the design.
At its meeting of Aug 14, 2014, the Water Authority voted to request SPI to perform an
analysis of the VE Study in advance of the Authority forwarding its recommendations to
the Governance Committee. The SPI Analysis is at Exhibit A, and the full text of the VE
report is available on the Water Authority web site http://www.mprwa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/MPWSP-Final-VE-Report.pdf and on the Cal Am MPWSP
project web site www.watersupplyproject.org .
Following review and comment by the MPRWA, the SPI analysis will be forwarded to
the Governance Committee for action in accordance with the Governance Agreement.

EXHIBITS:
A- Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI) Analysis of the MPRWA VE Study
SPI Comments on VE Study

1

1Introduction
AValueEngineering(VE)study,sponsoredbytheMontereyPeninsulaRegionalWater
AuthorityandfacilitatedbyValueManagementStrategies,Inc.(VMS),wasconductedforthe
DesalinationPlantportionoftheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject.Thestudywas
conductedattheofficesofCaliforniaAmericanWaterinMonterey,CaliforniaJuly7through11,
2014.
ThisreportpreparedbySeparationProcesses,Inc.(SPI)reviewsthereportpreparedbyVMS.
CostsarepresentedforanychangesrecommendedbySPI.
Theitemsareidentifiedbytheformat(numberingsystem)usedinthereport.Costestimates
aregivenforeachchangemadetotheVEstudy.
SomeoftheresultscontainedinthestudyareacceptabletoSPIandarenotdiscussedherein.
2PurposeofthisReport
Theintentofthisreportistoreviewtheresultsobtainedbythe VE teamandcommentupon
themwhereappropriateandproposechangeswereneeded.
3ReportAssumptions
Certain assumptions had to be made in order to present the costs given herein. These are
as follows:
YearofConstruction,2014
Servicelife,30years
Interest,8%
Electricitycost,$0.10/kWh
Chemicalcostsatpresentdayrates


2

4 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD1: Revise layout of RO and Admin
building: create one building with overlook, improved sight lines and a reduced courtyard

4.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: The plan layout of the SWRO Building and
Admin Building indicates two buildings separated by a 50footwide open Garden space.

4.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: The alternate concept attaches the Admin
Building to the SWRO building in order to provide visual and direct physical connectivity
from the Control Room, located inside the Admin Building, into the SWRO Building. The
Control Room can either be one or two stories depending on whether or not visual
connection is desired from a higher vantage point.

4.3 SPI Comment: This revision has merit, but will impact the schedule by more than the
one month as mentioned in the VE study and add to the project costs. The added costs will
not only include the construction costs but also the revisions required to the architectural
drawings followed by revisions to the 30% design. In particular revisions will have to be
made not only to the building design/arrangement but also to the piping and layout
drawings.
This alternative proposal has been given a cost of $250,000.00, but does not include the
cost for redesign. The cost for redesign is estimated to be approximately $100,000.00.
Thus, the total cost extra for this item amounts to $350,000.00. There is no savings in the
life cycle cost.
4.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The redesign effort will require an additional approximately 3
months.
4.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This change will increase the project costs due to the additional
architectural and engineering time required to complete the revisions.
4.6 SPI Conclusion: The cost estimate given for this change is estimated to be $250,000.00,
which cost only includes the administration portion of the building. SPIs review of the cost
estimate given in the VE study does not appear to include the additional architectural and
engineering fees associated with this change. It is therefore considered to be low. When
these are added this cost extra becomes approximately $350,000.00.
Thus, it is SPIs conclusion that this alternative not be chosen.


3

5 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD2: Eliminatefireprotectionofthebuildings
wherenotrequiredbycode
5.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:The30%designsubmittaldoesnotspecifyareaswithin
theplantreceivingfiresprinklercoverage.PerMikeZaferofCDMSmithon7/9/14,theSWRO
Building,theAdminBuildingandtheFilterBuildingareallfullysprinkledinthecurrentbaseline
concept.
5.2Description of Alternative Concept: Thisrecommendationsimplyproposestheproject

teamshouldconfirmwhetherfiresprinklercoverageisrequiredin(1)theFilterbuilding,and
deleteifnot,and(2)iftheROroomwithintheSWRObuildingcanchangetononsprinkled.
5.3SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change.

5.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.

5.5 SPI Risk Impacts: SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.

5.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with the costs presented by the VE team for this item and
can recommend acceptance.

4

6 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD3: Increaseoccupancycategoriesof
processstructures(categoryIVfortheprocesscriticalfacilities)
6.1VE Description of Baseline Concept: Table197RiskCategoriesoftheBODRcallsfor

FacilityRiskCategoryofIVforthefinishedwaterstoragetanksandrelatedequipment,and
FacilityRiskCategoryofIIIforotherstructure.
6.2Description of Alternative Concept: TheVEteamrecommendsthatacloserlookshould

begiventothefacilitieswherehigherOccupancyCategorymaybeneededforsomestructures
andaloweronefortherest;forexample,SWROmightbeIV,andAdminBuildingmightbeII.
6.3SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change.



6.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with the costs presented by the VE team for this item and
can recommend that this item be accepted.


5

7 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD4: Shift site layouts to avoid collapsible
soils

7.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: The baseline concept calls for constructing the
facility in an area that is generally comprised of loose to very loose sand, which according
to the BODR is considered unsuitable. The project geotechnical engineer estimates 2 to 3
inches of seismicallyinduced settlement during a design earthquake event, as compared to
the 0.5 to 1 inches of seismically induced settlement reported in the Baseline Geotechnical
Report (URS).

The BODR proses to redensify the soil below the proposed building pads in order to
provide uniform and adequate bearing capacity for the foundation systems. The proposed
design considers over excavation and compaction, in addition to one of the following
alternatives to address the differential settlement:

Structures supported by mat foundations
Geopiers beneath the structures
Dynamic compaction beneath the structures

7.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: It was communicated to the VE team that the
site area is roughly 43 acres. Therefore, this alternative recommends considering one of the
two following options:

Shift the entire location of the facility within the site to an area where more suitable
foundation material is located
Shift location of facilities in relation to each other within the same area (i.e.,
interchange the Brine Equalization Basin with Admin and SWOR Treatment
Buildings)

7.3 SPI Comment: This alternate makes good sense and would be recommended by SPI.
However, the costs needed to perform this work need to be corrected.
7.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The schedule will be impacted by the time required to complete
the new soils boing tests and geotechnical work. This work will delay the project by one
month.
7.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This alternative will decrease the risks.

7.6 SPI Conclusion: The cost savings given in the VE study are $42,000.00. However, this
cost excludes the work of additional soils borings and geotechnical tasks which is
estimated to cost approximately $100,000.00. This will more than offset the cost savings
given in the VE study as $42,000.00.

6

It is SPIs conclusion that this item be accepted, but the costs updated to show this
additional cost $142,000.00.

7

8 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD5: Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieu
ofdynamicsoilcompaction
8.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: TheBaselinedesignisconsideringoverexcavation
andcompactioncombinedwithoneofathreealternativesbelowtoaddressthe2to3inches
ofestimateddifferentialsettlement:
Structuressupportedbymatfoundations
Geopiersbeneaththestructures
Compactionbeneaththestructures
8.2VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativecallsfora

geosyntheticreinforcedsoilmattobeplacedundertheSWROandAdminbuildingsthathave
conventionalfootings.Thepurposeofthesoilmatwouldbetolimitdifferentialsettlement
acrossthebuildingfootprintineventofseismicallyinducedsettlementasopposedtoother
proposedmeasure.
8.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change and recommends acceptance.



8.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend acceptance.

8

9 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD6: Connectthe4160to480transformers
directlytothe21kVswitchgear
9.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theexistingelectricaldistributionsystemhasthe

21kvto4160volt(5000kva)transformerandthe4160voltto480volt(2500kva)transformer
connectedinseries.Thepowerforthe2500kvatransformergoesthroughthe5000kva
transformer.Theconfigurationistypicalfortwotransformers,circuitsMDS2AandMCS2B.All
fourtransformersarepadmounted,oilfilledtransformers.
9.2VE Description of Alternative Concept: Changethe2500transformersfrom"4160volt

to480volt"to"21kvto480volt"andconnecttothe21kVswitchgear.Thechangewould
requirethecablesbeinstalledfromthe21kVswitchgearinsteadofthe4160voltswitchgear.
Twoadditionalfusedswitcheswouldbeaddedtothe21kVswitchgearandtwocircuitbreakers
wouldbedeletedfromthe4160voltswitchgear.

9.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change.


9.5 SPI Risk Impacts: The system requires an analysis prior to acceptance.

9.6 SPI Conclusion: Assuming that the analysis indicates there will be no effect on the
downstream equipment, this alternative can be accepted.

9

10 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD7: Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscaping
principlesandeliminateirrigation
10.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thelandscapedesigninthe30%submittal

includesindigenousplantsthatonlyrequireirrigationuntiltheirrootsareestablishedas
reportedbyJoniJanecki,LandscapeArchitecton7/7/14.The30%designisnotyetdetailed
enoughtoshowhowthisinitialirrigationperiodconceptwillbeimplemented.
TheBasisofDesignDraftReport(BODR)dated4/14/14indicatesonly"Adripirrigationsystem
willbedesignedandimplemented".Thedesignalsoincludesvegetablesplantedinraisedbeds
tocreatean"agriculturaleducationgarden"pertheBODR.Asreportedon7/8/14,thegardens
willbeirrigatedwithrainwater(andpossiblywaterfromthedesalinationfacility)thatwillbe
capturedthenstoredwithinanabovegroundcisterntank.Ms.Janeckireportedthatthe
cistern'scapacitycanprovideupto50%ofthewaternecessarytoirrigatethegarden
vegetablesthroughoutagivenyear.
10.2VE Description of Alternative Concept: Exploreanddesignameanstoeliminatethe

useofpotablewaterentirelyfortheirrigationofplants.Scalebackplantmaterialsand
irrigationasmuchaspossible.
10.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change and can recommend its acceptance.



10.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.

10

11 VE Alternative Number and Description: E1: ReviseconfigurationofROtrainsto
accommodateflatfootfoundation

11.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Currentlythedesalinationplantbuildingis
designedtoincludeatwolevelconfigurationofthefoundations.Theupperlevelhousesall
equipmentandthelowerlevel(pipegalleries)housemostoftheinterconnectingpiping.

11.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisrecommendationproposestoreconfigure
theInterconnectingpipingandequipmentlayoutsuchthatthebuildingfoundationissimplified
toaflatfootfoundation.

11.3 SPI Comment: By making the change recommended in the VE study will result in a
much larger building (footprint area). This increase in area will result in a redesign of the
building, equipment and piping arrangements.
The equipment arrangement given in the 30% design is not unusual and has been
accomplished on a number of different projects.
The cost savings for this alternative are given as $400,000.00. However, SPIs estimate
shows that the cost of the flat foot arrangement is actually higher. This results from the
apparent use of the same unit cost for building construction. In the case of using the two
story RO arrangement with the equipment located in a floor below the RO process
equipment has a unit cost greater than the flatfloor arrangement as shown in SPIs cost
figures. Thus, the result is a slightly higher cost.
11.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This alternative will impact the schedule.
11.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks are found.
11.6 SPI Cost Estimate: The VE study gives a cost estimate savings of $400,000.00. The
cost is calculated on the basis that the unit cost per square foot for the 2level arrangement
is $250.00 per square foot ( as given in VE # BD3) for the RO building base case. The base
case RO building has the RO trains on one floor and the equipment mounted below. Thus,
for this arrangement the VE team used a unit cost of $250.00 per square foot. For the flat
foot arrangement proposed in this item then, the unit cost per square foot has to be lower.
SPI used a unit cost of $200.00 per square foot. The area of the building will increase by at
least 50% to a total of about 41,400 square feet.
The figures generated from the calculation result in an initial cost extra of $780,000.00 and
an additional lifecycle cost increase and an increase in life cycle costs of $69,264.00.

11

11.6.1 Capital Cost
The capital cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E1CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
Foundation 1 2,100,000.00 2,100,000.00 1 1,500,000.00
ROBuilding sf 27,600.00 250 6,900,000.00 41,400.00 200 8,280,000
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 9,000,000.00 9,780,000
SAVINGS 780,000.00

11.6.2 Life Cycle Cost
The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E1LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
Foundation 1 186,480.00 186,480.00 1 133,200.00
ROBuilding sf 27,600.00 250 612,720.00 41,400.00 200 735,264
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL 799,200.00 868,464
SAVINGS 69,264.00

11.78 SPI Conclusion: SPI does not recommend acceptance of this alternative.

12

12 VE Alternative Number and Description: E2: Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuof
segmentalpumps
12.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludestheuseof
segmentalringhighpressurepumpsdesignedtooperateat82%efficiency.Figuresare
providedonthefollowingpagetoillustratethetypeofpumps.
12.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoreplace

thesegmentalringpumpswithradiallysplitcasepumps.Further,considertheuseofone
radiallysplitcasepumptofeedtwoROtrainsinordertoincreasethehighpressurepumpsize
andobtainpumpefficiencyof87%(insteadof82%)andtoachievecapitalcostsavings.This
conceptproposestheuseof4radiallysplitcasepumpsinsteadof7segmentalringpumps.

12.3 SPI Comment: A better choice for cost effective pumps for high pressure (HP) service
to the RO process are the multiple stage horizontal centrifugal type. These have become the
standard in for SWRO service. The advantage in using this type of pump in lieu of the
pumps provided in the base case is its higher efficiency. The pumps provided in the base
case have an efficiency of 82% and those proposed for the alternate have an efficiency of
84% 87%. Therefore, the electrical draw for the proposed pumps will be significantly
lower therefore offsetting the higher costs.

The VE recommendation is to also change the number of pumps from 7 to 4. This change
will result in reducing the capital cost because of a reduction in the number of pumps and
the reduction in piping and valves required.

12.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Delivery times for these pumps can normally be obtained in a
shorter time period. Thus, this may assist in having no appreciable impact on the project
schedule.

12.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This type of pump has been used for a number of years in SWRO
systems. Thus, there is no risk introduced for this project.

12.6 SPI Cost Estimate:
12.6.1 Capital Cost Estimate
The capital cost estimate for these pumps is given in the following table.


13

E2CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
RadialSplit 7 286,000.00 2,002,000.00 7
Horizontal 0.00 4.00 365,000.00 1,460,000
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL 2,002,000.00 1,460,000
SAVINGS 542,000.00

E2LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
Annual
Cost Total
RadialSplit 5,605,377.60 0.00 0.00
Horizontal 0.00 5,242,648 200 5,242,648
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0
TOTAL 0.00 5,242,648
PW 63,116,552 0.00 PW 59,032,216
SAVINGS 4,084,335.30

12.7 SPI Conclusion: SPI finds merit to this proposal, but also understands the inherent
process implications from reducing the number of pumps. CalAm intends to operate
standby units to boost capacity on a short term basis and insure annual delivery targets are
achieved. In reducing the number pumps, the capacity of each pump is increasedleading
to a larger flow demand of the associated standby pump. This larger flow would have a
correspondingly higher raw water demand and increase the number of supply wells
required. With this in mind we do not see the proposal as beneficial on a net basis.

14

13 VE Alternative Number and Description: E3:Installacceptancetestingconnectionsas
permanent
13.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptat30%stagedoesnot

contemplateanyspecialprovisionsorconnectionstorecirculatewaterduringthestartupand
commissioningphase.Also,itdoesnotcontainanyprovisionstorecirculateflowtotheheadof
theplanttokeeptheplantrunningduringshortperiods,insteadofshuttingtheplantdown.
13.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Installapermanentconnectionbetweenthe

treatedwaterlineandtherawwaterlineatthedesalinationplantduringtheinitial
construction.Thiswillassistinstartup/commissioningaswellasallowingtheplanttorecycle
flowunderabnormalcondition(insteadofhavingtoshutdown).
13.3 SPI Comment: SPI finds no fault in this recommendation and would agree with this
alternative.
13.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no impact on the schedule, since this line can be
installed during site construction.
13.5 SPI Risk Impacts: SPI sees no impact due to risk factors with this recommendation.


15

14 VE Alternative Number and Description: E4:Constructthefilteredwaterstorage
tanksoutofconcreteandconstructasrectangular
14.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludestwo750,000gallon
prestressedconcretefinishedwaterstoragetanks(approximatedimensions:70'diameterby
27'tall).

14.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposesreplacingtwotanks
withasingletwocellreinforcedconcretestoragetank.
14.3 SPI Comment: Concrete tanks are often used for the purpose intended for this case.

The savings, (i.e., $73,000.00) however, do no warrant making this change. This results
because; the new configuration does not improve operation or maintenance.

In any event SPI recommends that these tanks be deleted (refer to our comments in item
M1, below).
14.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no impact on the schedule.

14.5 SPI Risk Impacts: SPI sees no impact due to risk factors with this recommendation.
14.6 SPI Conclusion: The additional $73,000.00 does appear to be warranted.

16

15 VE Alternative Number and Description: E5: Usefiberglassforthegranular
pretreatmentfiltersinlieuofsteel
15.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludes10steel
rubberlinedpressurefiltertanksthatare10feetindiameterby40feetlong(~24,000gallons).

15.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestoreplacethesteel
tankswithfiberglasstanks.

15.3 SPI Comment: The water quality from the well is expected to have a low SDI. This is
true of all well supplies whether used for brackish water or sea water RO processes. It is
expected that because of the very low SDI, filters will not be required. However, since the
well has not been developed it is best to err on the side of caution and include these filters
in the design of the plant.
Should it be found that the well supply will be low in SDI (i.e., high in quality), the filters
can easily be removed from the design.
An additional benefit offered by the removal of the filters is the removal of the backwash
system and backwash ponds as well.
15.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts are expected.
15.5 SPI Risk Impacts: The risk associated with these filters is significantly reduced since
their inclusion only brings a safeguard.
15.6.1 Capital Cost
In the event these filters can be removed, the cost savings are significant.

17

E5CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
MediaFilters 10 60,000.00 600,000.00 0 0.00
BrinePonds
2 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 0 0.00
Backwash 2 300,000.00 600,000.00 0 0.00
Pump&PipingCost 2 92,000.00 184,000.00 0 0.00
SUBTOTAL 2,384,000.00 0.00
TOTAL 2,384,000 0.00
SAVINGS 2,384,000.00

CONSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY AnnualCost Total
FilterAmortization 10 5,328.00 53,280.00 0.00 0.00
BrinePonds
Amortization
2 44,400.00 88,800.00 0.00 0.00
BackwashAmortization 2 26,640.00 53,280.00
BackwashElec. 2 47,000.00 94,000.00
Pump&PipingCost 2 8,169.60 16,339.20 0.00 0.00
PumpElec. 2 38,300.00 38,300.00
SUBTOTAL 343,999.20 0.00
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 343,999.20 0.00
PW 3,873,430.99 PW 0.00
SAVINGS 3,873,430.99

15.7 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that these filters be included as presently designed,
until the feed water quality is known. Regarding vessel material, we agree that FRP may

18

have benefits over lined steel in terms of corrosion protection; but may not be available
commercially and domestically in the size required.

19

16 VE Alternative Number and Description: E6: RelocateVFDsforROfeedwaterhigh
pressurepumpstofiltereffluenttransferpumps
16.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Inthebaselineconcept,VFDsareproposedtobe
installedonboththehighpressurepumpsandononeofthefiltereffluenttransferpumps.

16.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisconceptproposestoinstallVFDsonall
filtereffluenttransferpumpsandeliminatetheVFDsonthehighpressurepumps.
16.3 SPI Comment: At this point in time this alternative makes technical sense and would
be recommended by SPI. In the event the filters can be removed, the VFDs can be moved to
the well supply pumps.
16.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts are noted.
16.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No project risks result from this change.
15.6.1 Capital Cost
In the event the filters can be eliminated, the following cost savings result:


20

E6CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
VFDatHPPumps 7 85,000.00 595,000.00 0.00
VFDatWells
0.00 7 22,000.00 154,000.00
0.00 0 0.00
0.00 0 0.00
SUBTOTAL 595,000.00 154,000.00
TOTAL 595,000 308,000.00
SAVINGS 287,000.00

21

E6LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
Annual
Cost Total
VFDatHPPumps 7 52,836.00 369,852.00 0.00 0.00
VFDatWellPumps
0.00 7.00 13,675.20 95,726.40
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
SUBTOTAL 369,852.00 95,726.40
TOTAL 369,852.00 95,726.40
PW 4,164,533.52 PW 1,077,879.26
SAVINGS 3,873,430.99

16.7 SPI Conclusion: As presently designed, SPI can recommend the inclusion of this
alternative.

22

17 VE Alternative Number and Description: E7: UseabovegroundFRPpipinginlieuof
belowgradeHDPE
17.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: PermeateandRaw/SalineWaterpipesare
specifiedasbelowgradehighdensitypolyethylene(HDPE)andfiberreinforcedplastic(FRP)
abovegradepipesinthebaselineconcept.
17.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestosubstitute

belowgradeHDPEpipingwithabovegradeFRPpiping.
17.3 SPI Comment: Above grade FRP piping is often used for reverse osmosis systems and
can be employed for this project. This piping however, suffers from degradation from the
effects of sunlight. Therefore, they must be painted or protected in a similar manner.
17.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No project schedule impacts are considered for this
alternative.
17.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No project risks result from this change.
16.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance
for the project.


23

18 VE Alternative Number and Description: M1: Increasesizeofthefilteredwater
storagetanks
18.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludestwo
300,000galloncovered,glasslinedtanks,withatotalvolumeofapproximately600,000
gallons.Assuminga5footminimumoperatinglevel,theeffectivevolumeisapproximately
440,000gallons.
18.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestheinstallationof

two500,000galloncovered,glasslinedtanks,resultinginatotalvolumeofapproximately
1,000,000gallons.Assuminga5footminimumoperatinglevel,effectivevolumeis
approximately770,000gallons.

18.3 SPI Comment: Any tanks placed to hold sea water is to be avoided. This is because
the sea water will contain microbes that will grow within these tanks and therefore enter
the SWRO membranes. This will create increased fouling and increase the frequency of
membrane cleaning operations. Increasing the cleaning frequency, results in lowering the
membrane life, therefore increasing the cost of operation.

There exists no technical reason for these tanks.

SPI recommends that in lieu of increasing the size of these tanks, they be eliminated.

18.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The elimination of these tanks will result in reducing the
construction schedule.

18.5 SPI Risk Impacts: Elimination of these tanks reduces risk from contamination of the
membranes due to biofouling.


18.6.1 Capital Costs
The savings in capital costs are given in the following table.


24

M1CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total]
FilterStorageTanks 2 354,000.00 708,000.00 0 0.00
SUBTOTAL 708,000.00
TOTAL 708,000 0
SAVINGS 708,000.00
18.6.2 Life Cycle Costs

Thelifecyclecostforthisalternativeisgiveninthefollowingtable.
M1LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total]
FilterStorageTanks
Amortization
2 31,435.20 62,870.40 0 0.00
SUBTOTAL 62,870.40
TOTAL 62,870 0
SAVINGS 62,870.40
18.7 SPI Conclusion:SPIrecommendstheremovalofthesetanks.


25

19 VE Alternative Number and Description: M2: Provideliftstomoveheavyequipment

19.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaseline30%designdoesnotinclude
provisionformovingorremovingthelargeequipmentintheRObuilding.Itisassumedthatthe
equipmentwouldberemovedusingaportablecrane.
19.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: IntheROBuilding,theinstallationofa

permanentoverheadbridgecraneisrecommendedtobeabletomove,removeandinstall
largepiecesofequipment(pumps,motors)andnewmembraneskids.Thiscranewouldhavea
5toncapacity.
19.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with the VE teams approach for this alternative.

19.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This change will affect the design schedule slightly, but not in
a manner that will create schedule delays.
19.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No project risks are envisioned.

26

20 VE Alternative Number and Description: M3:Eliminatepumpsinchemicalstorage
sumps
20.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theexistingdesignshowssumppumpsin
chemicalstoragesumps.Thepumpswouldoperateonamanualenableswitchandshutoffby
floatswitchactivation.Atpresent,pumpsareconnectedtothesanitarysewer.
20.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisconceptproposestoprovideportable

sumppumpsandreceptaclesforpowerconnection.Theoperatorswouldputthesumppumps
inthesumpswhensumpsarefull.Pumpswouldbeconnectedtoreceptaclesontheoutsideof
thebuildingsuchthatchemicalscouldbeloadedintoatruckorcontainerfordisposal.
20.3 SPI Comment: SPI has no opinion or this matter.

20.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts are seen.
20.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks are envisioned.


27

21 VE Alternative Number and Description: M4: SplittheC02tanktoshare120ton
requirementbetweentwotanks
21.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: OneCO2120tonstoragetankisprovidedinthe
baselineconcept.(DrawingsheetM45andM46).
21.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Toprovideforredundancyduringtank

maintenance,thisalternativerecommendsutilizetwostoragetankstoprovidethesame
amountofstorage.

21.3 SPI Comment: SPI recommends that this system be removed and all carbon dioxide
be obtained from the acid pretreatment system. This will save a significant amount in life
cycle costs as shown and discussed in item TP4.

21.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: None are foreseen.
21.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No added risks are expected.
21.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that the Water Authority utilize the alternative
given above.


28

22 VE Alternative Number and Description: RS1: Refinethedesigntomeettestwelldata
waterqualityinformation

22.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theprojecthasbeendesignedaroundmany
assumptionsrelativetothequalityandquantityofrawwaterthatwillbedeliveredtotheplant
fromtheintakewells.Keyassumptionsincludeequipmentsizing,chemicaltreatment
processes,andstoragequantities.Thereportedintentistonotsignificantlyrevisethedesign
whentheinformationfromthetestwellisavailable.Theassumptionisthatthedesignwillbe
robustenoughtoaccountforanywaterqualityorquantityissues.Currently,thedesignteam
hasbeencontractuallylimitedrelativetotheirengineeringdesignfees.Thefullamountof
engineeringdesignfeeswillnotbeauthorizeduntiltheprojectreceivescertainregulatory
approvalsinordertoproceed.

22.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Performadesignanalysisofthetreatment
processes,Equipmentsizing,andstoragecapacitiesoncewaterqualityandquantity
informationisavailablefromtheseawaterintaketestwell.Iftheinformationindicatesthatthe
plantisoverdesignedforcertainaspects,entertainrevisionstothedesignsufficientto"right
size"andoptimizethedesignperthetestinformation.

22.3 SPI Comment: The design of any SWRO process always begins with an analysis of the
water to be treated. There is no reason that the water from the proposed well will not
deliver normal sea water at the expected quality. Thus, the design of the process at this
time has minimal risk, since the performance of the plant can be projected from membrane
manufacturers computer programs. The well will supply sea water that is considered to be
in the normal range of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration of 34,500 mg/L. Further
the well supply will deliver a water quality of significantly low Silt Density Index (SDI). This
value can be expected to be 1.0 or less. A value of this SDI level is not unusual for a water
supply from a well.
The only refinement in design would be accomplished after the feed water quality from the
wells has been determined. This refinement is expected to be the removal of the
pretreatment filters.
22.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This approach has minimal risk.
22.6 SPI Conclusion: The VE cost study gives a potential savings of $5,227,000.00. This
appears reasonable and in fact could be lowed further as discussed above.

29

23 VE Alternative Number and Description: RS2: Reviseconstructionscheduleusing
multiplecrewsperdisciplinetoaccelerateprojectcompletion
23.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: TheCDMSmithproposedscheduleindicatesa

sequentiallyphasedconstructionschedule,likelyusingonecrewperdisciplinetypethatmoves
aroundtheprojectsite.
23.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestostartconstruction

ofallfacilitiesassoonaspossibleafterundergroundinfrastructureiscomplete,andconsider
multiplecrewsperdisciplinetoacceleratethescheduleandcompleteconstructionsooner.
23.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this concept.

23.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This item will reduce schedule impacts.

23.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risk would result from this approach.

23.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with the alternative presented above and can recommend
its acceptance.

30

24 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP1: Considerassumingahigherrecovery
rateontheROto50%onthefirstpassand90%onthesecondpass(48%totalrecovery)

24.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theexistingdesignisbasedon45%recoveryrate
ofthefirstpassSWROsystemand90%recoveryrateofthesecondpass.Thetotalplant
recoveryrateisapproximately43%.

24.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestodesignthe
desalinationplantsuchthattherecoveryofthefirst(SWRO)passis50%insteadof45%.By
definition,recoveryisthepercentageofraw(source)waterconvertedintodesalinatedwater.
ThehigherthedesignROsystemrecovery,thelesssourcewaterisneededtobecollected,
pretreatedanddesalinatedtoproducethesamevolumeoffreshwater.IncreaseoftheSWRO
systemrecoveryfrom45%to50%willresultin11%(50%/45%=1.11)lowerintake,
pretreatmentsystem,andSWROsystem.Afigurewidelyusedforplantswithintakewellsis
50%recovery.

24.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this revision, because it reduces the cost of the well
system, feed piping, pumping equipment and other associated equipment, which contribute
significantly to the capital and operating costs. However, at a recovery of 50%, and
assuming normal sea water concentration of 34,400 mg/L the brine concentration will
exceed the required maximum about 62,500 mg/L. At 50% recovery, the brine will have a
concentration of about 68,650 mg/L. Thus, this item cannot be addressed until the well
supply has been developed and the final water quality has been determined.
Regarding the electrical requirement for the HP pump, the electrical requirement is about
35% higher energy usage for the 50% case as compared with the 45% case. However, this
additional cost will be more than offset by the reduction in well supply electricity usage
and lower capital costs for the well and associated piping and valves feeding the process.
For the higher recovery, there may exist a problem obtaining the required boron content in
the final permeate, which will require further study. This will depend upon the membrane
used. For example the boron concentration can be met using the DOW membrane, but not
with the Hyrdanautics membrane. These conclusions were reached using the
manufacturers projection programs and should be verified.
The design of the SWRO process has to include a flux as well as a recovery optimization in
order to determine the optimized design. The optimization of flux is required because as
with the recovery, as the flux changes, the operating pressure changes as well.
Confirmation of the optimized design cannot be performed at this time due to the fact that
the feed water quality is not known.

31

24.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This alternative will result in impacting the project schedule;
due to the revision in design.
24.5 SPI Risk Impacts: The risk associated with this alternative is not considered to be a
significant factor.
24.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI cannot recommend this alternative until the final feed water
quality is known.

32

25 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP2: Installaplugonthemainpermeates
lineafterthesecondorthirdmembraneandusesallofthesameelements
25.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Atpresent,theSWROsystemvessel

configurationhasaninternallystageddesignwheretwodifferenttypesofmembranes
(SWC5LDandSWC6LD)elementsareused.Seethebaselineconceptfigureonthefollowing
page.
Thedesignincludesasplitpermeateconfigurationwhereaportionofthepermeatewater
producedfromthefront3elementsisremovedfromthefrontofthevesselsratherthan
allowedtomixwiththepermeatewaterfromtheremainderoftheelementswithinthevessel.
Twodifferenttypesofelementsareusedinordertomaximizethebenefitofcollectinghigh
qualitywaterfromthefrontendofthevessels.Ifthesameelementsareused,thepermeate
watercollectedfromthefrontofthevesselswillnotbeofashighofqualitybecausepermeate
fromthebackandfrontmembranesinthevesselwillmixandbackelementsalwaysproduce
worsequalitypermeatethanfrontelements.SWC5LDisahighersaltrejection,lower
productivityelementthanSWC6LD.
25.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisalternativeproposestousethesameRO

elementsfortheentirevesselforexampleSWC5orSWC5+elements(orother
nonHydranauticselementswiththesameorhigherproductivity)andinstallapluginthe
permeatetubebetweenthe3rdand4
th
elementsinthevessels.UseofthesameROelements
withinthevesselswillsimplifyplantoperation(i.e.,membranerotationandprocurement)and
lowermembranereplacementcosts.
25.3 SPI Comment: SPI supports this idea. Use of this system will result in improved
water quality without sacrificing technical aspects or costs.

This design has been accomplished in many SWRO installations and will result in obtaining
a better permeate water quality because the permeate water is taken from the lead
elements which produce the lowest TDS. SPI finds that no problems will result if this
alternative is chosen.

This alternative will also result in the reduction of electrical consumption in the HP pump
of the next stage. This reduction carries a present worth of $142,000.00.

There appears no benefit of increasing the number of elements from 7 to 8. Doing this,
would reduce the water quality coming from the lead elements (i.e., higher TDS) and
increase the TDS of the permeate water from the lower membranes. This would increase
the electrical usage due to the higher operating pressure. Therefore, eliminating any
advantage offered by using 8elements per pressure vessel.



33

25.5 SPI Risk Impacts: There is no risk for using 7membranes but an increased risk of
higher cost of water for using 8elements per pressure vessel.
25.6 SPI Conclusion: This alternative cannot be evaluated until the final feed water quality
is known.

34

26 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP3: InstallasecondpassbrackishROtrain
onthesplitstreamtoimprovewaterqualityandreduceenergyuse

26.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: InstallasecondpassbrackishROtrainonthesplit
streamtoimprovewaterqualityandreduceenergyuse.

26.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoinstalla
brackishwaterROtreatmentsystemforthepermeatecollectedfromthefrontoftheSWRO
vesselsinordertousetheenergyinthisstreamtoproducebetterqualityfrontpermeatewater
andreducethesizeofthesecondpass.Becausethepermeatecarriesenergyadequateto
retreatitthroughasecondpass,noadditionalpumpingwillbeneeded.Therecoveryofthe
frontendpermeatewillbe95%andthewaterqualitywillbeof20mg/LTDSorless,as
comparedtotheTDSofthefrontendpermeatewhichwillbe80to120mg/L.

26.3 SPI Comment: This concept will result in increasing energy usage, because pressure
is, of course necessary in order to produce water in this new stage. During operation the
membranes will foul, increasing the pressure requirement of the first pass HP pump for
water production. As this occurs, two operating scenarios can be taken, the first would be
to maintain the pressure of the first pass in a constant condition and in the second case,
and the pressure can be increased. Both of these operating scenarios are not
recommended, because in the case of maintaining constant pressure, the production from
the first pass will decrease. In the second case to maintain production, the increase in
pressure leads to an increase in electrical usage.

In addition, there is no need to improve the water quality from the process.

For these reasons, SPI does not support the use of this alternative.

26.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The implementation of this additional pass will result in
changes in design of the process, also affecting the layout and arrangement drawings. It is
estimated that this change would require an additional month for redesign, specification,
ordering of equipment and site construction time. A t5ime extension of one month can be
expected.

26.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This is a new proposal. That it is not normally used in a
conventional SWRO process. Thus, it is not fully proven.
26.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that this alternative not be included in the final
design.

35

27 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP4: Eliminatesulfuricacidadditionfrom
process

27.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Sulfuricacidisincludedinthebaselineconceptas
atoolforcontrollingtheformationofcalciumcarbonateonthemembranes.

27.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoeliminate
sulfuricacidequipmentbasedonthefactthattheproductionwaterisanticipatedtobenearly
100%seawater,wheremagnesiumcarbonateisthedriver.

27.3 SPI Comment: If the acid is used for pretreatment, it produces carbon dioxide as it
mixes with the sea water supply. This carbon dioxide can be recovered in a decarbonator
and used for the post treatment step. This eliminates the need for purchasing carbon
dioxide and can reduce operating costs.
The collection of carbon dioxide for use in the post treatment step is not a new idea. It is
carried out in many plants in the Middle East area.
27.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No design revisions are required.
27.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks result from this revision.
27.6.1 Capital Cost
The capital costs are given in the following table:


36

TP4CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
Decarbonator 1 0.00 0.00 1 475,000.00
CarbonDioxide
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL 0 475,000
SAVINGS 475,000.00

The life cycle costs are given in the following table:
TP4LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
Annual
Cost Total
DecarbonatorBlower Kw 7.5 0.00 1 6,200.00 6,200.00
Decarb,Amortization 1 42,180.00 42,180.00
CarbonDioxideUsage mg/L 15 96,000.00 302,500.00 0.00 0.00
AcidUsage mg/L 49.5 475,000.00 475,000.00 49.5 475,000.00 475,000.00
SUBTOTAL 777,500.00 523,380.00
TOTAL 777,500.00 523,380.00 523,380.00
PW 8,754,650.00 PW 5,893,259
SAVINGS 2,861,391.2

27.7 SPI Conclusion: The cost savings resulting from this change shows the significant
benefit offered. SPI recommends that the sulfuric acid treatment in the present design be
used and the resulting formation of carbon dioxide be collected for use in post treatment.


37

28 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP5:Provideasparechemicalinjection
functiontoDesalPlant
28.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptprojectdoesnotinclude
additionalspaceorequipmenttoaccommodatechemicalinjectionbeyondthecurrently
assumedwatertreatment
28.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestoconstructan

outbuildingseparatefromtheRObuildingsufficienttohouseenoughchemicalstoragetanks
andequipmenttosupportfuturechemicalinjectionintothewateraftertheROmembranes.
28.3 SPI Comment: Additional chemical treatment facilities can always be provided at the
future time when additional capacity is added. The provision of this facility should be based
on the future expansion requirements, which are not known at this time.

28.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This item will increase the design and construction periods of
the facility.

28.5 SPI Risk Impacts: The risk incurred is based on the additional time and costs for this
alternative.

28.6 SPI Conclusion: The costs given in the VE study assumed a specific additional plant
capacity. However, at this time the additional capacity is not known, so the building
provided may in fact be too large or not large enough. Since the addition of this building
will incur redesign, additional architectural services and increased construction time, it is
considered not practical at this time.

38

29 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP6: EliminatetheUVtreatmentsystem
29.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Inthebaselineconcept,theUVsystemis
installeddownstreamoftheROmembranesandupstreamofthepoststabilizationsystem.The
purposeofthesystemistoprovideaminimum4loginactivationofGiardiaand
Cryptosporidium.Thesystemconsistsof3trainsofreactorsina2+1configuration.Thetrain
consistsofaflowmeter(forflowdocumentation),reactor,andaflowvalve.Eachtrainwill
haveaUPStoprovide10minutesofridethroughtimeuponpowerfailure.
29.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisconceptproposestoremovetheUV

systemfromtheproject.Differentmethodsofobtainingthe4logremovalcouldbeinstalled.
ThesemethodsaredescribedinVEAlternativeTP7whichsuggeststheuseofeithera
coagulantchamberwithflocculationoranothertypeofpretreatment.Theexactmethodis
undefinedandaroughcostestimateisgiven.
29.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this alternative. Different systems could be employed
and to determine which system to recommend would require further study.

29.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Including this alternative will result in a reduction in
construction time.

29.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks are identified.

28.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends acceptance of this alternative provided disinfection
credits can be achieved elsewhere in the process.


39

30 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP7: Considermoreefficientwaysof
meetingCTrequirements(flocculationchamber,membranepretreatment,etc.)

30.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Existinggranularmediapretreatmentfiltersdo
nothaveflocculation/mixingchamberandcoagulantaddition,whichdoesnotallowthemtobe
givenPathogenremovalcreditsbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).

30.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativewouldinstalla
flocculation/mixingchamberupstreamoftheexistingfilterstoreceive2logpathogenremoval
creditfromtheCDPH.Installingamixingchamberwillimprovetheoxidationofironand
manganese(iftheyarefoundinthewater)andresultinimprovedremovalofthesecompounds
aswell.Installmembranepretreatmentfiltersinsteadofgranularmediapretreatmentfiltersto
receive4logremovalcreditfromtheCDPH,andeliminatetheneedforcartridgefiltersandthe
UVdisinfectionsystem.

30.3 SPI Comment: Normal sea water does not contain manganese or iron. Thus, there is
no need to remove these constituents. The installation of membrane filtration as a
pretreatment step will increase the project costs and the cost of operation significantly.
Adding flocculation would require the addition of ferric chloride. The addition of this
chemical (iron) will not be allowed to be discharged to the sea without treatment
(removal). This treatment step is quite costly from both the capital and operating cost
stand point.
In addition, the solids removed in this treatment step would have to be trucked to a land fill
or similar facility.
30.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The VE study states that the project schedule would be
increased by one month for the commissioning of these membranes. It neglects to mention
that this change would also require a revision to the design and construction periods of the
facility.
This alternative will have a significant impact on the project costs and schedule and
therefore is not recommended as a viable alternative.
30.5 SPI Risk Impacts: Increased capital and operating costs (see below).
30.6.1 Capital Costs

40

TP7CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST Total QTY COST Total
MediaFilters 10 60,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 10 600,000.00 600,000.00
Flocculation 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 5,000.00 50,000.00
DischargeTreatment 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
FerricChlorideCapital 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 53,000.00 53,000.00
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 3,658,000.00 3,703,000.00
TOTAL 600,000 4,303,000
SAVINGS 3,703,000.00

TP7LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
Annual
Cost Total
MediaFilters 10 53,280.00 53,280.00 53,928.00 53,928.00
Flocculation 10 4,440.00 4,440.00
DischargeTreatment 1 266,400.00 266,400.00
FerricChlorideCapital 10 4,706.40 4,706.40
FerricChlorideUse 10 62,500.00 62,500.00
SUBTOTAL 53,280.00 391,974.40 391,974.40
TOTAL 53,280.00 391,974.40 391,974.40
PW 599,932.80 PW 4,413,632
SAVINGS 3,813,698.9

30.7 SPI Conclusion: SPI does not recommend inclusion of this alternative for the final
design.

41

31 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP8: Eliminatebafflesinthetreatedwater
storagetanks;obtainCTpointselsewhere
31.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: ThebaselineconceptincludestwoHypalonbaffle
curtainspertreatedwaterstoragetanktoachievea0.5bafflingfactorandprovide1log
inactivationofgiardia.
31.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thebaselineconceptrecommendsdeleting

thebafflesintreatedwaterstoragetanks.RequiredContactTime(CT)pointswillbeachieved
elsewhereinthesystem.
31.3 SPI Comment: The elimination of these baffles would appear to be unwarranted at
this time.

31.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Elimination of the baffles could result in an increased risk of
not obtaining the required final water quality.

31.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No increased risk was found

31.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that this alternative not be accepted.

42

32 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP9: Optimizeconfigurationfromintake
wellstoROmembranesystem

32.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludesthefollowingsteps
forpumpingwaterfromthebaytotheinletoftheROhighpressurepumps:
1.Slantwellswithsubmersiblepumpsandmotorspumpwaterthroughthepressure
filtersanddischargetothefilteredwatertanks.
2.FilteredWaterPumpspumpwaterthroughthecartridgefiltersandtothesuction
sideofROhighpressurepumps.

32.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: SeveralitemsarepresentedinthisVE
alternativethatmayresultinasavingsinconstructioncostoroperationalcosts.Thismaybe
evenmorenecessaryifthepretreatmentprocessischangedinordertoobtainmoreCT
disinfectioncredit(SeeVEAlternativeTP7).Thealternativeconceptswouldinclude(asa
minimum):
1.Changingtheconfigurationofthefilteredwatertanks.Forexample,usingconcrete
withcommonwallconstructionbymakingitrectangular
2.Usingverticalturbinepumpsasthefilteredwaterpumps.Thismayresultinmore
efficientpumpsandmorecosteffectiveconstruction
3.Ifitisfeasibletohavelessthan600,000gallonsoffilteredwatertankstorage,this
wouldallowtheprojecttoreducetanksizeandassociatedcosts
4.IfflocculationisusedtoincreasetheCTdisinfectioncredits,thentheentirepumping
layoutwillhavetobereevaluated

32.3 SPI Comment:
Optimization of the configuration would be recommended for any process design.
However, until the final feed water quality is known, it is only conjecture at this
time. Thus, the optimization of the system would be completed after the well has
been developed and the feed quality is known.

32.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Any schedule impacts cannot be determined at this time.

32.5 SPI Risk Impacts: Any risks are associated with the results of the final feed water
quality.

32.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that this alternative not be pursued at this point.


43

33 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP10: Considersandremovalprocessprior
topretreatment
33.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselinedesignanticipatesproductionwells

withoutaruntowaste,andpumpingdirectlytopressurefiltersatthedesalinationplantto
capturesand/siltandparticulate.

33.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestoinstall
runtowasteabilityeitheratthedesalinationplantoratwellheadswhenwellsarefirstcycled.

33.3 SPI Comment: The runtowaste system is normally provided for all SWRO systems,
as the water is not sent to the RO process until it meets the SDI requirements of the
membrane manufacturer.
The VE study expresses concern in this regard with elimination of sand before the pressure
filters. However a properly designed and constructed well will not produce sand.
If it is found that the well has not been constructed properly and sand ingress becomes a
problem, a strainer can be installed to eliminate this condition at that time.
33.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: A properly designed and constructed well, will not result in
having sand in the supply. Well supply systems for SWRO systems are the preferred
process due to the low amount of constituents in this type of supply.
33.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks are associated with this type of feed water supply system.
33.6 SPI Cost Estimate
33.6.1 Capital Cost

44

TP10CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST Total QTY COST Total
Media/SandFilters 10 60,000.00 600,000.00 2 50,000.00 100,000.00
Backwash 2 62,000.00 124,000.00
BrinePonds
2 550,000 1,100,000.00
Pump&PipingCost 2 92,000.00 184,000.00 2 50,000.00 100,000.00
TOTAL 2,008,000 200,000
SAVINGS 1,808,000.00

TP10LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
Annual
Cost Total
Media/SandeFilters 53,280.00 53,280.00 8,880.00 8,880.00
Backwash 11,011.20 11,011.20 0.00
BrinePonds
97,680.00 97,680.00 0.00
Pump&PipingCost 16,339.20 16,339.20 8,880.00 8,880.00
TOTAL 178,310.40 0.00 17,760.00
PW 2,007,775.10 PW 199,978
SAVINGS 1,807,797.5

33.7 SPI Conclusion: This alternative cannot be technically evaluated until the well has
been developed and the water quality is known. Therefore, SPI recommends that this
alternative not be considered at this time.

45

34 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP11: Eliminatethebackwashtreatment
systemanddischargedirectlytobrinebasin
34.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theexistingconfigurationhasthebackwash
wastegoingtotwobackwashponds.Thewateristhensettledandsenteithertothefrontof
theplantortotheoutfall.Thesolidssettleoutandneedtoberemovedperiodicallybyplant
staff,whichdewateranddisposeofthesolids.Thebaselineconceptalsocontainsonelarge
brinestoragepondwhichisusedtostorebrinebeforeitisdisposedofbypumpingittothe
outfall.

34.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoeliminate
thebackwashponds.Thebackwashwasteandbrinewouldbesenttothesameponds.The
brinepondswouldbereconfiguredandenlargedintotwoseparateponds.Thecombination
backwashwaste/brinewouldbedisposedofbypumpingittotheoutfall.Thepondswouldbe
configuredtobedewateredandthesludgeremoved,dewatered,anddisposedofoffsite.

34.3 SPI Comment: There appears to be no drawbacks to employing this alternative.
34.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks have been identified.
34.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI sees a benefit in terms of capital facilities and operating costs at
the desal facility. However, it would have impacts in terms of raw water supply and brine
disposal that must be considered as well. The treatment of backwash waste conserves the
amount of raw water pumped from the supply wells to the site; which would otherwise
have to be made up with additonal or larger supply wells. Separately, comingly filter
backwash residuals with waste brine may impact the securing of a disposal authorization
to the MRWPCA ocean outfall. Given these concerns we do not see a net benefit with the
proposal.


46

35 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP12: Installsystemtoblendthebrinewith
rawwater
35.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptdoesnotaddresshowbrine
willbedisposedofwhenthereisnoflowintheoutfallfromtheMRWPCAwastewaterplant.
Modelingisstillbeingperformedtoevaluatewhethertheoutfalldiffuserscanprovide
sufficientdilutionintotheseawaterwhenthebrineisnotcombinedwithanytreated
wastewatereffluent.
35.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Ifadditionaldilutionisrequiredduringperiods

ofnotreatedwastewatereffluentavailability,thissolutioncouldpossiblyprovidesufficient
dilution.Theproposedalternativesolutionwoulduserawwaterfromtheslantwellsto
augmentthebrineflowtotheoutfall.
35.3 SPI Comment: The blending of the brine with raw water allows the plant to continue
producing water when there is insufficient waste water to blend the brine with for
disposal. This would prevent the shutdown of the plant or the storage of membranes in
sterilized solution. Thus, it is recommended by SPI as a viable alternative.

35.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: There should be no schedule impacts due to this item.

35.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No increased risks are perceived.
35.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends acceptance of this alternative.


47

36 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP13:For6.4MGDplantoption,eliminate
brinepitandcirculatethepermeateandbrineuntildischargeisallowed
36.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: BrineconcentrateflowsfromROsystemtoBrine

dischargeatMRWPCAoutfallusingexcesspressurefromROprocess.Whenoutfallcapacityis
exceeded,brineisdirectedtoa3milliongallonbrinestoragepond.A6MGDbrinepump
stationisusedtodrawdownthebrinestoragepondwhentheoutfallcapacityisrestored.Plant
feedwateroverflow,aswellasseveralotheroverflowsources,arealsosenttothebrine
storagepond.
36.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisconceptproposestodeletetheBrine

StoragePondandBrinePumpStationandrecirculateplantflowtoheadofplantwhenthe
MRWPCAoutfallcapacityisnotavailable.Theslantwellswouldneedtobeshutoffwhen
outfallcapacityisnotavailable.Inordertorecirculatetheflowandkeeptheplantinready
standby,a16MGDrecirculationpumpstationwouldbeneeded.
36.3 SPI Comment: This alternative does not address the 9.6 mgd case. In either event, the
plant may have to be secured in the event the disposal of brine cannot be carried out. In
that case it is recommended that the plant be put into intermittent operation (i.e.,
operation every 2days for a period of 4hours).

36.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts result

35.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risk impacts result.
36.6 SPI Conclusion: The costs given for this alternative do not appear to justify its use.
Agenda Report

Item No: 10.


SUBJECT: Receive report and discuss updated MPWSP Critical Path (CPM) Permits
& Approvals Schedule (detailed version) to include the CEMEX Access
Issue, especially and as it pertains to the November Coastal Commission
meeting to consider the Test Slant Well, and provide staff direction.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Authority receive an update from Cal Am on the SUMMARY
schedule to appeal the Marina City Council rejection of the Test Slant well, to secure
access to the CEMEX site, to obtain a CDP from the Coastal Commission in November
2014, and provide staff direction as appropriate.

DISCUSSION:

The Marina City Council considered the Test Slant Well MND and City CDP at its
meeting of Sept 4, 2014. The Council voted 3-2 rejecting the approvals based on an
interpretation of CEQA law that a full EIR is required if experts, "based on factual
evidence", disagree. Cal Am appealed the decision to the Coastal Commission.

However, CEMEX has recently denied Cal Am access to the test well site, endangering
the plan to have the Coastal Commission consider the appeal at its November 2014
meeting as well as to issue a Coastal Commission CDP for the test well.

Unfortunately, the approval of access was not identified on the Permits and Approvals
Critical Path schedule prepared by Cal Am.

Cal Am has been requested to discuss the SUMMARY version of the Permits and
Approvals schedule, including the CEMEX access issue and other similar issues that
need to be on the critical path.

Following discussion, the Water Authority is requested to determine what if any
communication should be provided the Coastal Commission in advance of the
November Coastal Commission meeting.

EXHIBIT:

A- CPM (SUMMARY version) Permits and Approval Schedule

MPWSP Anticipated Schedule
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
DEIR
Jan 2015
FEIR
July 2015
Construction & Commissioning
S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
60%
09-2014
90%
03-2016
Final
06-2016
Start-up Window
Partial or Full
Construction & Commissioning
Start Construction
07-2016
Design, Easements, Permitting & Contracts
CCC
Approval
Feb-Mar. 2016
Nov. 12-14
Coastal Comm.
Hearing

Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update and is accurate to +/-6 months.
Sept. 3
Marina
Council
Decision
SWRCB Current
CDO Deadline
Dec. 31, 2016
!
Pipelines / Tanks / BPS
Desal Plant
Test Well
EIR
Construction
Slant Wells
Phase 1
2019
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A
CPUC
Approval
Q3 2015
Slant Wells
Phase 3
Slant Wells
Phase 2
Production Wells
Mid 2018 Q1 2019
Test Well Operation
Start Construction
04-2016
(if needed)
Design & Permitting
MPWSP Anticipated Schedule
Snowy Plover Nesting Season
Limited Construction Activity
Updated October 2, 2014
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

1
0
/
9
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

2
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

9
4
MRWPCA Test Well Outfall Agreement & Approval
Contracts
Awarded
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
CEMEX Test Well Schedule
Finalize
Report
6/18-
6/27
7/10
Marina
Planning
Commission

CCC
Prepare & Distribute
Staff Report

Nov. 12-14
CCC Mtg
for Appeal &
Original
Application

Test Well RFP
Preparation
RFP
released
RFP received, evaluated, negotiated
CEQA
NEPA
Finalize Report
6/18-6/20
Public Review
6/23-7/26
Prepare
Draft
FONSI
7/26-8/10
Construction
MBNMS
Review of
FONSI 8/10-
8/30
Final
FONSI
9/1
9/15
FONSI
Approval
9/15
10/1
Agreements & Land
Construction
(mid Nov to March 1)
CEMEX Easement / Access Rights
9/3
Submittal
approvals and
pre-con activity
Order Long Lead Items (pump, stainless steel screens, pump column)
CCC
Appeal
Filed
9/24
Council
Special
Mtg
Post
Appr.
Compl.
Items

2014
2014
Cemex Slant Test Well Anticipated Schedule
Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update.
Court Proceedings
10/8: CalAm briefs & proposed order
10/15: CEMEX file opposition
10/22: CalAm file replies
10/31: Hearing & Decision
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

1
0
/
9
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

3
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

9
5
CEMEX Test Well Schedule
Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update is accurate to +/-3 months.
Submit
Project to
Lead
Agency
Finalize
IS/MND

CEQA CA STATE PARKS LEAD AGENCY
NEPA
Draft EA
Prepare, Revise, Review
30-day
Public
Public
Review
Prepare
Draft
FONSI
MBNMS
Review of
FONSI
Final
FONSI
FONSI
Approval
30-day
Public
Review
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT
2014 2015
Potrero Slant Test Well Anticipated Schedule
Draft IS/MND
Prepare, Responsible Agency Comments
Revise, Review
Submit
Project to
Lead
Agency
Lead Agency
IS/MND
Approval
Review
Final
IS/MND

Coastal Commission
10-day
Appeal
CCC
Prepare &
Distribute
Staff Report

CCC Mtg
Sept. 9-11

Construction
(mid-Oct to March 1)
2015 2015
M
P
R
W
A

M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,

1
0
/
9
/
2
0
1
4

,

t
e
m

N
o
.

1
0
.
,

t
e
m

P
a
g
e

4
,

P
a
c
k
e
t

P
a
g
e

9
6
Agenda Report

Item No: 11.


SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide guidance, including the nature and
timing of a Water Authority letter to the SWRCB, on current efforts to seek
an extension of the CDO date based on circumstances beyond
Community control.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Water Authority discuss the tone and timing of letters to the
State Water Resources Board (SWRCB), as well as other appropriate actions to support
an extension of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO 2009-60) deadline.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting of August 14, 20914, the Water Authority Board voted to draft a letter to
the SWRCB notifying the State Board of delays in the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) beyond the control of Cal Am or the Community. These
notifications would support a CDO time extension. The Water Authority also directed
that a letter be drafted to the CPUC requesting that it also write the SWRCB concerning
these delays, including those resulting from the preparation of the EIR.

Since representatives of the Water Authority are scheduled to attend a SWRCB staff
meeting in Sacramento on November 7th to discuss the CDO, the Executive Director
suggests these letters be prepared after that meeting takes place and after we have
better defined our strategy for getting an extension.


MPRWA FINAL Agenda Packet 10-09-14 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MPRWA FINAL Agenda Packet 10-09-14 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

JPA Desalination Facility Subtotal, $/AF $1,465

Distribution System Subtotal, $/AF $1,480

Total Unit Water Cost ($/AF) $2,945

JPA Desalination Facility Subtotal, $/AF $1,465

Distribution System Subtotal, $/AF $620

Total Unit Water Cost ($/AF) $2,085

$23.0 $17.7 $-0- $-0- $-0- $-0-

$10.6 $7.94 $11.2 $7.94 $20.2 $13.6

5.2Description of Alternative Concept: Thisrecommendationsimplyproposestheproject

5.3SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change.

6.1VE Description of Baseline Concept: Table197RiskCategoriesoftheBODRcallsfor

6.2Description of Alternative Concept: TheVEteamrecommendsthatacloserlookshould

6.3SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change.

8.2VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativecallsfora

9.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theexistingelectricaldistributionsystemhasthe

9.2VE Description of Alternative Concept: Changethe2500transformersfrom"4160volt

10.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thelandscapedesigninthe30%submittal

10.2VE Description of Alternative Concept: Exploreanddesignameanstoeliminatethe

12.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoreplace

13.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptat30%stagedoesnot

13.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Installapermanentconnectionbetweenthe

14.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no impact on the schedule.

17.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestosubstitute

18.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestheinstallationof

18.6 SPI Cost Estimate:

18.6.2 Life Cycle Costs

18.7 SPI Conclusion:SPIrecommendstheremovalofthesetanks.

19.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: IntheROBuilding,theinstallationofa

20.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisconceptproposestoprovideportable

20.3 SPI Comment: SPI has no opinion or this matter.

21.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Toprovideforredundancyduringtank

23.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: TheCDMSmithproposedscheduleindicatesa

23.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestostartconstruction

23.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this concept.

25.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Atpresent,theSWROsystemvessel

25.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisalternativeproposestousethesameRO

28.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposestoconstructan

29.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisconceptproposestoremovetheUV

31.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thebaselineconceptrecommendsdeleting

33.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselinedesignanticipatesproductionwells

35.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Ifadditionaldilutionisrequiredduringperiods

36.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: BrineconcentrateflowsfromROsystemtoBrine

36.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: ThisconceptproposestodeletetheBrine

Anda mungkin juga menyukai