Action: Received Schedule Discussed Accepted Amended CPUC Schedule

MI NUT E S
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Regular Meeting
10:30 AM, Monday, March 7, 2016
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Members Present
Members Absent:
Alternate Scott Dick, Huss, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt,

Van Der Maaten, Executive Director Cullem
Riedl
Staff Present:
Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS
Member Stoldt reported that Dale Hekhuis passed away in February, who was a former
member of the Water Management District. Director Cullem acknowledged
remembrance of Dale Hekhuis.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Executive Director Cullem opened comments, and receiving no requests to speak
closed public comments.
CONSENT ITEMS
1.
Receive Latest CPUC Schedule for Consideration of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem
Action: Received schedule; Discussed; Accepted amended CPUC schedule
Member Riley said that the date on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
report is incorrect, instead of April 11 & 12 it should be April 14 & 15.
Chair Cullem pointed out that all rebuttal testimony to the CPUC is due by March 22,
2016.
On a motion by Member Sciuto, seconded by Member Stoldt, and carried by the
following vote, the Technical Advisory Committee accepted the CPUC Schedule for
Consideration of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project as amended with dates
revised to April 14 & 15:
AYES:
7 MEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
0
1
0
0
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
Huss, Dick, Stoldt, Sciuto, Van Der Maaten,

Riley, Cullem
None
Riedl
Nine
None
MPRWA Minutes
Monday, March 7, 2016
AGENDA ITEMS
2.
Review Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations to the Water Authority Board on
the Supplemental Testimony Submitted to the CPUC for the MPWSP - Cullem
Action: Discussed; Recommended no action be taken
Chair Cullem said that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) has
requested that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) discuss whether rebuttal
testimony should be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by
March 22nd. He said that specifically the testimonies by Thomas Moore and Curtis
Hopkins have information that the TAC may want to recommend be disputed in rebuttal
testimony.
Member Riley said that Thomas Moores testimony included a letter from the State
Water Board from 2013 that suggested that Cal Am has an intake under the ocean bed
and salvaged water rights apply. He said this is incorrect and Cal Ams intake is not
under the ocean, but under land. He questioned whether this misinformation changes
the CPUC argument.
Don Freeman said that rebuttal testimony must reference testimony submitted on
January 22nd, or its too late.
Member Van Der Maaten said that if rebuttal involves water quality, then it can be
included. He referenced Svindlands testimony which mentions water quality.
Don Freeman suggested submitting two rebuttals, one referencing the testimony on
water quality, and one referencing testimony on Cal Ams intake location.
Chair Cullem opened public comment:
Michael Bear, resident, stated in reading Curtis Hopkins testimony, his data says
there may be 12% more return water. He also said that Hopkins testimony says
the water is being pumped south of the river and being returned north of the river
which he believes is a legal problem.
Tom Rowley, representing Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA),

said that the medias report regarding the January 22nd CPUC hearing did not
have much emphasis on ratepayer taxes. He said MPTA believes Ground Water
Replenishment (GWR) should be a backup project and use the portfolio
approach with the larger desal plant. He voiced concerned about the ratepayers
having an increase in water bills and are not being considered. He asked the
TAC if anyone can testify in person during the rebuttal CPUC hearings on behalf
of the ratepayers.
MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes - Monday, March 7, 2016
2
MPRWA Minutes
Chair Cullem and the board addressed public comments.

Member Sciuto said that the rebuttal is submitted in writing on March 22nd, there is no
public hearing opportunity. Member Stoldt commented that the impact on ratepayers is
the first priority for the CPUC.
Chair Cullem said that a cost comparison study has been prepared by Member Stoldt,
and the Authority is concerned about the impact to the ratepayer. He continued that
there is risk on both sides and that is why the portfolio approach is being pursued. He
said the issue at hand is how and if the Authority should respond to the testimonies by
Hopkins and Moore.
Member Huss responded to Michael Bear saying that the growers have been affected
by seawater intrusion.
Member Van Der Maaten said that the Salinas Valley basin has sub basin lines and
there is a big difference in water quality between the north and south and that has not
been looked at in terms of the modeling. He said it is important to recognize that the
water intake should be recognized in the modeling and should be mitigated
appropriately.
Member Stoldt said that in data from the pause in the test well pumping, there was a
clear decline in water level from the 180, and if its not coming from agricultural
pumping, then there could be a pressure zone. He said there is a lot of information to
weave together in a rebuttal.
Member Riley said that the reason there is opposition to slant wells, is because there is
no solid science behind it. He said he does not believe Cal Ams test period data they
presented to the public as a continuous pumping, when he knows that the test well did
not pump for 3 months. He continued that the Coastal Commission also acknowledges
that there are differences in Cal Ams data points, and questions which agency is going
to parse together this data.
Chair Cullem responded that the CPUC has a process and all the data from the test
wells will be fed into the model and revised EIR, and at that time address issues being
raised about the test wells.
Member Riley said he has been asking the TAC to look at potential litigation risk, and
the Authority has been going along with blinders on as far as litigation. He questioned
what plan B is if there is litigation that stops or slows the slant wells.

3
MPRWA Minutes
Chair Cullem voiced his understanding of Member Rileys concerns about potential
litigation and said that the Authority could agendize this issue at a future meeting and
have legal counsel address it.
Don Freeman said that all parties are aware of potential litigation, but if the Authority
focuses on litigation risks and doesnt move forward in its process, it may hurt the Water
Supply Projects outcome.
Member Sciuto said the Authority should agendize an item to discuss potential litigation
scenarios so they are acknowledged.
Member Van Der Maaten said he believes that having a matrix of potential risks with the
corresponding mitigation to the risks would be beneficial.
Member Riley said that Cal Am has contingencies in place and he wants to know the
Water Management Districts contingency plan or plan B is for a water source.
Chair Cullem said that Plan B should be established so the Authority knows where to go
if the current plan fails. He said to find out what the matrix of liability is, its going to cost
money to have legal counsel prepare this. Member Riley suggested that the discussion
about potential litigation does not need to include a legal presentation.
Member Huss said that if the Authority starts looking at potential litigation problems for
the current plan, then Plan B litigation risks will also have to be looked at, and so on.
Member Riley said that a discussion on potential litigation can wait.
Chair Cullem opened public comments:
Tom Rowley, representing MPTA, questioned why a representative from Cal Am

isnt at the meeting, and opined that an updated timetable for the Water Supply
Project available at each meeting.
Michael Bear, resident, said that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may
provide guidance to answer these questions. He said if aquifer intake isnt
available at Cemex then Potrero Road should be looked into. He continued that
at the monitoring well, the water was 49 percent seawater, now its 60 percent,
and it can be used as a buffer even if it doesnt have agricultural use.
Receiving no further requests to speak Chair Cullem closed public comments.

4
MPRWA Minutes
Chair Cullem asked the TAC to return to the question at hand regarding whether the
TAC should recommend that the Authority submit rebuttal testimony to the CPUC on
March 22nd.
Member Sciuto asked for clarification on which testimonies and issues to submit rebuttal
testimony for. Chair Cullem said that the issues in the testimonies are primarily those
regarding water return and intake, and if the Authority should authorize funds for
Hydrogeologist Thrupp from Geosyntec to submit technical rebuttal testimony to CPUC.
Member Stoldt said that the draft EIR may not be ready by April, depending on the
CPUC hearings. He said he believes there may be a lawsuit when the EIR comes out.
Alternate Member Dick said that in Carlsbad there were several lawsuits that delayed a
water supply project for 14 months.
Chair Cullem said there are potentially 3 testimonies that the Authority should analyze
and address during rebuttal, and the TAC needs to come to a decision on what to
recommend in time for the rebuttal deadline on March 22nd.
Member Riley said that Authority has prided itself in avoiding litigation, but questions if
the Authority will be more exposed to litigation when analyzing technical information.
On a motion by Member Riley, seconded by Member Huss, and carried by the following
vote, the Technical Advisory Committee will make no recommendation the Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority regarding submitting rebuttal testimony to the
CPUC by March 22nd:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
3.
5
2
1
0
0
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
Huss, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten

Dick, Cullem
Riedl
None
None
Member Stoldt said that the Authority may choose to make rebuttal testimony
regardless of the TACs recommendation.
Review and Discuss the Policy Position Statement Adopted by the Water Authority
Board on July 11, 2013, and Make Recommendations as to Whether any Changes,
Updates, or Additional Studies are Appropriate at this Time - Cullem
Action: Discussed; Will recommend to the Authority that this item be tabled until
it is reviewed by the TAC
Chair Cullem briefly described the four basic project criteria listed current Policy
Position Statement Adopted by the Water Authority Board, and asked the Board if
anything that should be changed in the Policy Statement.
5
MPRWA Minutes
Member Riley questioned how urgent the review of this Policy Position Statement is.
Chair Cullem responded the Authority needs to have input from the TAC before
President Burnett steps down from MPRWA.
Member Sciuto said that the policy is from 3 years ago and could stand to be updated
and more inclusionary as far as the four criteria, such as having project economics be
competitive. Member Stoldt said that the four criteria in the Policy Statement should be
more defined.
Chair Cullem briefly explained the Policy Position Statement spoke about some of the
suggested additions from the Authority and some other areas that may need to be
updated.
Member Riley voiced his concern about Monterey County being part of the Governance
Committee since they have not committed to contributing to MPRWA.
Don Freeman made the suggestion that the TAC recommend that the Authority
continues this item so there would be time to go over the Position Policy Statement in
detail and make suggestions. He also suggested forming an ad-hoc committee to focus
on evaluating and making changes to the Policy.
Several members volunteered and Executive Director Cullem selected members Sciuto
and Riley to join him as the subcommittee to review and rewrite the policy, and the
board discussed tabling this item until the draft rewrite is ready.
Executive Director Cullem opened public comment:
Tom Rowley, said that until the EIR EIS comes out there arent enough facts to
evaluate risks and said updating the Policy Statement is premature. He said that
Monterey council meeting addressed rate increases but said there is a lot of
confusion in the public.
On a motion by Member Riley, seconded by Member Stoldt, and carried by the following
vote, the Technical Advisory Committee recommends that the Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority table the rewriting of the Policy Position Statement until it has
been reviewed by the Subcommittee:
AYES:
7 MEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
0
1
0
0
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
Huss, Dick, Stoldt, Sciuto, Van Der Maaten,

Riley, Cullem
None
Riedl
None
None

6
MPRWA Minutes
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:09 pm.
ATTEST:
Nova Romero, Committee Clerk
MPRWA President

7

Action: Received Schedule Discussed Accepted Amended CPUC Schedule

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action: Received Schedule Discussed Accepted Amended CPUC Schedule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MI NUT E S

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

Alternate Scott Dick, Huss, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt,

Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero

Huss, Dick, Stoldt, Sciuto, Van Der Maaten,

Monday, March 7, 2016

Tom Rowley, representing Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA),

Monday, March 7, 2016

Chair Cullem and the board addressed public comments.

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes

Monday, March 7, 2016

Tom Rowley, representing MPTA, questioned why a representative from Cal Am

Receiving no further requests to speak Chair Cullem closed public comments.

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes

Monday, March 7, 2016

Huss, Riley, Sciuto, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten

Monday, March 7, 2016

Huss, Dick, Stoldt, Sciuto, Van Der Maaten,

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes

Monday, March 7, 2016

Nova Romero, Committee Clerk

MPRWA TAC Meeting Minutes

You might also like