TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-07-16

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS
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 TAC and which is not on the agenda. Any
person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so by
addressing the Committee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to:
MPRWA TAC, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate
staff person will contact the sender concerning the details.
CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff
recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request
that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.
1.
Receive Latest CPUC Schedule for Consideration of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem
AGENDA ITEMS
2.
Review Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations to the Water Authority Board on the
Supplemental Testimonty Submitted to the CPUC for the MPWSP - Cullem
3.
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
ADJOURNMENT
Created date 03/02/2016 5:11 PM

Monday, March 7, 2016
The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority 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 Monterey 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 35.10235.104 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 Monterey 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
FROM:
Date: March 07, 2016

Item No: 1.
Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT: Receive Latest CPUC Schedule for Consideration of the Monterey

Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority TAC receive the current CPUC schedule for
the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) dated November 17, 2015.
DISCUSSION:
On November 17, 2015 CPUC Administrative Judge (ALJ) Weatherford issued a
revised schedule included as Attachment A.
Cal Am provided updated costs estimates to the CPUC on December 15, 2015, and the
MPRWA, the MPWMD and the MRWPCA did the same on January 22, 2016. Additional
supplemental testimony from intervening parties was also provided to the ALJ on
January 22.
More discussion on the supplemental testimony is included with item # 3 on the TAC
agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- CPUC schedule for the MPWSP dated November 17, 2015.
06/12
ATTACHMENT A

Agenda Report
FROM:

Item No: 2.
SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations to the Water

Authority Board on the Supplemental Testimony Submitted to the CPUC for
the MPWSP
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority TAC discuss the supplemental testimony
that was submitted to the CPUC ALJ, especially that from Tom Moore and Curtis
Hopkins, and advise the Water Authority Board with respect to any rebuttal testimony
the TAC may recommend.
DISCUSSION:
Cal Am provided updated costs estimates to the CPUC on December 15, 2015, and the
MPRWA, the MPWMD and the MRWPCA did the same on January 22, 2016.
The supplemental testimonies submitted with the approval of the Water Authority Board
by Mayor Jason Burnett (Board President) and by Al Preston of Geosyntec (Authority's
hydrogeologic expert) are at attachments A and B.
The supplemental testimony submitted by Tom Moore of the MCWD Board is at
attachment C, and that submitted by Curtis Hopkins, a hydrogeologist for the MCWD, is
at Attachment D.
Other supplemental testimony that was submitted by interveners can be reviewed at the
Water Authority Web page under "Documents" within "Resource Central".
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Testimony of Jason Burnett
B- Testimony of Al Preston
C- Testimony of Tom Moore
D- Testimony of Curtis Hopkins
06/12
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Application of CaliforniaAmerican Water Company (U210W) for

Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All
Present and Future Costs in Rates
A.12-04-019
(Filed April 23, 2012)
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF JASON BURNETT
RUSSELL M. MCGLOTHLIN (SBN 208826)

JENA R. SHOAF (SBN 296060)
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-7000
Facsimile: (805) 965-4333
Email: rmcglotblin@blifs.com; - shclifs.sjon
Attorneys for:
MONTEREY PENINSULA REOIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY
Dated: January 22,2016

In the Matter of Application of CaliforniaAmerican Water Company (U210W) for

A.12-04-019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Introduction
II.
V.
The Water Authority's Support for Inclusion of GWR in the MPWSP
The Water Authority's Support for the Return Water Settlement Term Sheet
The Water Authority's Support for the Brine Discharge Settlement Term Sheet
8
9
VI.
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF JASON BURNETT

I.
Introduction
Ql:
Please state your name and business address.
Al: My name is Jason Burnett. My business address is Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall, Monte
Verde St., Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921.
Q2: By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A2: I am currently the Mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. I was elected
Mayor in 2012, was reelected in 2014, and was previously a member of the City Council from
2010 through 2012.
Q3: What offices and roles do you perform for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority ("Water Authority")?
A3:
I am currently the President of the Water Authority. I was previously its Vice-President
and the Chair of its Technical Advisory Committee. I have been highly involved in the Water
Authority's efforts concerning the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
proposed by the California-American Water Company ("Cal-Am") as well as efforts pertaining
to this proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"). I am also the
Water Authority's principal representative to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Governance Committee, which was established to afford community input into the planning and
development of the MPWSP, and I chair that committee.
Q4: Have you testified before the CPUC?
A4:
Yes, I provided testimony in the prior evidentiary phase of this proceeding in 2013.
Additional background testimony concerning my education and professional experience and the
role of the Water Authority and its efforts concerning the MPWSP are set forth in my earlier
testimony. I have also testified in an unrelated proceeding involving PG&E gas distribution.
Q5: What is the purpose of your testimony?
A5:
The purpose of my testimony is to testify in support of the following subjects:
Inclusion of the Pure Water Monterey Project, commonly referred to as the groundwater
replenishment project or "GWR" as a component of the MPWSP;
H.
The "return water" settlement term sheet; and
The draft brine discharge settlement term sheet.
The Water Authority's Support for Inclusion of GWR in the MPWSP
Q6: What is the Water Authority's position on whether GWR should be a component of the
MPWSP?
A6: The Water Authority has long supported a portfolio approach to solving our water supply
challenges. However, at the time of the submission of my earlier testimony we did not know
whether the GWR project would advance to the point of warranting our support for inclusion in
the portfolio. At that point, in 2013, we supported the notion of including the possibility of GWR
with a smaller desalination facility (6.4 million gallons per day or MGD) or the possibility of a
larger desalination facility (9.6 MGD) without GWR. Since 2013, the Water Authority and the
Governance Committee have pursued both options including through the request for proposal
(RFP) process for the design-build firm and a value engineering process that evaluated both 6.4
MGD and 9.6 MGD desalination plants. By pursuing both options, we kept both options open
until more information was available.
Since the submission of my earlier testimony, the Water Authority has held numerous public
meetings to receive updates on the planning efforts for the GWR project, to receive public
comment regarding the same, and to provide an opportunity for discussion by the Water
Authority's board of directors concerning the merits of including the GWR project as a
component of the MPWSP. We now conclude that GWR should be a component of the MPWSP.
Q7: What does the Water Authority consider to be the most important issues pertaining to
whether the GWR project should be a component of the MPWSP?
A7: The Water Authority believes the key issues include: (i) the timing of development of
GWR, (ii) the certainty of approvals, financing, and project viability; (iii) potential
2
improvements to the Monterey Peninsula's water supply reliability; (iv) potential interim
assistance in meeting the requirements of a proposed modified Cease and Desist Order (see
Attachment 1), which is presently under consideration by the State Water Resources Control
Board ("SWRCB"); (v) relative environmental impacts of GWR and desalination; (vi) the value
of continuing and enhancing the community consensus around a portfolio of water supply
projects; and (vii) the rate implications of GWR's inclusion. The Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District ("MPWMD") and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
("MR.WPCA"), in consultation with the Water Authority and Cal-Am have explored various
efforts to lower the cost of GWR, including the terms applicable to GWR within the Settlement
Agreement (discussed below), grant funding, cost sharing, and value engineering.
Q8: Please describe the criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement pertaining to GWR.
A8: The Settlement Agreement, which was entered into by the Water Authority and most of
the parties to this proceeding, and submitted to CPUC on July 31, 2013, provides that the
decision whether to include GWR as a component of the MPWSP should be based on whether
nine criteria are satisfied. I have paraphrased the nine criteria from the Settlement Agreement as
follows:
1.
An Elift has been completed for GWR without challenge;
2.
Permitting is on schedule;
3.
There is sufficient legal certainty regarding the GWR project ability to produce
sufficient water;
4.
The California Department of Health or the Regional Water Quality Control

Board will likely approve the GWR extraction and GWR treatment and injection
processes;
5.
The GWR Project is on schedule;
6.
Preliminary design for the GWR Project is sufficient to generate an accurate

project cost estimate;
7.
A sufficiently detailed GWR Project funding plan to support an application for a

State Revolving Fund loan is in place;
8.
California American Water, MPWMD, and MRWPCA have agreed on a WPA

with just and reasonable terms; and
3
9.
The revenue requirement for the combination of the GWR Project and the smaller
desalination is just and reasonable when compared to the revenue requirement for
a larger desalination project alone.
Q9: Does the Water Authority believe the nine criteria for the GWR decision set forth in the
Settlement Agreement have been satisfied?
A9:
Yes, the Water Authority concludes that the nine criteria have been satisfied. The first
eight criteria have been definitively satisfied. After extensive analysis, public meetings, and
discussion by its board, the Water Authority concludes that the ninth criterion has also been
satisfied.
Q10: Why does the Water Authority conclude that the ninth criterion has been satisfied?
A10: The inclusion of GWR will likely result in a cost premium to the Cal-Am ratepayers in
most years, but we believe it is likely to be modest and acceptable when weighed against the
other benefits obtained from the GWR project.
Q11: Please explain why you anticipate that the inclusion of GWR will likely result in a cost
premium.
Al 1: The Authority believes that cost differences should first be examined based on a
comparison of net present value (NPV) of the lifetime project costs of each option (GWR plus
smaller desalination versus larger desalination) and then we should also consider any intertemporal cost divergences over the life of the projects. The MPWMD, MRWPCA, and Cal-Am
have developed a cost model and the Water Authority concurs that it is an appropriate model.
The cost model allows us to change key variables to develop a reasonable array of scenarios. The
variables include whether grant funding is obtained for the GWR project, the future escalation in
the cost of electricity (lower costs increase the premium for the GWR/smaller desalination
hybrid option), how much of existing sunk-costs incurred by the MPWMD and MRWPCA will
be included in cost reimbursement through rates, whether any cost-sharing agreement for the
GWR pipeline can be agreed to with other local agencies, and the discount rate used for the NPV
calculation. Depending on the variables inputted in the model, we have developed a high-,
median-, and low-cost scenario. The details of the cost model and its outcomes based on
4
different variables are set forth in the testimony filed by David Stoldt, General Manager of the
MPWMD.
Most scenarios show a higher NPV with the inclusion of GWR. However, under most scenarios
the cost difference is within about five percent of the revenue requirement of the total MPWSP
costs (i.e., the NPV costs of GWR plus smaller desalination plant is within five percent of the
NPV cost of the stand-alone larger desalination plant). (See Supplemental Testimony of David
Stoldt, filed January 22,2016, Attachment 2 "GWR Cost Comparison Model Median Cost
Scenario.) This five percent figure is within the range of existing cost uncertainties. This
translates into an approximately one percent impact on the averageCal-Am water bill in the first
year of operation or about an $1 premium per month for the average Cal-Am customer. (See
Supplemental Testimony of Jeffrey Linam, filed January 22, 2016.)
Under most model scenarios the cost differential decreases over time (i.e., the GWR premium
diminishes). In fact, in the later years modeled, the large desalination with no GWR actually
incurs a premium under the median-cost scenario. However, the temporal differences are not
significant, and in our judgment, it is fair to acknowledge that there will likely be a modest cost
premium if GWR is included within the MPWSP especially from the perspective of today's
ratepayers.
Q12: Why does the Water Authority deem the modest premium attendant to GWR acceptable
when weighed against the other benefits obtained from the GWR project?
Al2: The GWR project affords numerous positive benefits that should be considered
independent of the cost modeling The Settlement Agreement identified several of these potential
benefits, including: "(i) a material schedule advantage in that the GWR Project is anticipated to
be operable sooner than the desalination plant; (ii) water supply resilience and reliability (benefit
of the portfolio approach); and (iii) other positive externalities of the GWR Project, including,
but not limited reduced atmospheric carbon emissions, reduced brine discharge, and the
implementation and encouragement of State policies regarding water recycling through early
adoption of a water reuse project."
The Water Authority concurs that these are appropriate positive externalities that the GWR
project will likely afford. I further elaborate on the positive attributes warranting including of the
5
GWR project within the MPWSP as follows:
GWR is approved with a certified EIR whereas the CEQA compliance for the
desalination project is still pending.
The GWR project is anticipated to come online as soon as 12 to 24 months ahead of the
anticipated start-up for the desalination project. This should allow the Monterey
Peninsula to reduce its use of Cannel River water sooner, potentially assist in avoiding
violations of the proposed modified Cease and Desist Order (see to Application to
Modify SWRCB Order VVRO 2009-0060, attached hereto as Attachment 1) presently
under consideration by the SWRCB, and help to satisfy milestones set forth in the
proposed modified CDO that include GWR achievements as milestone compliance. (See
Attachment 1 hereto at page 3 of Attachment l[proposed modified CD0].)
The GWR project should afford better water supply reliability both in construction and
long-term water supply due to operational flexibility and reduced operational risk (i.e., if
either plant is delayed in development or during operation either experiences a service
interruption, the portfolio approach avoids a complete loss of supply).
The GWR project affords several environmental benefits in comparison to the large
desalination project alone. These include surface water quality improvements, reduced
brine discharge, and reduced demand on the desalination source wells, which will lessen
any potential impacts on the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin that must be mitigated
through additional return water deliveries. The lower energy consumption of the hybrid
GWRismaller desalination plant will also make it easier to meet the AB 32 greenhouse
limitations applicable to the projects. Each of these environmental issues matter to our
community directly and many of them underpin our essential visitor serving economy.
I also note the benefits that GWR affords in not just diversifying the Monterey
Peninsula's water supply, but also improving water quality within the Salinas Valley by
including poor quality agricultural/industrial waste water as a source water supply for
GWR. Contaminated supplies would be treated and serve as a new source of supply
rather than a continued water quality problem demanding mitigation. Such multi-benefit
and regional water supply planning should be embraced whenever reasonably feasible. In
fact, the embrace of the GWR project's potential has been an essential reason why we
have been able to form and maintain a broach coalition of support for the MPWSP among
the parties to the Settlement Agreement and other community interests.. A good
commentary on noted cooperation that has emerged in support of the regional approach
embraced in GWR and the return water settlement is set forth in an editorial from the
Monterey Herald, dated January 22, 2015. I have attached a copy of the editorial to this
testimony as Attachment 2. Previous approaches to solving Monterey Peninsula's water
supply shortfall have been derailed because of lack of strong community and stakeholder
consensus including buy-in from the agricultural community. GWR has strong
community and stakeholder support and is critically important as we work to maintain
and enhance the support for the portfolio.
The GWR project also furthers essential state goals of advancing greater use of water
recycling and indirect potable reuse as specified in SWRCB's Water Action Plan. (See
Attachment 3, a letter from Felicia Marcus, Chair of the SWRCB, to Commissioner
Catherine Sandoval, dated January 22, 2016.)
Q13: Has the Water Authority reviewed the proposed Water Purchase Agreement ("WPA") for
GWR?
A13: Yes.
Q14: Does the Water Authority believe that the terms of the WPA are just and reasonable?
A14: Yes.
Q15: In conclusion, does the Water Authority urge the CPUC to include GWR as a component
of the MPWSP?
A15: Yes, the Water Authority believes the modest cost premium for GWR is justified based
on our understanding of community values, our risk mitigation strategy, our need for immediate
and reliable new water supplies, the environmental benefits afforded by GWR, and the other
advantages of GWR discussed above. Accordingly, the Water Authority urges the CPUC to
approve Cal-Am's execution of the WPA to allow the GWR project to be included within the
MPWSP. We also favor CPUC approval for Cal-Am to execute the WPA this summer so that
construction of the GWR project can commence expeditiously without delay. Please see
testimony of Paul Sciuto of January 22, 2016 noting when the GWR project will be ready for
construction.
The Water Authority's Support for the Return Water Settlement Term Sheet
Q16: Does the Water Authority support the "return water" settlement term sheet described in
and attached to the supplemental testimony of Richard Svindland on behalf of Cal-Am, dated
January 22, 2016?
A16: Yes.
Q17: Why does the Water Authority support the return water settlement term sheet?
A17: The return water settlement term sheet is the product of extended negotiations with
Salinas Valley Water Coalition, the Monterey County Farm Bureau, the Castroville Community
Services District ("CCSD"), and numerous other parties to this proceeding. It sets forth the terms
on which a definitive agreement could be reached to resolve the return water issues associated
with the potential impacts to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin ("SVGB") relating to the
desalination source water wells. As noted in footnote 4 of the prior Settlement Agreement,
"SVWC, MCFB, LandWatch, and Citizens for Public Water are concerned about potential harm
from California American Water's production of source water to the Salinas River Groundwater
Basin ("SRGB") and its users. Their CPCN support is therefore contingent on resolving certain
source water issues to be informed by the Hydrogeologic Study and the Technical Report
provided for in the Settlement Agreement." The return water settlement term sheet represents a
substantial step in resolving this issue and removing this contingency to the full support of the
Settlement Agreement terms. It also substantially reduces the risk of litigation that could delay
the desalination project.
A broader discussion of the return water issue and the specific terms set forth in the term sheet is
provided in the supplemental testimony of Richard Svindland, dated January 22, 2016.
Essentially, the term sheet provides for the delivery of return water to the CCSD, and if
8
necessary, also the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project ("CSIP") or another SVGB
groundwater user to offset current groundwater use. This affords a means of in lieu
replenishment of the SVGB. This in lieu replenishment mitigates potential groundwater right
legal challenges, CEQA mitigation requirements, and groundwater export limitations set forth in
the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act ("Agency Act"). The terms provide for
reasonable reimbursement of Cal-Am (and hence its ratepayers) for the water deliveries to the
CCSD and CSIP with the amount depending on circumstances specified in the term sheet.
It should be noted that the price paid per acre-foot will vary depending on whether the return
water is (i) required by the Agency Act or other legal obligations; or (ii) is not legally required
but is within the guaranteed supply to CCSD that is necessary to support its investment in a
pipeline to convey the desalinated water to CCSD. 1 If the return water is legally required, the
price will be set at the avoided cost of CCSD's pumping. This amount is substantially less than
the cost of producing the water but any amount of cost recovery is an improvement over no
reimbursement. If the return water is not required, the price will be set at the marginal cost of
operating the desalination plant, effectively making the Cal-Am ratepayer whole relative to
simply turning down or turning off the desalination plant.
Presuming a final definitive agreement can be reached consistent with the term sheet, and that a
settlement agreement is accepted by the CPUC, this will largely, if not entirely, resolve one of
the fmal significant potential challenges to the MPWSP relating to groundwater rights, CEQA
issues concerning potential impacts to the SVGB, and the Agency Act. In light of the significant
certainty that such a settlement would afford and the just and reasonable terms for the Cal-Am
ratepayers, the Water Authority has agreed to the term sheet and will support efforts to convert it
into a defmitive settlement agreement for submission to the CPUC in this proceeding.
DEL The Water Authority's Support for the Brine Discharge Settlement Term Sheet
Q18: Does the Water Authority support the brine discharge settlement term sheet described in
and attached io the testimony of Al Preston?
The term sheet provides that Cal-Am shall make available for delivery to CCSD 800 acre-feet annually
of return water if the large desalination plant is constructed, or 690 acre-feet annually if the smaller
desalination plant is constructed.
9
A18: Yes.
Q19: Why does the Water Authority support the brine discharge settlement term sheet?
A19: The brine discharge settlement term sheet resolves the other significant potential
challenge that was left unresolved in the prior Settlement Agreement. It is the product of
extended negotiations with the Surfrider Foundation ("Surfrider") and other parties to this
proceeding. It sets forth the terms on which a definitive agreement could be reached to resolve
the brine discharge issues associated with the MPWSP. As noted in footnote 4 of the prior
Settlement Agreement, "Surfrider's support [for issuance of a CPCN for the MPWSP] is
contingent on resolving brine discharge to include a pressurized diffuser." The brine discharge
settlement term sheet represents a substantial step in resolving this issue and removing this
contingency to the full support of the Settlement Agreement terms.
A broader discussion of the brine discharge issues and the specific terms set forth in the term
sheet is set forth in the direct testimony of Al Preston, dated January 22, 2016, which is being
filed concurrently by the Water Authority with my testimony. Essentially, the term sheet
provides for a reasonable monitoring regime to confirm that the marine environment is protected
through appropriate dilution of the brine generated and discharged from the MPWSP, and
provides for contingent mitigation if the currently-proposed outfall approach proves insufficient
for such protection.
Presuming a final definitive agreement can be reached consistent with the term sheet and that
settlement agreement is accepted by the CPUC, the settlement should provide a means to ensure
protection of the marine environment from high saline concentrations and will resolve the
objections that Surfrider maintained in relation to the MPWSP' s brine discharge. Like the return
water issue, this will afford significant certainty on a significant remaining challenge. It also will
likely avoid the requirement to install an expensive pressurized diffuser, provided that the
monitoring confirms that the brine diffusion is consistent with the California Ocean Plan and any
other regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the Water Authority will support efforts to reach a
final agreement with Surfrider and the other parties to the proceeding on the terms of a definitive
settlement agreement concerning the brine discharge monitoring and contingent mitigation for
submission to the CPUC in this proceeding.
10
Q20: Does this conclude your testimony?

A20: Yes.
SOF
11
Supplemental Testimony
of Jason Burnett
January 22, 2016
Attachment 1
ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 CAPII01. AVENUE, StnTE 400
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816
TELEPHONE,: (916) 447-2166
http://www.eslawtirm.com
. CI,
ROBERT E. DONLAN
ILED@ESLAWFIRNI.COM
November 20, 2015

Tom Howard
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 1 Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Application For Order Modifying State Water Board Order
WRO 2009-0060 (Cease and Desist Order)
Dear Mr. Howard:
On behalf of the petitioners and other stakeholders, California-American Water Company hereby
submits the enclosed Application For Order Modifying State Water Board Order WRO 20090060. Petitioners and Stakeholders appreciate the time and efforts of State Water Board staff in
the development of the Application and Proposed Order, and we look forward to working with
the State Water Board on approval and implementation of the Proposed Order.
Sincerely,
e: b' l
obert E. Donlan
Enc.
cc:
Barbara Evoy
John O'Hagart
Mariana Aue
Felicia Marcus
Frances Spivy-Weber
Tam Doduc
Steven Moore
Dorene D'Adamo
Anthony J. Cerasuolo
Andrew Homer
Russell M. McGlothlin
David C. Laredo
Thomas H. Jamison
(00341004;1)
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

Anthony J. Cerasuolo (State Bar. No. 800912)
1033 B Avenue, Suite 200
Coronado, California 92118
Telephone: (619) 522-6370
I.
! I +I
:
ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P,

Robert E. Donlan (State Bar No. 186185)
Shane E. C. McCoin (State Bar No. 258588)
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95816
Telephone: (916) 447-2166
Attorneys for CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SHRECK, LLP
Russell M. McGlothlin (State Bar No. 208826)
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-7000
Attorneys for MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
DE LAY & LAREDO
David C. Laredo (State Bar No. 66532)
606 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Telephone: (831) 646-1502
Attorneys for MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and CITY OF
PACIFIC GROVE
FENTON & KELLER
Thomas H. JaliliS011 (State Bar No. 69710)
2801 Salinas Highway
Monterey, CA 93940
Telephone: (831) 373-1241
Attorneys for PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use
of Water by the California American Water
Company; Cease and Desist Order WR 2009-0060
APPLICATION FOR ORDER

MODIFYING STATE WATER
BOARD ORDER WRO 2009-0060
(CEASE AND DESIST ORDER)
1
Application for Order Modifying Cease and Desist Order Wil0 2009-0060
I.
t
Introdu cjon
Pursuant to Water Code section 1832, California-American Water Company ("CAW"),,
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority ("1VITRWA") and Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District ("1VEPWMD"), the Pebble Beach Company ("PBC"), and the City of
Pacific Grove l (collectively and/or, individually, "Petitioners") hereby apply to the State Water
Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") for an order modifying certain of the ordering provisions
of Order WRO 2009-0060 (referred to herein as "Order" or "CDO"). 2 In Orders WRO 20090060 as amended by WR 2010-0001, the SWRCB required CAW to comply with Condition 2 of
SWRCB Order WR 95-10. CAW has complied with these Orders by diligently implementing
various actions in collaboration with the MPRWA, MPWMD and other community interests,
including termination of unlawful diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the
schedule and conditions set forth in the CDO. Petitioners have diligently implemented measures
to comply with the CDO, and CAW is currently meeting or has met all of the conditions of the
CDO. Despite the best efforts of these parties as described below, factors beyond Petitioners'
control prevent CAW and Petitioners from implementing a replacement water supply to
eliminate all unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River before December 31, 2016 as
required in the CDO. Accordingly, Petitioners hereby request that the SWRC13 issue a new order
modifying and restating certain of the ordering provisions of the CDO as specifically proposed in
Attachment 1 ("Proposed Order"), 3
Although it is a member of the MPRWA, the City of Pacific Grove joins as an individual Petitioner due to its
below.
specific interest in the "City of Pacific Grove Recycled Water Project" described in Section
Order would supersede the ordering provisions of
2 Petitioners understand that, as of its effective date, the requested
State
State Water Board WRO 2009-0060. All other provisions of State Water Board WRO 2009-0060 and all other
until terminated by
Water Board orders concerning CAW's diversions from the Carmel River would remain in effect
law or action of the State Water Board
analysis and negotiations by Petitioners, stakeholders,
3 The Proposed Order is the result of nearly two years of
includes significant commitments to measures to
Order
Proposed
The
staff.
SWRCB
and
resources agencies,
and
protect and enhance aquatic resources in the Carmel River through the extension period of the Proposed Order,
without
Peninsula
Monterey
the
on
standards
use
and
conservation
water
unequaled
maintain
to
reflects an effort
causing further damage to the economy of the Peninsula. The diversion reductions proposed in the Proposed Order
will severely stretch the communities' water conservation capabilities, and therefore this Application is made with
the understanding and on the condition that the SWRCE1 adopt an order amending the COO that is materially the
same as the terms and conditions in the Proposed Order in Attachment 1. Petitioners reserve all rights and remedies
Lo protect the water supply necessary to maintain health and safety of the Monterey Peninsula, and do not intend
with this Application to waive any rights or remedies necessary to protect an adequate water supply for the public
welfare of the Monterey Peninsula.
2
Application for Order Modifying Cease and Desist Order WRO 2009-0060
In summary, the Proposed Order would extend the deadline for CAW to terminate all
unlawful diversions from the Cannel River until December 31, 2020 to allow additional time to
complete development of a replacement water supply. The moratorium on new connections and
increased uses at existing connections that is described in more detail below would be
maintained during the extension period. The Proposed Order would require CAW to make an
immediate reduction of 1,000 afa from the existing diversion limit that is in place under Order
WRO 2009-0060 for Water Year 2015-16, resulting in a diversion limit for that year of 8,671. In
Water Year 2016-2017, the diversion limit would automatically be decreased again to 8,310 afa,
which is derived by using a five year average of CAW's actual Cannel River production for the
period ending with Water Year 2014-15. If Petitioners meet annual milestones that are directly
tied to demonstrable progress on completing a new water supply during the extension period,
then this diversion limit (8,310 afa) would be maintained for the entire extension period. If
Petitioners fail to meet a milestone and the SWRCB does not grant an exception, then the
diversion limit for the subsequent Water Year would be reduced by 1,000 afa and such reduction
would remain in force until after the milestone was met. The Proposed Order includes provisions
describing the possibility of carrying over limited volumes of water from one Water Year to
another where CAW produces less than the diversion limit in place for a given Water Year. It
also includes modifications to how water that is diverted to Aquifer Storage and Recovery
("ASR") is treated with respect to the diversion limit, which modifications are aimed at
promoting maximum utilization of ASR to offset CAW' s unlawful diversions. The Proposed
Order also establishes a reporting structure through which Petitioners and other stakeholders
would provide annual updates to the S'WRCB on progress towards developing a new water
supply and the status of the Cannel River fishery and habitat.
Petitioners also request cooperation and assistance from the SWRCB regarding certain
applications, permits, loans and grant funds to implement projects that will reduce unauthorized
diversion from, and increase the water in, the Cannel River, particularly during drier months of
the year. With the SWRCB 's support for those projects and modification of Order WRO 20093
0060, Petitioners can commit to carry out the actions, plans and projects described in Sections
M.A and 111.C, which include:
Continued development and implementation of efficiency and conservation measures;
Continued development and implementation of projects to develop alternative and

supplemental water supplies; and
Continued development and implementation of fish and wildlife protection and
enhancement measures.
While not signatories to this Application, many other stakeholders participated
extensively in the development of this Application. Petitioners thank each of these groups and
request that the Board recognize them for their efforts to collaborate with Petitioners. Without
them, this Application would not be as robust and well-reasoned as it is today. These groups
include the Sierra Club, the Carmel River Steelhead Association, the Planning and Conservation
League Foundation, Quail Lodge, Berrurdus Lodge, and the Cannel Valley Ranch, among
others. Included in Attachment 2 are letters of support from several stakeholder entities, each of
whom participated in the development of this Application.
Petitioners would also like to acknowledge the significant efforts and collaboration by
Staff of the SWRCB in the development of this Application. In the face of the worst drought in
California's history, SWRCB Staff professionally and cooperatively worked with Petitioners over
a two year period to provide feedback, to help drive consensus among stakeholders and to assist
in the development of this Application and the Proposed Order. The Board should recognize the
efforts and professionalism of its Staff members and their contributions to this Application.
The SWRCB has Authority to Modify the CDO
II.
The SWRCB liaR broad discretion to modify a CDO and to revise a schedule of
compliance contained in a CDO. See Order WR 2010-0002. Petitioners make this Application
pursuant to Water Code section 1832, which states, in relevant part: "The board may, alter notice
and. opportunity for hearing, upon its own motion or upon receipt of an application from an
aggrieved person, modify, revoke, or stay in whole or in part any cease and desist order issued
pursuant to this chapter." For the reasons set forth below, including the fishery protection and
enhancement measures that will be implemented by Petitioners, Petitioners submit there is good
4
2009-0060
WRO
Application for Order Modifying Cease and Desist Order
cause for the SWRCB to Modify the schedule and conditions in Order WRO 2009,0060.
DT. It is Reasonable and in the Public Interest to Modify the COO as Requested
A. CAW and Petitioners have Diligently and Aggressively Implemented
Measures to Comply with the COO.
1. Efficiency and Conservation Measures
Prior to and since the issuance of the CDO, Petitioners have dedicated tremendous
resources to implement efficiency and conservation measures to control and reduce customer
demand and system losses within CAW's Monterey district, such that the community is currently
outperforming the Carmel River diversion reduction targets set forth in the CDO. These include
the following specific measures:
a. Moratorium on New Connections and Increased Uses at Existing
Connections
CAW has implemented and diligently enforced a moratorium on new, service connections
within its Monterey district. CAW applied for, and the California Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") approved on March 24, 2011, a moratorium on new service connections and an
increased use at existing connections caused by a change in use. 4 See CPUC Decision D.11-03048. The moratorium has remained in effect since it was approved, and would be maintained
during the requested extension period under the Proposed Order.
b. Revised Conservation and Rationing Plan
On July 14, 2015 CAW submitted an application to the CPUC to modify revised Rule
No. 14.1.1 in CAW' s CPUC tariff, Water Conservation and Rationing Plan for the Monterey
District. CAW filed this application, with support and cooperation from MPWMD, hi
recognition that Rule 14.1.1, which is based upon the MTV/MD Regulation XV, Expanded
Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan, is outdated since it was last reviewed by the
CPUC in a 2007 proceeding. A prehearing conference was held by the CPUC Administrative
Law Judge on September 8, 2015 to discuss the parties' proposed schedule and scope of the
Prior CPUC decisions require CAW to seek CPTIC authorization prior to denying service to any customer within
its service area.
5
proceeding. On November 4, 2015, the CPUC filed a scoping memo that sets the schedule for a
decision on CAW's application by approximately October 2016.
c.
Water Conservation Programs
CAW and MPWMD have implemented a variety of customer water conservation and
efficiency programs, including programs targeting large commercial customers such as laundries,
hotels, and car washes. CAW' s efficiency standards have placed it in the lowest residential percapita usage tier under the SWRCB's recently adopted emergency urban water conservation
regulations. CAW and MPWMD have also implemented programs targeting reductions in
outdoor irrigation, including replacement of irrigated turf with drought tolerant landscaping or
artificial turf, incentives for installation of weather-based irrigation controllers, mandatory
installation of rain sensors on irrigation systems, and mandatory water efficiency requirements
for all non-residential customers and certain residential customers. See MPWMD Regulation
XIV. In February 2010, CAW implemented, with CPUC approval, a new tiered conservation rate
structure with increases directed at the top tier users to promote conservation practices and
reduce overall water usage. Compared to the five year historical tier 4 and 5 usage, tier 4 and 5
usage was down approximately 71% in Water Year 2014-2015. See Table Nine in CAW's 4th
Quarterly Report for the 2014-2015 Water Year to SWRCB pursuant to Order WRO 2009-0060.
d. Infrastructure and Operational Improvements to Reduce System
Losses and Customer Leaks
CAW has implemented and continues to implement programs to detect and reduce nonrevenue system losses, including: replacement of older water mains and service lines in areas
shown to be more leak prone; water meter replacement; active leak detection; technological
solutions to manage lost water; and operational fixes such as pressure reduction. In addition,
CAW is currently conducting a pilot test with a group of Monterey customers using remote
technology that enables participants to receive real time water consumption data for their
residential water account on their smart phone. The technology can be used to set up an alert if
consumption is indicative of a water leak or if use increases. This allows customers the ability to
6
2009-0060
WRO
Order
Desist
and
Application for Order Modifying Cease
detect water leaks as they occur and to monitor their water use closely, further encouraging water
conservation.
2. CAW is Diligently Pursuing Development of a Primary Alternative
Water Supply
As directed by Order 95-10 and the Order, Petitioners have diligently pursued the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project ("MPWSP"), which will produce the replacement
water supply necessary to eliminate unauthorized diversions from the Cannel River.
a. Application for Approval of114PWSP and Permittinz Activity

On April 23, 2012, CAW filed an application to the CPUC for approval of the MPWSP.
The 1VIPWSP includes the following components: (1) a desalination plant and associated sourcewater slant wells and conveyance system, which can produce up to 9,752 afa for system demand;
(2) an ASR project to store water lawfully diverted from the Cannel River in the Seaside
Groundwater Basin for subsequent recovery, with an expected long term average yield of 1,300
acre-feet annually; and possibly (3) a Groundwater Replenishment ("GWR_") project that could
treat recycled water and replenish up to 3,500 afa in the Seaside Basin. The GWR project is
being developed by the MPWMD and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
("MRWPCA") and, if timely approved, could result in a down-sized desalination plant. The
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN"), approving the MPWSP, is
anticipated from the CPUC before the end of 2016.
Significant progress has been made on the MPWSP. CAW has undertaken and
continues to advance as many aspects of the project as can be done without regulatory permits.
In that regard, CAW acquired a 45-acre parcel of land near the City of Marina to serve as the
desalination plant site. CAW reached an agreement with CEMEX, Inc. that provides a
temporary easement to construct. and operate a test slant well as well as an option to purchase a
permanent easement for purposes of constructing and operating a full scale subsurface seawater
intake system. CAW has awarded a design-build contract to CDM Smith to construct the
desalination plant once all necessary permits have been obtained. CAW is also in the process of
7
conducting separate procurements to construct distribution system improvements and construct

the source water wells. These actions will expedite the construction of the MPWSP once all
regulatory agencies have issued their respective permits.
On April 30, 2015, the CPUC released its Draft Environmental Impact Report ('DEIR")
for the MPWSP pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The release of
the DEW began a 60-day public comment period, which was subsequently extended through
September 30, 2015. On September 8, 2015, the CPUC issued a statement that it will revise and
recirculate the MPWSP DEW as a joint DEIR/Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS").
The joint DEIR/DEIS will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA"), and will be coordinated with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
("MBNMS") as the federal lead agency. MBNMS 's parent agency the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") published a Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental
Impact Statement on August 26, 2015 under NEPA for the MPWSP and held a related scoping
meeting on September 10, 2015.
Substantial progress is also being made on the G'WR. component of the MPWSP. On
April 23, 2015, MPWMD and1VIRWP CA released a DEW for a 45-day public comment period
that closed on June 5, 2015. On October 8, 20151VIRWPCA certified its final EIR for the G'WR
project.
b. Senate Bill 936 for Partial Public Financing
In September 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 936, authored by
Senators Bill Monning and Anthony Cannella and Assemblymen Mark Stone and Luis Akjo.
This legislation allows the MPWSP to utilize partial public financing if it is available at a lower
rate than conventional, private project financing.
c. Test Slant Well Project
In addition, a new test slant well located on the CEMEX property in Marina, California
was completed in March 2015. The test well was put into long term operation on April 22, 2015.
Data from the test well and an associated network of monitoring wells is posted weekly on
8
2009-0060
WRO
Order
Desist
and
Cease
Application for Order Modifying
CAW 's MPWSP website (http://www.watersupplyproject.org,/). Preliminary test well results

have been promising and indicate that the test well is operating as designed. CAW and the
California Coastal Commission also successfully defended the Coastal Development Permits
underlying the test well in two separate lawsuits challenging their validity.
3. Petitioners Have Implemented Other Projects to Replace and Authorize
Carmel River Diversions

Petitioners have developed, permitted and implemented supplemental water supply
projects to reduce unauthorized Cannel River diversions. Petitioners have also facilitated or
supported efforts by other entities to complete multiple projects and water right transactions that
will permit beneficial uses within CAW' s service area.
a. Table 13 Water Rights

CAW pursued and satisfied the requirements under SWRCB Decision 1632 to obtain
additional appropriative water rights under SWRCB Permit 21330 to lawfully divert up to 1,488
afa from the Cannel River; subject to the same by-pass flow requirements as ASR water. In
Water Year 2014-2015, CAW was able to divert 42.2 AF under the Permit, and reduce
unauthorized diversions by an equal amount. 5
h. Pebble Beach Wastewater Reclamation Project

CAW has been a participant with PBC, the Cannel Area Wastewater District ("CAWD"),
the Pebble Beach Community Services District ("PBCSD"), and MPWMD in accomplishing
perhaps the most renowned golf course recycled water irrigation project in the country. The
CAWD-PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project (as it is known) treats wastewater at the
CAWD plant to a tertiary level, with advanced level micro-filtration which is then distributed by
PBCSD and MPWMD as recycled water to irrigate all of the Del Monte Forest golf courses. This
project is presently supplying an average of 1,000 afa of recycled water to the golf courses,
conserving that amount of diversions from the Cannel River. In addition to MPWWID's
Decision 1632 Condition 10 provides an opportunity for the persons named in Table 13 of Decision 1632 to obtain
a water right permit with a priority superior to the MPWMD's Permit 20808. Decision1632 delegates authority to
the Chief of the Division of Water Rights to modify the quantities identified in Table 13.
5
9
conservation programs, this project is one of the largest water saving projects operating on the
Monterey Peninsula. In return for its financial commitment (of which PBC has funded over $22
million in operating shortfalls and debt service) which made the project possible, PBC (with
other Del Monte Forest landowners) received the Pebble Beach Water Entitlement, which was
fully recognized in SWRCB Order WRO 2009-0060, as modified by Order WR 2010-0001.
a Additional Aquifer Storage and Recovery Capacity
As required by the Order, CAW and the MPWMD expanded the Cannel River ASR
Project to fulfill the Small Project requirement in Ordering Paragraph 3.a.(5). CAW and
1VIPWMD jointly hold water right Permit 20808C that allows for up to 2,900 afa to be diverted
from the Carmel River during periods of excess flow and then injected into the Seaside Basin as
part of the ASR program. 6 CAW and MPWMD have completed two new wells (ASR Wells #3
and #4) at the Seaside Middle School since the CDO was issued. The addition of ASR Well #3
gives CAW and MPWMD the ability to store and recover an expected long term average of more
than 500 afa, and was completed to satisfy Condition 5 of the CDO. The addition of ASR Well
#4 provides the opportunity for CAW and MP'WMD to realize an estimated additional 500 afa
available for diversion under the associated Permit.
d. Cannel River Floodplain Restoration and Environmental
Enhancement Protect and Interim Water Use Agreement
CAW supported and facilitated a water right change petition submitted by the Clint
Eastwood and Margaret Eastwood Trust ("Eastwood Trust") and approved by the SWRCB on
July 3, 2015 in Division Decision 2015-0001. This project includes a significant donation of land
by the Eastwood Trust to the Big Sur Land Trust as an important component of the Carmel River
Floodplain Restoration and Environmental Enhancement Project. The Cannel River Floodplain
Restoration and Environmental Enhancement Project will, among other potential things, restore
the historic floodplain and wetlands and improve flood protection in the lower Carmel River and
increase riparian habitat.
The "face" amount of Permit 20808C presumes Carmel River flows meet or exceed minimum instreatn flow
requirements each day of the 183-day diversion season and that diversions occur each day at the maximum
instantaneous rate allowed under the Permit.
6
10
2009-0060
WRO
Application for Order Modifying Cease and Desist Order
The Eastwood Trust agreed to permanently dedicate 46 afa of its existing water right to
instream flows, and to grant temporary use of up to 85 afa to assist CAW to reduce its
unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River. CAW and the Eastwood Trust expended
significant time and effort to complete this transaction and expect to begin replacing CAW
diversions with water available through the associated water right (License 13868A) in the
immediate near term. Based upon an agreement with the Eastwood Trust, the SWRCB has
ordered that all municipal water pumped under License 13868A during 2015 will be used to
offset CAW' s Cannel River Diversions, and that at least 50 af and 25 af will be used to assist
CAW to reduce its unauthorized diversions from the Cannel River in 2016 and 2017,
respectively. Until the MPWSP is brought online and unauthorized diversions from the Cannel
River eliminated, the agreement with the Eastwood Trust authorizes CAW to use all water under
License 13868A that is not used by Eastwood pursuant to the License amendment.
e.
Carmel River In stream Flow Enhancement Program
CAW has proposed to the SWRCB the Carmel River Instream Flow Enhancement
Program, whereby CAW will compensate Carmel River water rights holders to implement
conservation measures to reduce water diversions from the river in order to increase instream
flows for the benefit of fish and wildlife in the Carmel River. On September 8, 2015, CAW
submitted a Notice of Intent to Implement the Carmel River Flow Enhancement Program to the
SWRCB describing the proposed program which would temporarily modify the water users'
water rights to allow for the instream use of water in the Cannel River.
f
City ofPacific Grove Recycled Water Project
The City of Pacific Grove certified an DR for its Local Water Project to reduce irrigation
on the City's municipal golf course and El Carmelo Cemetery. MPWMD provided a feasibility
funding grant to assist planning this effort. Clean Water State Revolving Fund ("SRF") fmancing
for this effort was approved by the SWRCB on November 17,2015. The City expects to begin
construction during or before January 2016. CAW also has actively supported this project
throughout the proposal and approval process.
11
4. CAW and Petitioners have Implemented and Propose Additional

Measures to Enhance and Improve Conditions for Fish and Wildlife
Resources
Petitioners have permitted and implemented significant measures to enhance and improve
conditions for fish and wildlife resources in the Carmel River watershed, and to minimize and
avoid potential impacts to fish and wildlife during the extension period for the CDO sought
through this Application.
a. Funding for Carmel River Mitigation Projects
Pursuant to a 2009 agreement (amended in 2014) between CAW, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
("CDFW"), CAW made a one-time payment of $3.5 million in 2009, annual payments of $1.1.
million per year for 2010 through 2015, and has committed to make annual payments of $1.1
million per year through 2016 to the State Coastal Conservancy ("SCC") for environmental
protection and enhancement projects in the Cannel River watershed.
CAW' s s payments, which total $10.1 million to date, are being used to fund the
following significant projects, which are designed to mitigate the impacts of CAW's
unauthorized diversions and are identified by the SCC through ongoing consultations with the
NMPS, CDFW, and Cannel River stakeholders primarily through the Cannel River Task Force:
Removal of Old Carmel River Dam to facilitate fish passage;
Removal of Sleepy Hollow Ford to facilitate fish passage;
Restoration of Cannel River upstream of San Clemente Dam;
Sleepy Hollow Fish Rearing Facility Intake Improvements;
Cannel River Lagoon Large Wood Augmentation;
Cannel Lagoon Water Augmentation;
Cannel Lagoon Ecological Barrier;
Additional Fish Passage Barrier Removal;
Off-stream Storage of Excess Flows in Exchange for Forbearance of Summer Pumping;
12
WRO 2009-0060
Order
Desist
and
Application for Order Modifying Cease
Provided that NOAA and CAW mutually agree to terms for extending the 2009 agreement
described above, CAW will make additional annual payments of $1.1 million (pro-rated for any
partial years) until unpermitted diversions of water from the Cannel River are replaced by legal
sources of water for use on projects during the requested extension period for the CDO. Use of
these funds and administrative efforts will focus, with support of CAW and other Parties, on
projects that can be implemented during the extension period to mitigate potential effects of the
extension. MPWMD will use its best efforts and cooperate with NOAA, CDFW, SCC and the
Carmel River Steelhead Association, to identify, develop, and implement mitigation efforts that
benefit the Cannel River.
b. Cannel River Reroute and San Clemente Dam Removal Project
CAW also has permitted, financed and completed significant construction activities to reroute the Cannel River and remove the San Clemente Dam. The Carmel River Reroute and San
Clemente Dam Removal Project is the largest dam removal project in California history, and was
jointly developed and/or funded by the CAW, SCC, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service,
the Planning and Conservation League Foundation, and the Nature Conservancy. This
monumental and innovative project will:
Remove the 106 foot high San Clemente Dam and implement a watershed restoration
process that will bring the Cannel River back to life;
Provide unimpaired access to over 25 miles of essential spawning and rearing habitat,
thereby aiding in the recovery of threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead;
Restore the river's natural sediment flow, helping replenish sand on Carmel Beach and
improve habitat downstream of the dani for steelhead;
Re-establish a healthy connection between the lower Carmel River and the watershed
above San Clemente Dam;
Improve habitat for threatened California red-legged frogs;
Reduce beach erosion that contributes to destabilization of structures;
Provide a long-term solution to the public safety risk posed by the potential collapse of
13
the dam, which potentially threatens 1,500 homes and other public buildings in the event
of a large flood or earthquake;
The various construction activities that have been completed or are nearly completed to date
include: complete excavation of the re-route cut, nearly complete installation of the diversion
dike and the stabilized sediment slope, the complete demolition of San Clemente Dam itself and
the near completion of the new river channel that allows for fish passage. An additional
component of the project is the ultimate transfer of CAW property around San Clemente Dam to
the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, which will create additional open
space and habitat in the watershed.
a Los Padres Dam Downsheam Fish Passage Facilities
CAW and various stakeholders agreed to construct downstream fish passage facilities at
Los Padres Dam, located at approximately River Mile 24.8 on the Cannel River. CAW owns and
operates Los Padres Dam and has made various improvements to accommodate upstream fish
passage over the Dam. Currently, when lake elevations fall below the dam's spillway crest, no
downstream fish passage corridor exists. To improve downstream fish passage opportunities, the
following facilities will be constructed: behavioral guidance system, floating weir surface
collector, fish bypass conduit, bypass access portals, and bypass outfall. Construction of these
facilities began in the second quarter of 2015, and will be completed before November 26, 2015.
d. Los Padres Dam Long Term Planning Study
In its April 10, 2015 Decision Adopting the 2015, 2016, 2017 Revenue Requirement for
California-American Water Company, the CPUC authorized CAW to fund a study to determine
the ultimate disposition of the Los Padres Dam and its effects on thr Cannel River. CAW will
fund MPWMD to continue independently studying the fate of the Los Padres Dam, including
contribution from CAW of approximately $1.0 million to assist MEWMD. Studies will include
evaluating upstream steelhead passage at Los Padres Dam, whether the public trust resources of
the Cannel River will be adversely affected or enhanced by removal or alteration of Los Padres
Dam, what options exist to maintain physical existing surface storage in Los Padres Reservoir,
14
and analysis of the potential geomorphic effects of a resumption or increase of the natural flow
of sediment. In addition, CAW expects to work with MEWMD to develop the scope of work and
award the feasibility study to a qualified environmental consultant in the near future and
anticipates completing the study during 2018, CAW also will continue to fund mitigation
measures pursuant to MPWMD's current mitigation program through December 31, 2020.
e.
Commitment to Fund and Implement Additional Mitigation Projects
Upon SWRCB approval of this Application on terms substantially similar to those

requested herein, and subject to final approval from CDFW, NOAA, and other agencies with
permitting jurisdiction, CAW will implement up to $2 5 million in other projects on the Carmel
River to improve fish passage and habitat. These include, in order of priority and estimated costs:
additional spawning gravel injections below Los Padres reservoir ($0.2 million); improvements
to the existing upstream fish passage ladder and trap at Los Padres Dam ($0.2 million);
installation of a fish screen at the lower outlet pipe on Los Padres Dam ($0.8 million); a pit
tagging program ($0.8 million); and a through-reservoir survival study for Los Padres Reservoir
($0.5 million). Should the higher priority projects exceed the estimated amounts, funding will be
pulled from the lower priority projects until the entire $2,5 million is utilized. Additionally, the
estimated cost from the above projects may be used to supplement other related projects
occurring on the Cannel River (i.e., pit tagging work being contemplated by IVLEWMD),
B. Factors Beyond CAW's and Petitioners' Control Prevent Petitioners from
Achieving all CDO Conditions and Deadlines
The requested modifications are necessary because factors beyond CAW's and
Petitioners' control namely the failure of the Regional Desalination Project and delays in the
CPUC approval schedule for the MPWSP make it infeasible to complete the IVITWSP and
eliminate unauthorized Cannel River diversions within the current CDO schedule (i.e., by
December 31, 2016). Petitioners anticipate a final CPUC decision approving the 1WPWSP and
authorizing construction before the end of 2016. Once authorized, CAW expects to begin
construction of the MPWSP by mid-2017, and to begin producing potable water to replace
15
Carmel River diversions before the end of the requested extension period. Major infrastructure
projects of this size and scope are often subject to delays and litigation, but this anticipated
schedule reflects Petitioners' best judgment if delays are kept to a minimum.
Taking into account the commitments, efforts and accomplishments described above,
Petitioners request that the SWRCB modify the CDO as shown in Attachment 1. Petitioners'
make this request upon the express understanding and condition that the hearing record
developed and adduced before the SWRCB for Orders WRO 2009-0060 and WRO 2010-0001
are incorporated within the proceedings on this Application, for all purposes. Further, this
Application is made upon the express understanding and condition that Petitioners each shall
preserve, and not waive, their collective or individual rights to petition for relief from any
provision of the order amending and restating the CDO, for any reason, upon a claim that the
order amending and restating the CDO causes a threat to public health or safety or otherwise
jeopardizes the water supply for the Monterey Peninsula. Should the SWRCB consider adoption
of an order amending and restating the CDO on terms or conditions different from the Proposed
Order submitted as Attachment 1 to this Application, Petitioners request that the SWRCB not
take action thereon until Petitioners have been provided notice of the draft order not less than. 30
days prior to any meeting to adopt the order, and provided an opportunity to augment the record
of proceedings with respect to the Application.
IV.
Petitioners Request Assistance from the SVVRCB.
Taking into account the commitments, efforts and accomplishments described herein,
Petitioners request that the SWRCB commit to use reasonable efforts to assist Petitioners' efforts
to eliminate unauthorized Cannel River diversions as follows:
1. Support issuance of a CPCN from the CPUC and support CAW' s request(s) to the
California Coastal Commission and other agencies with permitting jurisdiction for
expedited permit issuance for the "Monterey Pipeline and other ASR related
improvements," which will facilitate increased ASR diversion during high flows and
other improved operations that will increase the amount of water in the Carmel River
16
2009-0060
WRO
Order
Application for Order Modifying Cease and Desist
during dry months;

2. Cooperate with the Parties' in efforts to secure from the SWRCB' s Division of Financial
Assistance a one percent (1.000%), thirty-year loan from the program announced March
19, 2014 for water recycling projects for the MPWMD/MRWPCA GWR project,
provided an application is submitted by December 2, 2015;
3. Cooperate with the Parties to secure prioritization of the MPWMD/MRWPCA GWR
grant request pursuant to Chapter 9 of AB 1471(2014 Proposition 1); and
4. Support, including expedited review of, water rights Application 32263 of Monterey
County Water Resources Agency, and any amendments thereto, to facilitate the
MYWMD/MRWPCA GWR project.
V.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioners respectfully request modification of Order WRO
2009-0060 as set forth in Attachment 1.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]
17
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated:
5-
CALIFORNIA-AMER1CAN WATER COMPANY
By:
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER

AUTHORITY
By:
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By:
PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By:
18
Application for Order Modifying Cease and Desist Order WRO 2009-0060 .
Dated:
(6t_
By:

AUTHORITY
By

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By:
By:
By:
18
Dated: ( t 1 4 .15
By:

AUTHORITY
By:

MANAGEMIST DATRICT
By:
By:
CITY OF PACIFIG GROVE
By:
18
Dated:
By:

AUTHORITY
By:

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By:
kri Ler
By:
443 491:4A/M40140
By:
18
Attachment 1
Attachment 1 to Application to Modify SWRCB Order WRO 2009-0060

PROPOSED ORDER AMENDING AND RESTATING ORDER WRO 2009-0060
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT as of the effective date of this Order,' CalAm shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel
River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
1.
Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from
the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later
than December 31, 2020. 2
2.
Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for
any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in
zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or
for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning
or use after October 20, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all
necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to CalArres water system prior to that date.'
3.
Cal-Am shall adjust its diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the
following:
a. Effective Diversion Limit. The limits set forth in this Condition 3.a., as may be
further reduced or increased pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Order, is
referred to as the "Effective Diversion Limit."
(1) Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2015 (Water Year 20152016), the Effective Diversion Limit shall be 8,671 afa. 4
(2)
L
Annual Diversion Limits:

Water Year 2016 2017 Reduction. Commencing on October 1,2016
-
1 The effective date of this Order shall be the date of issuance. As of the effective "date, this Order shall supersede
the ordering provisions of State Water Board WRO 2009-0060. All other provisions of State Water Board WRO 20090060 and all other State Water Board orders concerning Cal-Am's diversions from the Carmel River shall remain in
effect until terminated by law or action of the State Water Board.
2 pal-Am lawfully diverts 3,376 afa under a legal basis of water right
3 Multiunit residential, commercial or industrial sites may currently be served by a single water meter. The
installation of additional meters at an existing service will not be viewed as a new service connection provided
that the additional metering does not result in an increase in water use.
4 Each Water Year runs from October Ito September 30 of the following year.

(Water Year 2016-2017) the Effective Diversion Limit shall be 8,310 afa,
and this Effective Diversion Limit shall be maintained through December
31, 2020 subject to the terms and conditions in this Order.
ii.
Seaside Groundwater Basin Limitations. The Effective Diversion

Limit shall not apply to any exceedance that Cal-Am, the Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority ("MPRWA"), the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District ("MPWMD") the Pebble Beach
Company ("PBC"), and for the City of Pacific Grove (collectively
"Petitioners") establish was necessary to meet reductions required by
mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the Seaside Basin
Watermaster's Seawater Intrusion Response Plan or by the court
pursuant to the Seaside Groundwater Basin Judgment in response to a
detection of seaWater intrusion within the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
iii.
Carryover: After October 1, 2015 if Cal-Am's actual diversions during a

given Water Year are less than the Effective Diversion Limit for that
Water Year, Cal-Am shall be credited for the difference between the
Effective Diversion Limit and Cal-Am's actual diversions. Any such
credit may be carried over to offset any exceedance of the Effective
Diversion Limit in future Water Years, subject to the restriction in
Paragraph 3.a.(2)(iv) below.
iv.
Cap on Carryover: Notwithstanding the provision on carryover in

Paragraph 3.a.(2)(iii), in any Water Year the sum of (a) Cal-Am's
diversions of non-ASIR. 5 water from the Carmel River and (b) water
recovered from ASR storage shall not exceed the Effective Diversion
Limit then in effect plus 750 afa.
("ASR') storage
6 "ASR water' means Carmel River water diverted to underground Aquifer Storage and Recovery
pursuant to State Water Board Permits 20808A and 20808C, as discussed in Paragraphs 3.a.(3), 3.c., and 4 of this
Order.
2

v.
Milestones: For purposes of calculating a reduction to the Effective
Diversion Limit, the following Milestones and Deadlines will apply;

Milestone
1. (WY
20162017)
Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity to Construct the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project ("MPWSP") by the California Public
Utilities Commission.
2.(WY
Start of construction for any of the Cal-Am
2017Components of the MPWSP6 and/or the Pure Water
2018)
Monterey' project, meaning commencement of
physical work after issuance of required regulatory
permits and authorizations to begin worle.
3.(WY
(1) Drilling activity for at least one MPWSP source
2018water production well complete; (2) foundation and
2019)
structural framing complete for MPWSP pretreatment,
seawater reverse osmosis, and administration
buildings at desalination plant; (3) excavation
complete for MPWSP brine and backwash storage
basins; and (4) 25% of MPWSP transmission
pipelines installed based on total length 16 .
4.(WY
(1) 50% of drilling activity complete for MPWSP
2019source water production wells based on total number
2020)
of wells required; (2) mechanical systems for
MPWSP brine and backwash storage basins
complete; (3) Construction of MPWSP filtered water
tanks and finished water tanks complete; (4) 50% of
MPWSP transmission pipelines installed based on
total length, including 100% installation of the
"Monterey Pipeline and other ASR related
improvements" (See Footnote 9)
5.(WY
Substantial completion of the Cal-Am Components of
2020
the MPWSP, meaning the Cal-Am Components are
2021
sufficiently complete and appropriately permitted to
and
allow delivery of MPWSP produced potable water to
beyond) Cal-Am's Monterey Main system; eliminating further
Cal-Am diversions of Carmel River water without
valid basis of right
.
' Deadline
September 30, 2017
September 30, 2018
September 30, 2019
September 30, 2020
December 31, 2020
For purposes of this proposal the Cal-Am Components of the MPWSP include: source water production wells;
desalination plant; brine disposal system; and transmission pipelines.
7 The Pure Water Monterey project is a proposed advanced water recycling project, jointly developed by two public
agencies the MPWMD and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency ("MRWPCA").
13 Such work may include, among other things, any of the following: desalination plant site grading and preparation;
electric utility installation; yard piping; subsurface excavation for structural foundations; transmission pipeline
Installation.
9 Not including the MPWSP Test Well completed in 2015.
io For transmission pipeline installation Cal-Am will prioritize installation of the "Monterey Pipeline and other ASR
related improvements," which will facilitate increased ASR diversion during high flows and other improved operations
that will increase the amount of water in the Carmel River during dry months,
3
6
vi.
Reductions to the Effective Diversion Limit Based on Missed

Milestones: The following reductions to the Effective Diversion Limit
shall apply if an applicable Milestone Deadline is not met:
Water Year
Oct. 1,2016
Sept. 30,2017
Oct. 1,2017
Sept. 30, 2018
Oct. 1, 2018
Sept. 30, 2019
Oct 1, 2019 .
Sept. 30, 2020
Oct. 1, 2020
Dec. 31, 2020
Milestone
Missed
Reduction in Effective Diversion Limit
1000 AFA
Date
Reduction
Assessed
Oct. 1, 2017
1000 AFA
Oct. 1,2018
1000 AFA
Oct. 1, 2019
1000 AFA
Oct. 1, 2020
1000 AFA
Dec. 31, 2020
If a Milestone is not achieved by its Deadline but is subsequently

achieved, the corresponding reduction to the Effective Diversion Limit
shall be reversed on the first day of the Water Year following
achievement of the Milestone. Once a Milestone has been achieved,
any corresponding reduction will not be assessed in subsequent Water
Years.
vii.
Illustration: The following table illustrates the effect of the reduction in

the Effective Diversion Limit over the term of this Order, and assumes
no Deadlines have been met and no carryover credits have been
applied under Paragraph 3.a.(2)(iii), and no additional water rights have
been obtained pursuant to Paragraph 6. The result is an elimination of
unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River on December 31, 2020.
Water Year
Oct. 1, 2015
Effective Diversion Limit if Milestones Missed,

No Credits Applied, No Additional Water
Rights Obtained
8,671 AFA
Sept. 30, 2016

4

Oct. 1, 2016
Sept. 30, 2017
Oct. 1,2017
Sept. 30, 2018
Oct. 1,2018
Sept. 30, 2019
Oct. 1,2019
Sept. 30, 2020
Oct. 1, 2020
Dec. 31, 2020
Thereafter
viii.
8,310 AFA
7,310 AFA
6,310 AFA
5,310 AFA
4,310 AFA
3,376 AFA
Joint Annual Report. At least 120 days prior to each Milestone

Deadline described in Condition 3.a.(2)(v), Petitioners shall submit a
joint report to the Deputy Director, Division of Water Rights, describing
progress towards that Milestone, whether Petitioners expect the
Milestone to be achieved by its Deadline and, if not, whether the
Milestone will be missed for reasons beyond Petitioners' control. Within
fifteen days of receiving the joint report by the Petitioners, the Deputy
Director, Division of Water Rights shall submit a Staff Report to the State
Water Board that attaches the joint report. Within 60 days of receipt of
the Staff Report, the State Water Board shall receive, at a regularly
scheduled meeting, written and oral reports from Petitioners, the Deputy
Director, Division of Water Rights, and the public on progress towards
Milestones. If Petitioners' joint report indicates that a Milestone is likely
to be missed, the State Water Board shall determine during that meeting
whether the cause for delay is beyond or within Petitioners' control. If the
State Water Board determines that the cause is beyond Petitioners'
control, it may suspend any corresponding reductions under Condition
3.a.(2)(vi) until such time as the Petitioners can reasonably control
progress towards the Milestone.
ix.
Status of Steelhead Fishery Report. During the extension period CAW

will provide funding in an amount not to exceed $175,000 per year for the
preparation of an annual report that evaluates the status of the
threatened South-Central California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population
Segment ("SCCC Steelhead DPS") in the Carmel River ("Status of
Steelhead Fishery Report"). Petitioners and various stakeholders agree

that, if possible, the annual Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report will be
prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") Southwest
Fisheries Science Center ("SWFSC"). Petitioners and various
stakeholders further agree that if NMFS West Coast Region finds a

significant change in the status of the SCCC Steelhead DPS since the
previous report (or, in the case of the first report, since the effective date
of this Order), NMFS West Coast Region may provide recommendations
for additional adaptive management measures to be taken with respect
to the SCCC Steelhead DPS in the Carmel River. If SWFSC cannot
complete the Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report for any or all years
during the extension period, Petitioners and other stakeholders will work
expeditiously and in good faith to designate another individual or entity
with requisite expertise to complete the report. If the NMFS West Coast
Region cannot review the Status of the Steelhead Fishery report in any
or all years, Petitioners and other stakeholders will work expeditiously
and in good faith to develop an alternative system for making adaptive
management recommendations. Petitioners, stakeholders, and the
preparer of the Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report will endeavor to
deliver the report in a cost effective and efficient manner, to share
resources, and to avoid duplication of effort to lower the cost of the report
to the extent practicable. The Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report and
any adaptive management recommendations shall be submitted to the
SWRCB by Petitioners each year with the corresponding joint annual
report.
(3) ASR Project: The amount of water diverted to underground storage under State
Water Board Permits 20808A and 20808C as of May 31 of each year shall be
included in Cal-Am's annual production of Carmel River water that is subject to
the Effective Diversion Limit, up to a maximum of 600 afa. On June 1 of each
year, Cal-Am shall submit an operating plan to the Deputy Director for Water
Rights specifying the quantity of water it intends to supply from the ASR Project
for its customers after May 31 of each year. As described in Paragraph 4
below, after the first 600 afa have been recovered in a given Water Year, the
6
Effective Diversion Limit for that Water Year shall be reduced by the amount of
ASR water recovered in that Water Year.
(4) Sand City Desalination Plant: Any volume of water that is produced by the Sand
City Desalination Plant and not served to persons residing within the City of Sand
City shall be subtracted from the Effective Diversion Limit for the Water Year in
which it is produced.
(5) Pebble Beach: Within 90 days following adoption of State Water Board Order
WRO 2009-0060, PBC certified, under penalty of perjury, the total quantity of
water annually used under its water entitlement from MPWMD (for the funding
assurances provided for the construction and expansion of the CAWD-PBCSD
wastewater reclamation project). This amount was 36.352 afa, Ten percent
(10%) of the amount reported, or 3.635 afa was to be added to the Effective
Diversion Limit to allow Cal-Am to divert water from the river to supply water for
PBC water entitlements initiated in the 12 months following adoption of State
Water Board Order WRO 2009-0060. Thereafter, PBC has annually submitted
and shall continue to annually submit, on September 30, a report to the Deputy
'Director for Water Rights accounting for any additional water that is diverted
from the Carmel River as the result of an increased use of its MPWMD water
entitlement. Increased diversions from the river by Cal-Am to satisfy PBC
entitlements from MPWMD shall be added to the Effective Diversion Limit, and
are not subject to Paragraph 2 of this Order. Water diverted from the river by
Cal-Am for PBC entitlements can only be served to properties that have
received a PBC entitlement from MPWMD and which are located in the CalArn's service area. After December 31, 2020, Cal-Am shall not illegally divert
water from the river to supply the holders of PBC entitlements.
(6) Supplemental Water Rights and Acquisitions: Provided Cal-Am is able to
identify suitable and willing transacting parties, Cal-Am will exercise
reasonable additional efforts to acquire supplemental Carmel River water
rights at acceptable costs, and/or will pursue other Carmel River water
acquisitions and water right changes in order to increase flows in the Carmel
River and decrease Cal-Arn's unauthorized Carmel River diversions ("Carmel
River Flow Enhancement Program"). Cal-Am will use best efforts to implement
7
Attachment 1 to Application to Modify SIAIRCB Order WM 2009-0060

the Carmel River Flow Enhancement Program to the extent it can negotiate
acceptable agreements with water right holders and provided participation will
not negatively affect the rights of potential participants. Such acquisitions or
water right changes may include leases and purchases of water rights along
the Carmel River on a temporary or permanent basis, and may include water
right change approvals or permits (permanent or temporary) from the State
Water Board to increase opportunities to increase lawful diversions or reduce
unauthorized diversions during periods of lower flow on the Carmel River. Fifty
percent of water available under any Carmel River water right that is acquired
by Cal-Am after the effective date of this Order shall be dedicated to instream
use, and the remaining fifty percent shall be used to increase the Effective
Diversion Limit in effect at the time a transaction is completed.
(7) Malpaso Water Company: Water provided on an interim basis by the Malpaso
Water Company LLC to Cal-Am under SWRCB License No. 13868A shall be
added to the Effective Diversion Limit for the Water Year in which the water is
provided to Cal-Am.
on for this Order modifying
(8) Additional Conservation Measures: In considerati
certain provisions of WRO 2009-0060, and subject to final approval from the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and any other agencies with permitting jurisdiction,
Cal-Am shall implement $2.5 million in other projects on the Carmel River to
improve fish passage and habitat. These include, in order of priority and
estimated costs: additional spawning gravel injections below Los Padres Dam
using excess gravel from Los Padres reservoir ($0.2 million); improvements to
the existing upstream fish passage ladder and trap at Los Padres Dam ($0.2
million); installation of a fish screen at the lower outlet pipe on Los Padres Dam
($0.8 million); a pit tagging program ($0.8 million); and a through-reservoir
survival study for Los Padres Reservoir ($0.5 million). Should the higher priority
projects exceed the estimated amounts, funding will be applied from the lower
priority projects and utilized until the entire $2.5 million is exhausted.
Additionally, the estimated cost from the above projects may be used to
supplement other related projects occurring on the Carmel River.
(9) Los Padres Fish Passage. Cal-Am has committed to install of downstream fish
passage facilities at Los Padres Dam and will endeavor to do so before
December 31, 2015. Cal-Am will also endeavor to remove the Old Carmel
River Dam and the Sleepy Hollow Ford before September 30, 2017.
b. Either Cal-Am or the MPWMD may petition the State Water Board Deputy
Director for Water Rights for relief from reductions imposed under this Order. No
relief shall be granted unless all of the following conditions are met: (1) Cal-Am
continues the moratorium on new service connections pursuant to Water Code
section 350, and any orders from the PUC prohibiting new connections pursuant
to Public Utility Code section 2708, and the MPWMD continues a moratorium on
new service connections under its authority; (2) the demand for potable water by
Cal-Am customers meets all applicable conservation standards and
requirements; and (3) a showing is made that public health and safety will be
threatened if relief is not granted. Any relief granted shall remain in effect only as
long as a prohibition on new service connections remains in effect, and
compliance with applicable conservation standards and requirements remains in
effect.
c. ASR Project water stored in the Seaside groundwater basin under State Water
Board Permits 20808A and 20808C shall be used to mitigate the effect of CalAm's illegal diversions from the river. ASR water should be supplied to Cal-Am
customers only during months when water is most needed in the river to preserve
steelhead.
4.
Cal-Am shall reduce its illegal diversions from the river at the same rate ASR water is
recovered from the groundwater basin. After the first 600 afa have been recovered in
a given Water Year, the Effective Diversion Limit for that Water Year shall be
reduced by the actual amount of ASR water recovered in that Water Year.
5.
In State Water Board Order WRO 2009-0060, Cal-Am was required to implement one
or more small projects that, when taken together, totaled not less than 500 afa to
reduce unlawful diversions from the river. Cal-Am was required to identify to the
Deputy Director for Water Rights within 90 days of State Water Board Order WRO 20090060 the projects that it would implement, and to implement those projects within 24
9

months of entry of State Water Board Order WRO 2009-0060. Cal-Arn satisfied this
requirement by completing ASR Well #3. To the maximum practicable extent, Cal-Am
shall continue to operate this small project to reduce illegal diversions from the river
during the months when surface flow in the river begins to go dry and through the
months when surface flow in the river disappears below river mile 6.5.
6.
Cal-Am shall continue to post quarterly reports on its website and file the quarterly
reports with the Deputy Director for Water Rights. The quarterly reports shall include
the following:
a.
Monthly summaries of the quantity of water it diverts from the river.
b. Monthly summaries of the quantity of ASR project water diverted from the river
under State Water Board Permits 20808A and 20808C and stored in the Seaside
ground water basin. The monthly reporting shall also state the quantity of ASR
water recovered from aquifer storage, and the current balance of water in storage.
c.
Monthly summaries of the quantity of water being produced by the Sand City
desalination plant. The reporting shall identify new service connections within Sand
City and thereafter report the quantity of water being delivered to the new
connections. The monthly reports shall specify the quantity of water used to reduce
diversions from the river during the reporting period.
d. Monthly summaries of the quantity of water saved by reducing system tosses.

e. Monthly summaries of reductions in demand for potable water due to conservation
actions such as increased water rates, MPWMD's retrofit program, efforts to
f.
reduce potable water for outdoor water use and demand reduction initiatives.
Monthly summaries identifying all new service connections. The report shall
include the Cal-Am account number, the service address, the name of each
authority granting any approval required for connecting to Cal-Am's system and the
name of each authority granting any approval required before commencing
construction; the issuer of the each approval and the date of each approval shall
be separately listed for each service address.
that receive an
g. Monthly summaries identifying existing service addresses
increased supply of water due to a change in zoning or use. The report shall
include Cal-Am account number, the service address and the name of each
authority authorizing a change of use or of zoning and the date of such change.
10
h. Each quarterly report submitted by Cal-Am shall be certified under penalty

of perjury and shall include the following declaration: "/ declare under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all
statements contained in this report and any accompanying documents are
true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements made in this report
are subject to investigation and that any false or dishonest statement may
be grounds for prosecution."
7.
Cal-Am shall file quarterly reports of its diversions under Paragraph 5 (small project) of
this Order.
8.
The Deputy Director for Water Rights is authorized to modify the timing and the content
of the reporting required by all of the provisions of this Order to more effectively carry
out the intent of this Order.
9.
As of its effective date, this Order supersedes the ordering provisions of State Water
Board Order WRO 2009-0060, but does not supersede or render moot any of the
analysis or discussion contained in State Water Board Order WRO 2009-0060. Cal-Am
shall comply with all requirements of State Water Board Order 95-10, except as modified
pursuant to State Water Board Order WRO 2009-0060 or this Order.
10.
The Deputy Director for Water Right's is directed to closely monitor Cal-Am's
compliance with Order 95-10 and this Order. Appropriate action shall be taken to
insure compliance with these Orders including the issuance of additional cease and
desist orders under Water Code section 1831, the imposition of administrative civil
liability under Water Code section 1055, and referral to the Attorney General under
Water Code section 1845 for injunctive relief and for civil liability. If additional
enforcement action becomes necessary, the Deputy Director is directed to consider
including in such actions all Cal-Am's violations of Water Code section 1052 since the
adoption of Order 95-10.
11.
The conditions of this Order and Order 95-10 shall remain in effect until (a) Cal-Am
certifies, with supporting documentation, that it has obtained a permanent supply of
water that has been substituted for the water illegally diverted from the Carmel River
and (b) the Deputy Director for Water Rights concurs, in writing, with the certification.
11
Attachment Ito Application to Modify S1A1RCB Order WRO 2009-0060

CE RTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and
correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water
Resources Control Board held on
AYE:
NAY:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Clerk to the Board
12
Attachment 2
P LA NNITAi AND CuNsiIwATItN L FACi LI E
SIERRA
CLUB
0 N
I) T5i
November 19, 2015
Ms. Felicia Marcus,

Chair, State Water Resources Control Board
10011 Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Chair Marcus,
This letter transmits the comments of the Planning and Conservation League and the
Sierra Club on California American Water Company's Application to Modify SWRCB
Order WRO 2009-0600.
As you may know both PCL and the Sierra Club were active parties in the proceeding
that resulted in that 2009 Cease and Desist Order. We presented witnesses and provided
cross examination in that hearing. Additionally, the Sierra Club petitioned the Board in
1994 (through initiation of a complaint) to address both the legality of CAL-AM'S
diversions from the Cannel River and the decline of the steelh.ead population in the
River. Order 95-10 resulted from this complaint. Since the Board's issuance of the CDO
we have been working diligently with parties to obtain permits and ftmding for
alternative water supplies that will provide CAL-AM customers with alternative water
supplies.
It is now apparent that it will not be possible for CAL-AM to implement those alternative
water supplies in time for them to replace its illegal Carmel River diversions by the
deadline in the CDO, December 31, 2016,
We have been in discussions with CALAM, your staff and other parties as the deadline
for CDO compliance has approached. With one significant exception, we concur with
the latest draft Application dated November 19, 2015 that has been made available to us.
Our concurrence includes support for the time extension and the milestones that have
been proposed as triggers to demonstrate progress. We also concur with the proposed
funding for non-flow improvements to the habitat set forth in the application, and with
the proposal for adaptive management.
However there is one significant provision in CAL-AM's Application that would not be
consistent with the Board's public trust responsibilities. CAL-AM is proposing an
Effective Diversion Limit for water year 2015 2016 of 8,671 acre feet annually. It
would be reduced only slightly to 8,310 for the remaining term of the CDO extension.
That would be more than CALAM pumped in any of the past four years:
2011 2012
2012 2013
2013 2014
2014 2015
7,646 acre feet

8,007 acre feet
7,743 acre feet
7,228 acre feet
CAL-AM's proposed Effective Diversion Limit totally ignores the evidence that water
use by CAL-AM customers has been steadily decreasing. In water year 2014-2015 its
customers improved the efficiency of their water use so that their illegal diversions were
over 1,400 acre feet less than the amount CALAM is proposing. Furthermore that was
accomplished with no extraordinary financial or economic impacts to the users.
However the Cannel River steelhead have continued their precipitous decline. In 2013 2014 the steelhead fish count at San Clemente Dam was zero. In 2014 2015 it was only
7 fish. This year there were apparently no adult spawners returning below San Clemente
Dam, measured by the fish counting devices still in place.
In addition the overly high Effective Diversion Limit would result in a steep cliff in water
availability starting December 31, 2020 if alternative water supplies are not on line by
that date. Under their proposal even if all the milestones were missed they would still be
able to divert 5,310 acre feet of water in water year 2019 -2020, ending September 30,
2020. That would leave them only three months to reduce diversions down to their
legally permitted amount of 3,376 acre feet starting January 1,2021.
In light of the above we recommend that the Effective Diversion Limit be set at the
average of the three most recent water years. That equates to 7,659 acre feet. That would
provide CAL-AM some cushion over its water production in 2014-2015.
In addition, the Planning and Conservation League and the Sierra Club support the
current proposal's potential maximum credit of 750 acre feet. Under this provision the
amount of water diverted in any year less than the Effective Diversion Limit could be
carried over as an addition to the Effective Diversion Limit for the following year, The
amount of carryover credit could be up to 750 acre feet in any one year.
As you perform your public trust balancing responsibility, the impacts to the
steelhead from CALAM's proposed increase in diversion levels would outweigh any
economic or social impacts to water consumers (which have not been demonstrated).
Sincerely,
Jonas Minton,
Senior Water Policy Advisor, Planning and Conservation League
Rita Dalessio on behalf of the Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club

_
Larry Silver, Esq.

Counsel to Ventana Chapter, Sierra CIO
Carmel River Steelhead Association

501 (c)(3) TIN 77-0093979
P.O. Box 1183
Monterey, CA 93942
Barbara F.voy
Deprity Director. Division or Winer Rights
1001 1 Street
Sacramento, CA 9581 , 1
November I 8, 2015
RE: Application to Modify State Water Board Order 2009-0060 ((ease and Desist Order
Carmel River)
Dear Ms. l'voy
The Carmel Ri% et' Steel bead AucuiLion ((RSA I has been part or the stakeholders group
Nvorking with Cal Am on the request to extend WO 200)-0060. As a part or the group from the
bet2inning. CRS A recommends that the State Watei Board extend the Cease and Desist Order for
the l'our years requested,
1 have read the q- /1-15 letter addressed to you tilrfn M111011;11 Mai me Fisheries Service 1
agree in principal to their comment thni with the extension the fish will sutler further but they NV ill
VC. I 1.10, howe%er. red NMI'S did not analyze the request for extension in rehnionship to the
added mitigation Cal Am has agreed to do. to fully note the actual condition of the river. to give
accnrate rescue data. in to .gtve credit, to the loam other stakeholders volunteering lime to save the
Carmel River and its titeelhead.
At one or the early meetings with Cal Am_ the other stakeholders and your staff, 1 mudc the
point that the best thing for steelhend would he to slop all illegal pumping and the excessive
pumping to maintain water rights. Realizing that it is socially. economically and poi ideally
unrealistic for this to happen without a replacement water source and realizing even ifCal Am
reduced pumping significantly he river would still have problems, the second best thing would be
additional mitigation to help the lish during the extension and to help set the stage (Or recovery
\vile!' wale' is no longer ovcr-pumped from the rix er.
Cal Am has stepped up and promised to spend 2 2 million for mitigation above and beyond
the rollick spent or allocated in the NMI'S Cal Am settlement Rind agreement. I hree of the projects
promised in the extension proposal - the gravel injection below the recently removed Son Clemente
Writ the improvements cn the existing tish ladder and trap L'I'SA build in the late Ms., and the
installation of adequate fish screens Q11 the 1,os Padres Dam outlets - will have an immediate and
lusting benefit rot steelhend and all three projects will help i.educe the erects 01 the extension, in
fact. the NIVIFS letter mentions the mild screens as one thing that coul d
SteUlhead, Two
other projects - the pit lagging study mid the through-rLscrvoir survival study Jr Los Padres Dom
will sot the stage providing much needed information and put stakeholders in a belle' position to
help 'outland when water is restored.
CRSA believes these five additional mitigations will significantly reduce the impacts of
eNiending the Cease and Desist Order, file promised extensions, combined with the two projects
completed this year the removal or San Clemente Dam and the Los Padres Dam downstream fish
passage will put steelhead in a much better place going forward than they are now.
Another thing to consider is that the letter from NW'S did not mention the tributaries of the
Carmel River, and the Rio that most if not all tributaries now dry back every year. Ibis requires
CRSA to rescue thousands of ivy from them every year. To show the importance of the tributaries;
in two years CRSA rescued more small steelhead from Cachagua Creek than were rescued from the
main Carmel River. The drying back or the tributaries is the result or too ninny water users and
changes in land use on these tributaries and has nothing to do with Cal Am pumping. In fact, these
tributaries will still dry back when Cal Am is down to its legal limit of water. So while cutbacks in
pumping from the main Carmel River will greatly help, it will not fully restore the steelhead
population.
In conclusion and for the reasons listed above, CRSA supports extending WO 20N-0060.
Sincerely,
Lere
Brian LeNeve
President, Carmel River Steel hear! Association
ANTHONY LOMBARDO & ASSOCIATES

A PROFESSIONA,I, CONPORATION
ANTHONY L. LONIBAR
144W. GARILA_N STREET
KELLY MC CARTHY SUTHERLAND
' SALXNAS, CA 93901
MICHAEL A. CHURCHILL
(831) 751-2330
CODY J. PHILLIPS
FAX (831) 751-2331
November 17, 2015
Ms. Barbara Evoy

Deputy Director, Division of Water Rights
'State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95g14
Re:
Application to Modify Terms of Cease and Desist Order
Dear Ms. Evoy:

As you may recall, our firm represents Quail Lodge, Cannel Valley Ranch Resort and Bemardus
Lodge which are plaintiffs in the litigation involving the Cease and Desist Order.
We have reviewed the proposal to modify the terms of the Cease and Desist Order which is
being presented to you by California American Water Company and my clients wholeheartedly
endorse the request contained therein.
If you have any further questions regarding my clients" position in this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/;1494,4,
Anthony L. LoAbardb
ALL/gp
of Jason Burnett
January 22, 2016
Attachment 2
Ho
gamma spsubilial.V..1
AotadorgletION IrOttio
Veg. ..
. ..Fro .
41Agur
EDITORIALS
A.. ovr ,4,1,
1111
I
t ow
11
Editorial, Jan. 22, 2016: Cooperation

key on water agreements
EmmaItIou ptepru and tigoaty uneolrOOto rola lit outlook. ttote4y at matted Milt MM...
in Mi1.10.1011.1111
11:3
but dm Era di be applI op went tenor optory &trident thatbill IterbeGe boat tho}lebleges
Penmleaol!hit/Ede:1.5'a,,
At trgebt mrelkE OE thiPeoItoodo Wain reAltonly, went it 1110. puha mutt ghee then me
moo, platen worlino oo rodeos pier. of Ito egoll tottot npplt prefect Ha the lb about. and lb El
'If. bOthlItt HA Mb oral to ...prop,. on ell tooslo . We
nuo: WO heal wilt, Ur en ale abbr. al de ggoIgebongtelei
io t000piao Intro Ele Came/
ltiv or, WI hoof Mateo lor Iwo &Hodge Iltage,llgoth mg gambol. trot prrri two roller tapply
mooed., Cron glerbE to tellgebol &HOWIE= pled be 411E111.o Ool.1mh 617.t. 0101101f
Sp a s
'rHotSprI9
---
%C Y, pOlitk.1 N.1114. qol dellkobo0 00 0 Om &Lotion oll thew.

Our hool Itlagobegf folto bons a Pita =Ago V 11p,atoobl ionotatJa That hbrong obn that
limits It louptrettro lin ...bolted; - ettoblen Rohn mod the Ht41.1e - kelt klEagg
ptopur sad keep o amp forug or tho obi... gent I
k-e
8311921111. SpbAyil e ay coM

305C Mtn der Avenue. Seaside
ier.urmalmr.o.a7
. ,
darwpsmhp
rellallt,mu zuNdy.
ma no ot pogo.. InOado opproval l. .0 keel pabbe *to Volgt PonEntio Abbern I hob.... nil
Atu, dog Nen lent PrOlOnlo111110 11I0010oseen1 bletglot owl INN Moment' Mitt:Lel Wager Pollen/ on
r7..
Crewel...poor,
dithered to rortemom evpplootgat ra.. Mob a. oleo oed dual plant.
of
',ha 101.160 rupauibl. 0. r Hot Port WatOr Moo Ina.' PO., ti:" luki ,1 ,41
cri Melly Inlaid Avelkinsd trails and male 11 amiable ter poor Etreter
7.:A.
Ix the Seaddr Oblo. After poled of thoo
cgs then he pumped by col
MOST POPULAR
A...E
0-110iaaaml 01 41
VE1 them aro tellt mow queniene oboe, dile or000 doeler rechotto plan ,
the porkier,. o beteg gbytelpeptIong.11 tostrIlootee 10 410orilfimi vat.,
.4t
topped lb In Ouster kt
11914,1
mu. ,..i6,01, 1 4, ken r OT, 1.11 Ix..
la approved ...hoe ulentel rgeint- II meet, ...mot nottel do voter iamb oil Olt...grand
oorlronottonl 0.16E0.
nukame0 1100li rIItnbL.l, (.4.0 pole otge

trrgq 4.1, 11)
pulleys the mom rottelal remit Armament if OM natio. terwr o Col ...Id 41,CH -trysts
C.1011110 SPhirX 1:031C1 fa to-tolled `HOU,
bla quaatlan gboto tit Cal An desol
Run V etto bbook ploblgrgo tie logsb ,t

[wilt
PHJert goetto belt oo the mut et Itetioa has born bob tooth 1llao1VW 0.110 0.0(100 Ittseldelt
wato woad 1:. puavol don .bbo,.',IP, foe antrum et 5.110 as Vol,. roottoOk-obr goo Ito
.eu urd iAaII blThbl10y Iho thorn ef Agar 11
th,
Pliell 16441110101 tol ILO /lc 00100 out

.1W . roe V0114111PIP toit eolItt mNrm .e5.101
...a r comp. rdd Ia l,t h.flW1ld4
The :Itontet Coma, Wm; botooroto tettEtY AM date hot o/lowNel toot Aorlo
*spotted legal g bad, 'Jet IF blip the datOlOtojito plotte end topitnomeorel dengue., ham
ohropo l,dol,lo tiloamtot Out any Salina, .'allay
moo 1,11111100 Gannet In now Too., m.

113101!
eleurod . to +he logl. A be, to Howe
Itig wart:. aCritic.1 r,nirronmeta1. pololgal
Slog ter", 130 Ohlteb Croott ore 131 eIO1

to bele, ol 141 I otlog
W....lag fib lip.r1.11. la room Emoted prrelthtuto loth. rentsgeoPy COTIroSle, kat
&ghettos aro beteg riot,. get'''. Heeled 114 ponies trhe Woad aebb it thb trol tided ere VOIIFE
Eut tertolob do not olgsql ore.. Th pr
o tho Fur Moen, Eatittot VAS".
I.OgolCelv Cry Event I 10011 o01.11 ;eh, 11 ollto

not hos**, phrItte
L. ,l11W0.Oh0r,llh11F,O11.I0 lbl.id Wow Auk. rhy. Roo Iht holm*, Ett volt, - Novato fo ttho
?Iolanda mite, Lk. tglipte Vellepu camoogillo OM tot hock On poollos bore
1.tonloroy 191011 Ill C.N./ IN? 1110-I 1111 00

purr"
rook] be
onetnlettte{ tO 111,11.1, letrualg b

:,ett sly do dm. Nir Itaintre If mote the dotal project (nowol. thoy rho &tooth. pottlIgahler of
Vielao Hors Ffflul
mowed. reptooei grpoggete nab.' Abut brief 1. writ, Coliforble, Out the coOpentiou and
protegee be him, roctloe ally thould 0110n001p. - met Iteyefully, pone.
LflOttflll . ga Haub Wool.

L.; ot-o NM., He WI re
EIMIA 000110 THE MO
111121EMILE
lielegWY
fr4RTI:
tett You, KoPP grata 141401
1101 PAVE OWE
111 0(010 11 Wow TO Pop ENI

310.000 In [win Coro n , t ,,
..berPbre Nor,
Tbo 16 Beal SeboOlOtotteto

In Vat/ IS
Pravvi
magi
1M00 loot ...an.
1. 1.
004.0400- 1100 r1014111.0 Ivo ra...
Flab InlobErobolibitroir Aland LPN MIN Vow Lttr. 1010.111,1.

Oaf pabilsorogo. Myatt to* toot., cogootr
otpo
Asmly Fing MOOCH
1011 100100
Mem. our He..N. ray 1.0110
TIlL
110.1 0.1.10
L AN E
ROM 1111011 'THE WEE
YOU le iaHT ALSO Mt
Trot Fgatral Way To Pry. 011 110 AEI to INN
Poteitt Uoburegot +anew Aporniari q pore
aloMMOOlo1101.111 , 000 , 0.
WolorlimamMatao
gaol
olea ....No Fall tam 61 l'Ad :

00I1000*
vr, t1l,01.9 Th.
HO IE011 [IONIA Mb Rau. TIll to^ dem
Mon.noat AMMO LiM armo
Ng* 010.0 111 motor nosed Het one Igr
DISKEEEL4
PEol
Cal
or
VIENNA orb= loito CfMnill Work.
IMO Peru *MO in Mao
Pantie ro On.
1.10011001,1101111.4111 00.1410v. podurtat 1110 011(0110 MENU EMI/wry 14.1 plop lo
ript. Moon MOO. Ibbittel 111011 10 Top

Japoorso.
FvlOODO WOO
Ettoteter Ocelot
%Mawr/
10101111,111 oo....knian Colo kw.
I wo
. woo, .Etutto oln
TOP STORIES
dtonow,look odi mt. tow
55,55 . 555. 5.,
aZirahl 555555514.1a/
7rE5 57. 57,555.5 511.1.555015555.....5 .55.11
555,5.1555.14.55.515555551145.5m5.555.5,155.14
111.5551455,,s511 501.155m557n1
555.5.5mg.5151.5. fm.100,1455110.511aut
nolw,w1w4,otoopht Searth suspended
Notit onloo pokes

with
ot
otIblool.fitt
BlontovoyCoun(y
Iowa
rrocastoontwarl.otwonntwo,
nmrtItwor
&talc inolcul
it.,glfliW flthq
Iot two% SA nI55

CO. otuJentswho
Alonteier County
wad outvloot lit
MI Into the OMNI
twolte orthlkl Joann
This Waak's Circulars

imam.. a a Amnia tonin Ittnalr MAI
141,520;CZ:
VA1.5.5.11.1514..550,1511.1353
55555.1alom5m
tip %ram*.
GEIRM11111
AMITY
inninINICOIClAnn
Monterey Local GUlde
lloYEKIVIDnetnnli
rrottfWV,
fitaltdielnInIneoses
JOIN TN E CONVERSATION
0=1171
$U1111 tot a bu Moots

noon', b; tot Ant ot. Zit
Add yelulbustnoza hole I,
Ben Carson for President

rat ornablisirolAr,C*100
PrmoOltnadeonnolpotnonSkilt
'Ii
l()NIIflIY
1111111.1)
1301111119C0
etoptp4, , toktot Ovum 'tool raam.ye PPP 75,m5A May set W. Ow.
IA A
of Jason Burnett
January 22, 2016
Attachment 3
EIJIJUNI1 G. ElliC6V14
Jri
daysvol
01.1
14
Water Boards
MATtlitLY RObtlIblArt
84COEIMY PII
rnOirellaif

January 22, 2016
Commissioner Catherine J.K. Sandoval

California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3298
Via U.S. Postal Service and Email: catherine.sandovalgcpuc.ca .qov
Subject: Letter of Support for Pure Water Monterey, Application No. 12-04-019 (filed April 23,
2013)
Dear Commissioner Sandoval:
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is both very concerned about
and interested in a sustainable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula to eliminate existing
unlawful pumping from the Carmel River consistent with the State Water Board's Cease and
Desist Order (COO), State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060. I understand that several
public agencies and Cal-Am have chosen to support water recycling (Pure Water Monterey) as
part of the portfolio of water supplies under consideration by the California Public Utilities
Commission.
On November 30, 2015, the State Water Board approved a wastewater change petition for the
City of Salinas, that allows up to 4.67 million gallons per day (5,235 acre-feet per year) of
wastewater to be recycled and applied to two potential uses, one of which is municipal use in
the Cal-Am service area. This water must be used to offset deliveries of unlawful diversions
from the Carmel River by Cal-Am, unless the Executive Director of the State Water Board
grants permission to use the water for new uses in the service area. Additionally, it is my
understanding that the project will use wastewater that would not be subject to State Water
Board water right permitting requirements, because it Is currently discharged directly to the
ocean.
Allowing this water to be used in the Cal-Am service area by adding this portion of Pure Water
Monterey to the area's water portfolio makes sense because it would provide a lawful
alternative to illegal diversions from the Carmel River on a timeline anticipated to be faster
than that anticipated for the proposed desalination plant. State Water Board Order WR 20090060 requires that Cal-Am cease unlawful diversions at the end of December 2016. Cal-Am
has requested an extension of this deadline until December 31, 2020 that is currently under
consideration by the State Water Board. Any potential extension of the deadline, however, will
not solve the issue of continued impacts to the Carmel River.
Approval of this portion of Pure Water Monterey adds to the region's development of a diverse
water portfolio. The current drought emergency has underscored the pitfalls of relying on too
1- 11 CIA MAICI1S, GRAM I THOMAS HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1001 I StreeI, ancfamenla, CA 9581 ,1 I ivlaillog Addritcs: P.O. Bun 100, aduriinton14, Ca 95812-0100 I www.waltribustdg_co.nov
C:)
01.-1? A;(
-2-
January 22, 2016
few sources of water supply in many communities across the state. The project is in alignment
with the State Water Board's Recycled Water Policy, which encourages the maximum
substitution of recycled water for potable water by 2030.
Water rights for other portions of the Pure Water Monterrey Project are currently under review
at the State Water Board, and I can therefore not comment on them. The portion of Pure
Water Monterey Project approved by the State Water Board, however, advances state
mandates and policy objectives. If successful, it also demonstrates how multiple agencies can
work together to develop a water supply project that provides benefits to multiple stakeholders
and enhances environmental considerations.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proceedings.
Sincerely,
(") Felicia Marcus

Chair
cc.
Administrative Law Judge Gary Weatherford,

California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3298
Via U.S. Postal Service and Email: gw2espuc.ca.qov
Attn: President Jason Burnett
735 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Via U.S. Postal Service and Email: iason_burnettRomailcom
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Attn: David StoIdt, General Manager
5 Harris Court, Building G, P.0, Box 85
Monterey, CA 93942
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Attn: Paul Sciuto, General Manager
5 Harris Court, Bldg D
Monterey, CA 93940
California American Water Company
Attn: President Robert MacLean
1033 B Ave Ste 200
Coronado, CA 92116
-3Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Attn: Linda Serizawa, Deputy Director
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
January 22, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the SUPPLEMENTAL
TESTIMONY OF JASON BURNETT on all parties of record in A.12-04-019 by electronic mail.
Executed on January 22, 2016, at Santa Barbara, California.
ts/ Gina Lane

Gina Lane
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER

SCHRECK, LLP
1020 State Street
Telephone: (805) 963-7000
Facsimile: (805) 965-4333
Email: GLanerelbhfs.com
015621\0002\10703327,1
California
f\
ght.:
_2,
CPUC - Service Lists - A1204019
GOV
"Public
4# Commission
Page 1 of 6
CPUC Home
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Service Lists
PROCEEDING: A1204019 - CAL-AM WATER CO. - F
FILER: CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
LIST NAME: LIST
LAST CHANGED: JANUARY 21, 2016
Download the Comma-delimited Fire
About Comma-delimited Files
Back to Service Lists Index
Parties
MICHAEL WARBURTON
EXEC. DIR.
THE PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000
FOR: THE PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE
DARREN M. FRANKLIN
ATTORNEY
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LL?
333 SOUTH HOPE ST., 43RD FL.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1422
FOR: GEOSOIENCE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
RUSSELL M. MCGLOTHLIN
1020 STATE STREET
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
FOR: MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY
NORMAN C. GROOT
MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU
PO BOX 1449 / 931 BLANCO CIRCLE
SALINAS, CA 93902-1449
FOR: MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU
RON WEITZMAN
PRESIDENT
WATER PLUS
PO BOX 146
CARMEL, CA 93921
FOR: WATER PLUS
BOB MCKENZIE
WATER ISSUES CONSULTANT
COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES
PO BOX 223542
CARMEL, CA 93922
FOR: COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES
NANCY ISAKSON
PRESIDENT
SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION
3203 PLAYA COURT
MARINA, CA 93933
FOR: SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION
(SVWC)
GEORGE T. RILEY
MANAGING DIRECTOR
PUBLIC WATER NOW
1198 CASTRO ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940
FOR: PUBLIC WATER NOW
ROBERT WELLINGTON
WELLINGTON LAW OFFICES
857 CASS STREET, STE. D
MONTEREY, CA 93940
THOMAS FRUTCHEY
CITY MANAGER
300 FOREST AVENUE
https://ia.cpuc ,ca.gov/servicclists/A1204019 80356.htm
1/22/2016
Page 2 of 6

FOR: MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY (MRWPCA)
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950

FOR: CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
DAVID C. LAREDO
ATTORNEY
DE LAY & LAREDO
606 FOREST AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-4221
FOR: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MPWMD)
CARLOS RAMOS
1048 BROADWAY AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
FOR: LATINO WATER-USE
COALITION-MONTEREY PENINSULA/LATINO
SEASIDE MERCHANTS ASSOC./COMMUNIDAD EN
ACC ION
LAURA HORTON
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
FOR: CALIFORNIA UNIONS FOR RELIABLE
ENERGY (CURE)
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS

ATTORNEY
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
FOR: SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
JOHN H. FARROW
M.R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
555 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 405
FOR: LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY
JOHN REYNOLDS
CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER RETERMAN
ROOM 5133
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214
FOR: ORA
MARK FOGELMAN, ESQ.

COUNSEL
FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP
350 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 210
FOR: MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
SARAH E. LEEPER
ATTORNEY
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
555 MONTGOMERY ST., STE. 816
FOR: CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
LAURENS H. SILVER
ATTORNEY
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT LAW PROJECT
PO BOX 667
MILL VALLEY, CA 94942
FOR: SIERRA CLUB
DAN L. CARROLL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
DOWNEY BRAND, IL?
621 CAPITOL MALL, 18TH FLOOR
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
FOR: COUNTY OF MONTEREY / MONTEREY
COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
JONAS MINTON
WATER POLICY ADVISOR
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE
1107 - 9TH STREET, SUITE 901
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3618
FOR: PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE
Information Only
11 .1
JOE GEEVER
WATER PROGRAMS MANAGER
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
EMAIL ONLY
KAREN GRIMMER
NATINAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN.
EMAIL ONLY
LINDA MINKY
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & SCHRECK
EMAIL ONLY
SARAH DAMRON
EMAIL ONLY
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/servicelists/A1204019_80356.htm
1/22/2016
Page 3 of 6
SHERI BOLES
EXECUTIVE DIVISION
EMAIL ONLY
DON EVANS
MCWO
8550 WEST CHARLESTON, STE. 102-394
LAS VEGAS, NV 89117
DENNIS E. WILLIAMS
PRESIDENT
GEOSCIENCE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
PO BOX 220
CLAREMONT, CA 91711
JAN DRISCOLL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY NATSIS
501 W. BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
ANTHONY J. CERASUOLO
1033 B AVENUE,STE. 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92118
KEVIN TILDEN
1033 B AVENUE, SUITE 200
CORONADO, CA 92118
ROBERT G. MACLEAN
PRESIDENT
CORONADO, CA 92118
PAUL L. FINDLEY
RBF CONSUILTING
9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., STE. 100
SAN DIEGO, CA 92124
LAURA GODFREY ZAGAR

PERKINS & COIE LLP
11988 E CAMINO REAL, STE. 350
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
ANGELA HOWE
PO BOX 6010
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
JENA SHOAF
BHFS
1020 STATE STREET
RYAN C. DRAKE
21 EAST CARRILLO STREET
FRANCES M. FARINA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
DE LAY & LAREDO
389 PRINCETON AVENUE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CHARLES J. MCKEE
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
168 WEST ALISAL ST., 3RD FLR
SALINAS, CA 93901
AMY WHITE
LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY
PO BOX 1876
SALINAS, CA 93902
DAVID E. CHARDAVOYNE
GENERAL MANAGER
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
PO BOX 930
SALINAS, CA 93902
JANET BRENNAN
PO BOX 1876
SALINAS, CA 93902
JULIE ENGELL
PO BOX 1876
SALINAS, CA 93902
LLOYD W. LOWREY, JR.

NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS
PO BOX 2510

JOLAND HAMERLY ETIENNE & HOSS
PO BPX 2510
1/22/2016
Page 4 of 6

JASON K. BURNETT
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTH
PO BOX 7202
CARMEL, CA 93921
OFFICE MANAGER
PO DRAWER 2670
GREENFIELD, CA 93927
JAMES HEITZMAN
GENERAL MANAGER
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
11 RESERVATION RD
MARINA, CA 93933
JAN SHRINER
MARINA COAST WATAER DISTRICT
11 RESERVATION ROAD
MARINA, CA 93933
BRIDGET HOOVER
DIR - WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
99 PACIFIC STREET, BLDG. 455
MONTEREY, CA 93940
KEITH ISRAEL
GENERAL MGR.
MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION
5 HARRIS COURT, BLDG. D
MONTEREY, CA 93940
PAUL SCIUTO
MONTEREY REGN'L. WTR. POLLUTION CONTROL
5 HARRIS CT., BLDG D
MONTEREY, CA 93940
DAVID STOLDT
GEN. MGR.
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MNGMNT. DIST.
PO BOX 85
MONTEREY, CA 93942-0085
ANTHONY J. TERSOL
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION - MONTEREY CHAPTER
319 FOREST AVE.
CATHERINE BOWIE
511 FOREST LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CA 93950
HEIDI A.. QUINN

DE LAY & LAREDO
606 FOREST AVENUE
MICHAEL BOWHAY
MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB
PO BOX 2090
PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953-2090
ROGER B. MOORE
PARTNER
ROSSMANN AND MOORE, LLP
380 HAYES STREET
RUTH STONER MUZZIN

ANNA SHIMKO
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
101 HOWARD ST., STE. 400
JAMES W. MCTARNAGHAN
ATTORNEY
PERKINS COIE LLP
505 HOWARD STREET, STE. 1000
SIGRID WAGGENER
ERIC ZIGAS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES/WATER
550 KEARNY ST., STE. 800
ANDREW HOMER
CYNTHIA RUSSELL
1/22/2016
Page 5 of 6
LORI ANNE DOIQUEIST, ESQ

ATTORNEY AT LAW
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLR
NICHOLAS A. SUBIAS, ESQ.

CORP. COUNSEL
NINA SUETAKE
VIDHYA PRABHAKARAN
DAVIS WRIGHT & TREMAINE LIP
505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800
FOR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
JAMES BREZACK
BREZACK & ASSOCIATES PLANNING
3000 CITRUS CIRCLE, SUITE 210
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598
ERIC ROBINSON
ATTORNEY
KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDERMANN & GIRARD
FOR SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION
(SVWC)
SCOTT BLAISING
ATTORNEY
BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C.
915 L STREET, STE. 1270
ROBERT E. DONLAN
ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS, L.L.P.
2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400
RICHARD SVINDLAND
4701 BELOIT DRIVE
SHERRENE CHEW
4701 BELOIT DRIVE
State Service
CHRIS
CPUC
EMAIL
EMAIL
UNGSON
ORA
ONLY
ONLY, CA 00000
JONATHAN KOLTZ
EMAIL ONLY
MICHAEL COLVIN
CPUC
SED
EMAIL ONLY
RICHARD RAUSCHMEIER
ORA - WATER
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTITLITIES COMMISSION
EMAIL ONLY
VIET TROUNG
EMAIL ONLY
BURTON MATTSON
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
ROOM 2106
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
GARY WEATHERFORD
ROOM 5020
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
JONATHAN J. REIGER
LEGAL DIVISION
ROOM 5136
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
https://ia.cpucxa.gov/servicelists/A1204019_80356.htm
1/22/2016
Page 6 of 6
CPUC Service Lists - A1204019

-
JUSTIN MENDA
TESTER MONO
UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMMUNICATIONS AND WATER POLICY BRANCH
ROOM 4209
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94102-3214

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH
ROOM 5220
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
MARCELO POIRIER
LEGAL DIVISION
ROOM 5029
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
MICHAEL EELAEO
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND PERMITTING B
AREA
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
PETER V. ALIEN
RAVI KUMRA
CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES
CALIF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

ROOM 2206
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
COMMISSION
WATER AND SEWER ADVISORY BRANCH
AREA 3-C
$05 VAN NESS AVENUE
SARAN R. THOMAS
LEGAL DIVISION
ROOM 5033
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94102-3214
STEPHEN ST. MARIE

SUZIE ROSE
TERENCE SHIA
AREA
505 VAN MESS AVENUE

ROOM 4208
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION

ROOM 5119
505 VAN NESS AVENUE

TOP OF PAGE
BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS
ht-tps://ia.cpue.ca.goviservicelists/A1204019_80356,htm
1/22/2016
BEFORE TBE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

In the Matter of Application of CaliforniaAmerican Water Company (LT210W) for

A.12-04-019
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF AL PRESTON, Ph.D., FL
RUSSELL M. MCGLOTHLIN (SBN 208826)

JENA R. SHOA.F (SBN 296060)
BROWN-STEIN HYATT FARBER SCITRECK, LLP
1020 State Street
Telephone: (805) 963-7000
Facsimile: (805) 965-4333
Email: nricglothlin@bhfs.com; jshoaf@bhfs.eorn
Attorneys for;
AUTHORITY
Dated: January 22, 2016

In the Matter of Application of California
American Water Company (U210W) for
A.12-04-019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Introduction
IL
Determining Natural Background Salinity
III.
V.
Monitoring Locations
Monitoring and Retrieval Frequency
VI.
Mitigation Measures
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF AL PRESTON, Ph.D., P.E.

I.
Introduction
Ql: Please state your name and business address.

Al: My name is Al Preston. My business address is 448 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA
90013.
Q2: By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A2: I am employed by Geosyntec Consultants Inc., as a Senior Water Resources Engineer.
Q3: What are your responsibilities at Geosyntec Consultants Inc.?
A3: I manage water resource engineering and modeling projects, including client interaction,
budgets and staffmg, as well as directly performing technical analysis and modeling. I provide
direction and senior review of technical work performed by others including quality assurance of
modeling results and reports.
Q4: Briefly describe your educational background.
A4: I have a Bachelors of Civil Engineering and Masters of Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Canterbury in New Zealand, and a Masters of Civil Engineering and Ph.D. in
Mechanical Engineering (computational fluid dynamics) from the California Institute of
Technology.
Q5:
Please describe your professional experience.
A5: I am a licensed Professional Civil Engineer in the State of California, and have over 14
years of experience in computational fluid dynamics and hydrodynamic and surface water
quality modeling. I have primarily worked on three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations and
water quality modeling of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and coastal ocean waters. I have conducted,
led, and managed modeling projects to evaluate mixing and dispersion of desalination brine
discharges, assess thermal discharges in rivers, situate new drinking water intakes, examine the
effects of diffuser discharges, determine water quality of expanded reservoirs, track
contaminants through lakes and rivers, and investigated the effects of climate change. My clients
are typically water authorities and have included, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Contra Costa Water District, and San Diego
Public Utilities Department. I also managed the subsurface seawater intake feasibility study for
West Basin Municipal Water District's proposed desalination plant at El Segundo, CA.
Q6: Have you testified before the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC")?
A6: No.
Q7: What is the purpose of your testimony?
A7: The purpose of my testimony is to provide my professional opinion as to the
appropriateness of the Tem' Sheet (Exhibit A) that certain parties have prepared as an outline of
a proposed settlement. The settlement would resolve concerns related to using the Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency ("PCA") outfall to discharge brine from the Monterey
Regional Water Supply Project ("MRWSP" or "Project") desalination facility proposed for
development by the California American Water Company ("Cal-Am"). Factors considered in
my opinion include monitoring protocol, ability to determine compliance with the Ocean Plan,
and the technical feasibility of potential mitigation options.
Q8: Can you please describe your involvement with the Project to date?
A8: I was originally retained in May 2015 by Separation Processes Incorporated ("SPI") on
behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority ("MPRWA") to evaluate the EIR
report and modeling conducted to examine the brine discharge for the Project. More recently,
since December 2015, I have been retained by SPI on behalf of MPRWA to be involved in
technical discussions with the expert, Craig Jones, retained by Surfrider Foundation regarding
development of the Term Sheet, as well as regularly engaging with representatives from Cal-Am,
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and the Surfrider Foundation. While the
Term Sheet is not a complete or final settlement agreement, there exists substantial agreement
between the parties involved concerning the terms and I anticipate that the parties should be able
reach agreement on terms substantially similar to those set forth in the Term Sheet.
Q9: Does the Term Sheet set forth an appropriate approach to monitor salinity concentrations
and dilution in relation to the Project for compliance with the Ocean Plan?
A9: Yes, it is my professional judgment that the Term Sheet describes monitoring protocol
that will be sufficient to monitor salinity changes due to the brine discharge and to determine
compliance with the Ocean Plan, as well as outlining appropriate mitigation steps to be taken
should non-compliance be determined.
Q10: In your professional opinion, will the brine discharge be in compliance with the Ocean
Plan salinity limitation?
A10: The modeling analyses of the Project's anticipated brine discharge and dilution that I
previously reviewed were appropriate, but did use numerous conservative assumptions that likely
under-estimate the mixing and dilution that will actually occur once the Project is operational.
These include the following assumptions made in the near-field analyses: circular diffuser ports
(instead of oval); use of minimum height above sea-floor instead of average height; neglect of
additional near-field dilution after plume impacts sea-floor; and the following assumptions made
in the far-field analyses: neglect of vertical mixing in the far-field, neglect of waves, neglect of
gravity currents, and use of low-end lateral diffusion coefficient More recently it has been
brought to my attention that internal waves within Monterey Bay can also lead to substantial
near-shore mixing, and this additional mixing was also neglected in the modeling.
Given the modeling analyses performed, including the many conservative assumptions listed
above, coupled with the monitoring protocol described in the Term Sheet, it is my professional
opinion that the brine discharge will be in compliance with the Ocean Plan salinity limitations
and that this will be adequately demonstrated by the proposed monitoring described in the Term
Sheet, if implemented.
Q11: Please summarize the key facets of the Term Sheet and explain why they are appropriate?
All: The primary goal of the Term Sheet is to monitor and confirm that the marine
environment is protected through appropriate dilution of the brine generated and discharged from
the Project, and to provide for mitigation if the currently-proposed outfall approach proves
insufficient for such protection. The Term Sheet proposes the implementation of a monitoring
3
protocol that would confirm that the Ocean Plan salinity limitations are satisfied, and would
provide appropriate mitigation measures should monitoring detelmine non-compliance. The
Ocean Plan specifies that salinity should not exceed 2.0 parts per thousand (ppt) above "natural
background salinity" measured no further than 100 meters (m) horizontally from the discharge.
Determining Natural Background Salinity
Q12: How does the Term Sheet propose that the natural background salinity be monitored and
why is the approach appropriate?
Al2: Due to an apparent lack of long-term (i.e., 20 years or more) data in close proximity to
the discharge location, the Term Sheet specifies that a reference location be used to measure the
natural background salinity. This approach allows for monitoring natural changes in salinity that
occur over seasonal and decadal time-scales. The Term Sheet specifies a reference location
1,000 m to the north of the discharge and at the same depth/elevation as the discharge. It is
anticipated that this location will be far enough away from the discharge to be not influenced by
the salinity discharge. In particular, since it is at the same elevation as the discharge it will not
be affected by a density current, which would typically move downslope. In addition, any longshore transport of the salinity discharge toward the reference location would be highly
dispersive. Thus, this location is appropriate to use to measure the natural background salinity.
In
Monitoring Locations
Q13: How does the Term Sheet propose that compliance with the Ocean Plan be measured and
why is the approach appropriate?
A13: The Term Sheet specifies that salinity measurements will be made on the seafloor at a
location 100 m downslope of the discharge, and compared to the measurements at the reference
location in order to determine compliance with the Ocean Plan. This location is appropriate
since it is consistent with the 100 m distance specified in the Ocean Plan and is located
downslope where the highest salinities are expected to occur (e.g., due to possible density
currents travelling downslope).
Q14: Does the Term Sheet propose monitoring of salinity at additional locations?
A14: The Term Sheet also specifies that additional salinity measurements will be made 10 m
and 1000 m downslope of the discharge. These measurements will provide insight into the near
field mixing as well as the evolution and movement of the brine discharge plume in the far field,
including monitoring of potential density currents if they exist.
IV.
Monitoring and Retrieval Frequency
Q15: Please describe the process for taking measurements of salinity in the locations the Term
Sheet recommend that salinity measurements be taken and how often will the probes be retrieved
and recalibrated?
A15: The Term Sheet specifies that salinity measurements will be made continuously (likely to
be every 15 to 60 minutes) via probes permanently installed at each of the three monitoring
locations (described above) and at the natural background salinity reference location. These
measurements will be retrieved on monthly boat trips, at which time the probes will be checked
and recalibrated and additional measurements of vertical salinity profiles (i.e., measurements of
salinity made throughout the water column) will be made.
Q16: Do you conclude that this approach is comprehensive to ensure compliance with the
Ocean Plan?
A16: This high frequency salinity monitoring is a thoroughly comprehensive approach and will
enable compliance with the Ocean Plan to be verified and provide additional insight into any
temporal variation of salinities both in the natural background and due to the brine discharge.
Furthermore, the vertical profiles collected monthly will provide additional information on the
vertical mixing of the brine discharge and whether a density current may occur under certain
conditions.
V.
Mitigation Measures
Q17: Please describe the available mitigation options set forth in the Term Sheet.
A17: The Term Sheet outlines different mitigation options that could be implemented should it
be determined that the brine discharge is in non-compliance. These include retrofitting of
existing diffuser ports and construction of a new diffuser structure, both of which are technically
5
appropriate options that can increase the initial dilution of the brine discharge. The language in
the Term Sheet is flexible with respect to what the exact mitigation strategy will be, which is
appropriate given that the best strategy will likely depend upon how much additional dilution
will be required and also may change in the future as different technologies are developed.
Q18: Does this conclude your testimony?
A18: Yes.
Direct Testimony of
Al Preston, Ph.b.,
January 22, 2016
Exhibit A
1/21/2016
BEIN,LUTTLEMENT TERM SHEET (A.12-04-0191

California-American Water ("Cal-Am"), Surfrider Foundation, the Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. and [insert] ("the
Parties") have prepared this Term Sheet to facilitate discussions to resolve
contested issues relating to brine discharge impacts from Cal-Ames Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project ("lvIPWSP" or "the Project") into the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary ("Sanctuary"). The Parties agree to negotiate appropriate
binding agreements on the terms described below. The terms represent
compromises that the Parties intend to resolve the Parties' disputes in front of the
California Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") with respect to the Project's brine
discharge impacts. This Term Sheet, however, does not constitute a binding agreement,
covenant, or condition with respect to the issue of brine discharge.
TERMS .
1.
Agreement to Not Oppose Brine Discharge

Surfrider Foundation will not oppose in puc proceeding A.12.04.019
("Proceeding") the use of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency ("PCA") outfall to discharge brine from the MPWSP desalination
facility, as currently proposed in the Proceeding, so long as all other terms
and conditions specified herein are agreed to arid met. Surfrider Foundation
reserves the right to support or oppose other potential MPWSP brine
discharge locations, including locations that have been identified as
contingencies or alternatives in the Proceeding. The Parties agree to defend
and support the settlement to be developed from this Term Sheet in any
administrative or judicial proceeding concerning the settlement and/or CalAm's obligati* and responsibilities with respect to the brine monitoring
arid mitigation,
2.
Monitoring Program
Cal-Am agrees to monitor the MPWSP's brine discharges as follows:
2.1
Monitoring and Data Collection
Starting at least one year prior to the first discharge of the Project's
brine into the Sanctuary and continuing throughout the life of the
Project, Cal-Am shall continuously monitor the presence of brine
constituents in the water column, including without limitation salinity
levels, from at least four monitoring locations including: (1) 10 meters
downslope of the outfall, which is intended to measure effects within
and near the Zone of Initial Dilution ("ZID"); (2) 100 meters
1
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION
(Rule of Practice and Procedure 12.6)
1/21/2016
downslope of the outfall, which is the compliance point; (3) 1000
meters downslope of the (Aldan, intended to measure far-field effects,
and (4) 1000 meters north of the outfall, and along the same
elevation contour as the outfall, which is intended to measure
conditions without the influence of the outfall (the "Reference
Location"). The vertical profiling described in Section 2.1.a below will
used to validate the Reference Location: if review of the vertical
profiling shows evidence that the Reference Location may be
influenced by the outfall, the Parties will agree og a new Reference
Location. Any of these four monitoring locations may be revised
during or after the first year of pre-Project operations monitoring
should monitoring data indicate unusual behavior at any monitoring
site.
Data from these locations Will be retrieved initially on
a.
. a
monthly basis before Project operations. During each data collection,
the salinity probe will be checked and re calibrated The amount of
re-calibration required will be recorded, and used to inform potential
less-frequent future sampling protocol:, After probe re-calibration, a
vertical salinity profile will be measured at each location.
Following commencement of Project operations, monitoring
b.
data shall be collected atTegular ,bimonthly intervals. The calibration
and vertical profile protoOls . deScribedirninediately above will be
followed at each data colledtion. Data will be analyzed, shared with
the Parties and the PUC, and posted online.
The frequency of data collection will be reconsidered at the
c.
of full-capacity Project
later of two years after the
operations or the close of the period of Watershed Sanitary Survey
mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of
Drinking Water if at this time, the daily average salinity measured at
the 100-Meter location boundary does not reach 75% of the salinity
standards .specified in section 2.5 below, Cal-Am may reduce the
frequency Of data collection and analysis to quarterly intervals.
The Parties agree to support Cal-Am in obtaining any
d.
regulatory approvals required for the installation or operation of this
monitoring program. If Cal-Am fails to obtain any required approval,
the Parties agree that the monthly monitoring described in Section
2.1(a) will suffice until a continuous monitoring program can be
implemented.
2.2 Alternative Monitoring Programs
2
1/21/2016
If a regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the Project requires an
alternative monitoring program that is more protective of marine
resources in the Sanctuary, the Parties agree that Cal-Am shall
implement that alternative monitoring program in lieu of the
monitoring program described in this agreement. If the Parties cannot
determine whether the alternative monitoring program is more
protective of marine resources in the Sanctuary, Cal-Am may
substitute the alternative monitoring program for the program in this
agreement, but only if the Parties agree that it is a suitable
replacement for the monitoring program established by this
agreement
The Parties further agree to consider reasonable Modifications to this
agreement's monitoring program if required to meet a mandate from
other agencies. The Parties have no obligation to approve such
modifications, but will give cIoSe consideration to proposals that do
not reduce the frequency or accuracy of monitoring and data
collection.
The Parties recognize that alternative monitoring programs may
require PUG approval and agree to make commercially reasonable
efforts to obtain any such approval
2.3
Salinity Standards
Monitoring shall determine Whether discharged brine is diluted to the

levels specified below
3.
During PrOfect operation, monitored salinity at and outside of the ZID

boundary will Comply with this agreement if it meets the lowest of the
following standards:, (1) the Ocean Plan's receiving water limitation
for salinity of a daily "average of 2 parts per thousand above salinity at
the Reference Location , as measured at the 100-meter site, or (2) any
other salinity or other brine constituent standard established by a
regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the Project.
Enforcement and Mitigation
If, at any time, monitoring shows that the Project's brine discharges have not
met the salinity standards , then a thorough review of all data shall be made
to determine if the non-compliance may have been caused by a temporary,
unusual, or erroneous measurement circumstance. This review would
consider brine discharge operational data, salinity data from all four
monitoring locations, the vertical profile data from all four locations, any recalibration of the salinity probes, and the duration of any non-compliance
(e.g., one day versus multiple days). If it cannot be established that there
3
1/21/2016
were measurement errors leading to the non-compliance, then Cal-Am
agrees to implement mitigation measures to increase brine dilution, and
reduce any exceedance in the brine plume salinity, as compared to salinity at
the Reference Location.
Cal-Am shall then immediately identify mitigation options that can further
dilute the Project's brine to comply with these standards. The Parties shall
expeditiously work together with reasonable efforts to select a mitigation
option that will protect against future exceedances of the salinity standards
by reducing brine plume concentration to eliminate observed exceedances.
They shall give preference to effective mitigation options that are (1) cost
effective, (2) capable of timely implementation,. and (3) otherwise
reasonable. Such mitigation may include:
a) Retrofitting the existing outfall with inclined, p'iessurized
diffuser ports (e g, at a 60 degree angle above horizontal) ;1? '
Constructing a new pressurized 'diffuser stricture designed solely for
the discharge of brine. This would likely have ports inclined vertically
upwards and other design considerationS,(e.g., increased discharge
velocity) to maximize dilution; or
c) Achieving rapid dilution of brine through another discharge
method or design that the Parties determine is mutually agreeable.
The Parties shall 'select a mitigation option no more than 60 days following
the date the monitoring', data showing an exceedance was retrieved; if the
Parties have not- designated a mutually agreeable mitigation option by that
time, Cal-Am shall select either (a) or .:(b) above. Cal-Am will use all
corninercially reasonable efforts to . commence implementation of the
:.Selected Mitigation option within four months of its selection by the Parties.
The Parties agree to explore the best possible mechanisms to expedite the
time gain PUC approval of the selected mitigation option. In particular, they
agree to investigate whether a the PUG may approve ,as part of the CPCN
under consideration in this proceeding, the improvement that would be
required for certain mitigation options .. If such pre-approval is possible, the
Parties may include such mechanism in the agreement that they intend will
follow this Term Sheet..
Following such discharge mitigation, monitoring shall continue for the life of
MPWSP.
4.
General
This Term Sheet reflects a proposed settlement and compromise of

putative claims and remedies of the Parties hereto.
4.1
4
1/21/2016
4.2
If the Parties do not ultimately reach agreement or if the brine
monitoring and mitigation settlement described in this Term Sheet is not
approved by the PUC and implemented by Cal-Am, Surfrider [insert other
Parties] reserves its rights to challenge the salinity impacts of Cal-Amps
discharge of brine from the Project in any appropriate forum.
Among other things, this Term Sheet helps to define a stable and finite
project description that will facilitate the PUC's completion of CEQA review
for the MPWSP. The legal effectiveness of this Term Sheet is contingent on
the completion of CEQA review and does not irretrievably commit the Parties
to carrying out any physical activities that would be required for Cal-Am to
meet the obligations established by this Term Sheet. The PUC, as the lead
agency, and all responsible agencies will retain full discretion with respect to
deciding whether to approve any other commitments necessary or
convenient for Cal-Am to address matters relating to the discharge of brine
from the Project, including discretion to modify commitments to 'avoid or
reduce any significant adverse physical environmental effects from the
activities that are within their jurisdiction.
4.3
This Term Sheet does not currently impact the terms of sections
3 .1(a) of the document known as the Large Settlement Agreement.
4.4
4.5
This Term Sheet may be executed in any number of counterparts.
750542.1
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the DIRECT TESTIMONY OF AL
PRESTON, Ph.D., P.E. on all parties of record in A.12-04-019 by electronic mail.
Executed on January 22, 2016, at Santa Barbara, California.
id Gina Lane
Gina Lane
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP
1020 State Street
Telephone: (805) 963-7000
Facsimile: (805) 965-4333
Email: GLanegbhfs.com
01562110002l10703327.1
CRUC - Service Lists -A1204019
:Gbv
Page 1 or 6
?lb California ier.rst

'Public
Commission
':11!
CPUC Home

Service Lists
PROCEEDING: A1204019 - CAL-AM WATER CO. - F
FILER: CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
LIST NAME: LIST
LAST CHANGED: JANUARY 21, 2016
Download the Comma-delimited File
About Comma delimited Files

-
Back to Service Lists Index
Parties
MICHAEL WARBURTON
EXEC. DIR.
THE PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE
EMAIL ONLY
FOR; THE PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE
DARREN M. FRANKLIN
ATTORNEY
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 SOUTH HOPE ST., 43RD FL.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1422
FOR; GEOSCIENCE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
RUSSELL M. MCGLOTHLIN
1020 STATE STREET
FOR: MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY
NORMAN C. GROOT
MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU
PO BOX 1449 / 931 BLANCO CIRCLE
FOR: MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU
RON WEITZMAN
PRESIDENT
WATER PLUS
PO BOX 146
CARMEL, CA 93921
FOR: WATER PLUS
BOB MCKENZIE
WATER ISSUES CONSULTANT
COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES
PO BOX 223542
CARMEL, CF., 93922
FOR: COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES
NANCY ISAKSON
PRESIDENT
3203 PLAYA COURT
MARINA, CA 93933
SVWC)
GEORGE T. RILEY
MANAGING DIRECTOR
PUBLIC WATER NOW
1198 CASTRO ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940
FOR: PUBLIC WATER NOW
ROBERT WELLINGTON
WELLINGTON LAW OFFICES
857 CASS STREET, STE. C
MONTEREY, CA 93940
THOMAS FRUTCHEY
CITY MANAGER
300 FOREST AVENUE
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/servicelists/A1204019_80356.htrn
1/22/2016
Page 2 of 6


DAVID C. LAREDO
ATTORNEY
DE LAY & LAREDO
606 FOREST AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-4221
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MPWMD)
CARLOS RAMOS
1048 BROADWAY AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
FOR: LATINO WATER-USE
COALITION-MONTEREY PENINSULA/LATINO
SEASIDE MERCHANTS ASSOC./COMMUNIDAD EN
ACCION
LAURA HORTON
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
FOR: CALIFORNIA UNIONS FOR RELIABLE
ENERGY (CURE)
GABRIEL M.B. ROSS

ATTORNEY
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 HAYES STREET
FOR: SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
JOHN H. FARROW
M.R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
555 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 405
FOR: LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY
JOHN REYNOLDS
COMMISSIONER PETERMAN
ROOM 5133
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
FOR: ORA
MARK FOGELMAN, ESQ.

COUNSEL
FOR: MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
SARAH E. LEEPER
ATTORNEY
555 MONTGOMERY ST., STg. 816
FOR: CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
LAURENS H. SILVER
ATTORNEY
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT LAW PROJECT
PO BOX 667
MILL VALLEY, CA 94942
FOR: SIERRA CLUB
DAN L. CARROLL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
DOWNEY BRAND, LLP
FOR: COUNTY OF MONTEREY / MONTEREY
COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
JONAS MINTON
WATER POLICY ADVISOR
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE
1107 - 9TH STREET, SUITE 901
FOR: PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE
Information Only
JOE GEEVER
WATER PROGRAMS MANAGER
EMAIL ONLY
KAREN GRIMMER
NATINAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN.
EMAIL ONLY
LINDA MINKY
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & SCHRECK
EMAIL ONLY
SARAH DAMRON
EMAIL ONLY
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/servieelists/A1204019_80356.htm
1/22/2016
Page 3 of 6
SHERI BOLES
EXECUTIVE DIVISION
EMAIL ONLY
DON EVANS
MCWO
8550 WEST CHARLESTON, STE. 102-394
LAS VEGAS, NV 89117
DENNIS E. WILLIAMS
PRESIDENT
GEOSCIENCE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
PO BOX 220
CLAREMONT, CA 91711
JAN DRISCOLL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY NATSIS
501 W. BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
ANTHONY J. CERASUOLO
1033 B AVENUE,STE. 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92118
KEVIN TILDEN
CORONADO, CA 92118
ROBERT G. MACLEAN
PRESIDENT
CORONADO, CA 92118
PAUL L. FINDLEY
RBF CONSUILTING
9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., STE. 100
SAN DIEGO, CA 92124
LAURA GODFREY ZAGAR

PERKINS & COTE LLP
11988 E CAMINO REAL, STE. 350
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
ANGELA HOWE
PO BOX 6010
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674
JENA SHOAF
BHFS
1020 STATE STREET
RYAN C. DRAKE
21 EAST CARRILLO STREET
FRANCES M. FARINA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
DE LAY & LAREDO
389 PRINCETON AVENUE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CHARLES J. MCKEE
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
168 WEST ALISAL ST., 3RD FLR
SALINAS, CA 93901
AMY WHITE
PO BOX 1876
SALINAS, CA 93902
DAVID E. CHARDAVOYNE
GENERAL MANAGER
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
PO BOX 930
SALINAS, CA 93902
JANET BRENNAN
PO BOX 1876
SALINAS, CA 93902
JULIE ENGELL
PO BOX 1876
SALINAS, CA 93902

NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & BOSS
PO BOX 2510

JOLAND HAMERLY ETIENNE & BOSS
PO BPX 2510
1/22/2016
Page 4 of 6

JASON K. BURNETT
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTH
PO BOX 7202
CARMEL, CA 93921
OFFICE MANAGER
PO DRAWER 2670
GREENFIELD, CA 93927
JAMES HEITZMAN
GENERAL MANAGER
11 RESERVATION RD
MARINA, CA 93933
JAN SHRINER
MARINA COAST WATAER DISTRICT
11 RESERVATION ROAD
MARINA, CA 93933
BRIDGET HOOVER
DIR - WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
99 PACIFIC STREET, BLDG. 455
MONTEREY, CA 93940
KEITH ISRAEL
GENERAL MGR.
MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION
5 HARRIS COURT, BLDG. D
MONTEREY, CA 93940
PAUL SCIUTO
MONTEREY REGN'L. WTR. POLLUTION CONTROL
5 HARRIS CT., BLDG D
MONTEREY, CA 93940
DAVID STOLDT
GEN. MGR.
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MNGMNT. DIST.
PO BOX 85
MONTEREY, CA 93942-0085
ANTHONY J. TERSOL
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION - MONTEREY CHAPTER
319 FOREST AVE.
CATHERINE BOWIE
511 FOREST LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CA 93950
HEIDI A.. QUINN

DE LAY & LAREDO
606 FOREST AVENUE
MICHAEL BOWHAY
MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB
PO BOX 2090
PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953-2090
ROGER B. MOORE
PARTNER
ROSSMANN AND MOORE, LLP
380 HAYES STREET
RUTH STONER MUZZIN

ANNA SHIMKO
101 HOWARD ST., STE. 400
JAMES W. MCTARNAGHAN
ATTORNEY
PERKINS COTE LLP
SIGRID WAGGENER
ERIC ZIGAS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES /WATER
550 KEARNY ST., STE. 800
ANDREW HOMER
CYNTHIA RUSSELL
1/22/2016
Page 5 of 6
LORI ANNE DOIQUEIST, ESQ

ATTORNEY AT LAW
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLR
NICHOLAS A. SUBIAS, ESQ.

CORP. COUNSEL
NINA SUETAKE
VIDHYA PRABHAKARAN
DAVIS WRIGHT & TREMAINE LLP
505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800
JAMES BREZACK
BREZACK & ASSOCIATES PLANNING
3000 CITRUS CIRCLE, SUITE 210
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94.598
ERIC ROBINSON
ATTORNEY
KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDERMANN & GIRARD
(SVWC)
SCOTT BLAISING
ATTORNEY
BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C.
915 L STREET, STE. 1270
ROBERT E. DONLAN
ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS, L.L.P.
2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400
SACRAMENTO, CA g5816-5905
RICHARD SVINDLAND
4701 BELOIT DRIVE
SHERRENE CHEW
4701 BELOIT DRIVE
State Service
CHRIS GNUS ON
CPUC - ORA
EMAIL ONLY
JONATHAN KOLTZ
EMAIL ONLY
MICHAEL COLVIN
CPUC SED
EMAIL ONLY
RICHARD RAUSCHMEIER
ORA - WATER
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTITLITIES COMMISSION
EMAIL ONLY
VIET TROUNG
EMAIL ONLY
BURTON MATTSON
ROOM 2106
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
GARY WEATHERFORD
DIVISION OV ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
ROOM 5020
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
JONATHAN J. REIGER
LEGAL DIVISION
ROOM 5136
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
https://ia.cpuc.ca ,gov/servieelists/A1204019_80356.htm
1/22/2016
Page 6 of 6
CPUC Service Lists - A1204019

-
JUSTIN MENDA
ROOM 4208
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
LESTER WONG
COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH
ROOM 5220
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
MARCELO POIRIER
LEGAL DIVISION
ROOM 5029
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
MICHAEL ZELAZO
PETER V. ALLEN
SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
ROOM 2206
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
RAVI KUMRA
SARAH R. THOMAS
LEGAL DIVISION
ROOM 5033
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
STEPHEN ST. MARIE

POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION
ROOM 5119
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SUZIE ROSE
ROOM 4208
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
TERENCE SHIA
AREA
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND PERMITTING B

AREA
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 - 3214

AREA 3-C
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
TOP OF PAGE
BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS
littps://ia.cpue.ca.gov/scrvicelists/A1204019 80356.htm
1/22/2016
EXHIBIT MCD-16
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
In the Matter of the Application of

California-American Water Company
(U 210 W) for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Construct and
Operate its Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and to Recover All Present
and Future Costs in Connection Therewith in
Rates.
Application 12-04-019
12
13
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS P. MOORE
14
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT -
15
SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 (GWR) TESTIMONIES
16
17
18
19
MARK FOGELMAN
RUTH STONER MUZZIN
350 Sansome Street, Suite 210
Telephone: (415) 834-3800
Facsimile: (415) 834-1044
Email: mfogelman@friedmanspring.com
Email: rmuzzin@friedmanspring.com
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Attorneys for
27
28
January 22, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
4
5
6
Page
I.
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
II.
Supplemental Phase 1 Testimony............................................................................. 3
III.
Phase 2 Testimony .................................................................................................... 8
7
8
9
10
EXHIBITS
11
12
13
MCD-17
July 31, 2013 Cal. State Water Resources Control Board, Final Review
(without appendices)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
3
4
5
6
7

Convenience and Necessity to Construct
and Operate its Monterey Peninsula Water
and Future Costs in Connection Therewith
in Rates.
8
9
10
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS P. MOORE
11
(SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 (GWR) TESTIMONIES)
12
13
I.
Introduction
14
Q1.
Please state your name and address.
15
A1.
16
17
18
My name is Thomas P. Moore. My business address in this context is 11

Reservation Road, Marina, California 93933.
Q2.
In what capacity are you testifying in this proceeding?
A2.
I sponsor this testimony on behalf of the Marina Coast Water District
19
(MCWD) in my capacity as a Member and Vice President of the Board of
20
Directors of MCWD. I am authorized by the Board of Directors to testify on
21
MCWDs behalf.
22
23
Q3.
Please describe your background as a public official.
A3.
I was last elected to my position on MCWD's Board of Directors in 2012, and I
24
have also served four previous terms on MCWD's Board of Directors, from
25
1994 to 2010. I have served eight one-year terms as President of MCWD's
26
Board of Directors. I have also served more than four years as a member of the
27
Planning Commission for the City of Marina, three years as an ex-officio
28
member of the Board of Directors of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, more than
1
three years as a member of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and more than a year as an alternate
member of the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission. In
addition, I have served as the President, Vice President and Treasurer of the
Special Districts Association of Monterey County.
6
7
Q4.
Do you have relevant professional experience that you would like to mention?
A4.
In one capacity or another, I have worked for the Federal Government for more
than forty years. Currently I am a Professor of Joint Military Operations in the
US Naval War College Program at the US Naval Postgraduate School. I have
10
taught for the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the US Naval
11
Postgraduate School and the US Army Logistics Management College. I also
12
served 22 years in the Headquarters, United States Army at the Pentagon as a
13
member of the Army Reserve, and retired in 2004 with the rank of Colonel.
14
15
Q5.
Briefly describe your educational background.
A5.
I have a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from Virginia
16
Tech, a M.S. Degree in Operations Research from Stanford University and a
17
B.A. in theoretical mathematics from Northeastern University. I am also a
18
graduate of programs at the US Naval War College, the US Army Command
19
and General Staff College, the US Army Engineer School and the US Army
20
Field Artillery School.
21
22
Q6.
What is the purpose of this direct testimony?
A6.
This testimony is intended to provide evidence relevant to the topics identified
23
in Assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gary Weatherfords November
24
17, 2015 Ruling in this proceeding concerning the proposed Monterey
25
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), including evidence relevant to
26
Phase 2 of the proceeding regarding the potential entry of the applicant,
27
California-American Water Company (Cal-Am), into an agreement to receive
28
potable water from the Groundwater Replenishment or Pure Water Monterey

2
project (GWR) that has been approved by PCA. This testimony supplements
MCWDs previous Phase 1 testimony in this proceeding, including Exhibit
MCD-1A, the Revised Direct Testimony of Lloyd W. Lowrey, and other
MCWD exhibits and testimony received into evidence in this proceeding.
Q7.
What are your sources of the information contained in this direct testimony?
A7.
This testimony is based on my personal knowledge and includes my
understanding of the position and concerns of MCWD, as determined by its
Board of Directors, related to certain of the topics identified in ALJ
Weatherfords November 17, 2015 Ruling.
10
11
II.
Supplemental Phase 1 Testimony
12
Q8.
What topics does MCWD wish to address in its supplemental Phase 1 Testimony?
13
A8.
MCWD is particularly concerned with three of the topics that were identified in
14
the ALJs November 17, 2015 Ruling. Those three topics are: (1) Cal-Ams
15
anticipated complete, accurate and up-to-date submission of evidence
16
concerning demand and supply for its Monterey service area; (2) brine
17
discharge, in light of MCWDs reserved firm capacity in PCAs existing outfall
18
(see Ex. MCD-1A at pp. 12-13 and Ex. MCD-4); and (3) return water, Cal-
19
Ams proposed strategy for the MPWSP to comply with the Agency Act (Water
20
Code Appendix, ch. 52) prohibition on the export of groundwater from the
21
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin ( SVGB), including Cal-Ams lack of both
22
an overlying and an appropriative groundwater right, and the MPWSPs
23
potential impacts to the Northern Marina Subarea of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer
24
Subbasin of the SVGB (see MCD-1A at pp. 12, 13-16), in which Cal-Am has
25
now located its MPWSP test slant well and apparently proposes to locate all
26
sourcewater wells for the MPWSP.
27
The Northern Marina Subarea is defined as that portion of the 180/400 Foot
28
Aquifer Subbasin located south of the Salinas River and north of the northern
3
boundary of the adjoining Seaside Area Subbasin. The CEMEX property
is located in the Northern Marina Subarea. Six of MCWDs water
supply wells are located along the northern boundary of the Seaside Area
Subbasin.
It should also be noted that MCWD operated a prototype desalination plant for
several years on its property adjacent to Marina State Beach, obtaining its
source water less than 1,800 yards from the proposed location of source water
wells for the MPWSP. It is from this same area that MCWD will have to obtain
brackish water for future desalination purposes to serve Marina and the Ord
10
Community.
11
MCWD wishes to note for the record that the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin is
12
classified by the California Department of Water Resources as a Critically
13
Overdrafted Basin.
14
See http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/cod.cfm.
15
MCWDs supplemental testimony on the issue of return water will include
16
newly-available information concerning the MPWSPs potential impacts on the
17
critically overdrafted Northern Marina Subarea and the rights of existing lawful
18
users of the SVGB, including MCWD (see MCD-1A at p. 13; Exs. MCD-2, 5,
19
6, 7, 9, 15).
20
21
Q9.
What are MCWDs specific demand and supply concerns?
A9.
MCWD wishes to emphasize the importance of Cal-Ams ongoing provision to
22
the Commission and the parties of accurate and up-to-date information
23
regarding supply and demand. MCWD believes that updated demand and
24
supply data will inform the Commissions consideration of public convenience
25
and necessity in regard to the MPWSP, as well as in relation to desalination
26
plant sizing, and that it therefore has the potential to impact other regional
27
providers of water service, their ratepayers and their ongoing and anticipated
28
water projects.
4
MCWD understands that the drought-driven water conservation requirements
imposed by Governor Brown on all domestic water use in California in 2015
have largely been successful, resulting in significant demand reductions in most
potable water service areas in California. For example, MCWD understands
that in 2015 its own ratepayers were conserving more than thirty percent
compared to their 2013 water use. In addition, it has been reported in the
Monterey Herald that Cal-Ams Monterey District has been meeting its own
state conservation targets on a monthly basis, with its ratepayers conserving
twenty-five percent in comparison to their 2013 monthly water usage in 2015.
10
MCWD believes that this reduction in demand has the potential to significantly
11
reduce the shortfall in supply from Cal-Ams available supply sources, even
12
considering Cal-Ams need to comply with the cease and desist order of the
13
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order WR 2009-0060, as
14
well as SWRCB Order WR 95-10.
15
It is the position of MCWD that the need for the proposed MPWSP, as well as
16
the size of any Cal-Am desalination facility that the Commission may consider
17
certificating, cannot reasonably be evaluated without current, accurate supply
18
and demand data. MCWD looks forward to Cal-Ams ongoing provision of
19
such data to the parties to A.12-04-019, in compliance with the ALJs Ruling,
20
and to the parties having an opportunity to testify on the significance of that
21
updated and current data.
22
Q10. Does MCWD have additional demand and supply evidence to offer at this time?
23
A10. No, not at this time. MCWD applauds the Commissions imposition of ongoing
24
demand and supply reporting requirements on Cal-Am in section 2.1.2 and
25
Ordering Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the November 17, 2015 ALJ Ruling.
26
However, MCWD anticipates that it may provide rebuttal supplemental
27
testimony in response to Cal-Am and any other parties supplemental demand
28
and supply evidence.

5
1
2
Q11. What are MCWDs specific brine discharge concerns?

A11. MCWD supports a reasonable mitigation and monitoring plan to avoid or
reduce adverse impacts of MPWSP brine discharge on the marine environment,
subject to PCAs ability to maintain MCWDs existing firm reserved capacity
in the PCA outfall. (See Ex. MCD-1A, pp. 12-13; Ex. MCD-4.)
Q12. Does MCWD have additional brine discharge evidence to offer at this time?
A12. Not at this time, but MCWD anticipates that it may provide rebuttal
supplemental testimony in response to the parties supplemental brine discharge
evidence.
10
11
Q13. What are MCWDs specific concerns regarding the issue of return water?
A13. The issue of return water necessarily encompasses Cal-Ams attempting to
12
eliminate a major legal problem of Cal-Ams pumping groundwater without
13
having either an overlying or an appropriative groundwater right in the
14
critically overdrafted 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, and the MPWSPs
15
potential impacts on the existing hydrogeological conditions and existing lawful
16
users of SVGB groundwater, one of which is MCWD. The provision of return
17
water to the SVGB is offered, as MCWD understands Cal-Ams application,
18
as a potential strategy to avoid violation by the proposed MPWSP of the
19
Agency Act prohibition on export of SVGB groundwater. (Water Code App.,
20
ch. 52 52-8, 9(u), 21.) (See MCD-1A at pp. 13-15.) But the issue of return
21
water is also relevant as a threshold matter, because the extent of the
22
MPWSPs anticipated impacts to the SVGB and any particular sub-area of the
23
basin, as well as evidence regarding the current critically overdrafted status of
24
the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, may provide an answer to the crucial
25
preliminary question of whether or not Cal-Am can lawfully pump from the
26
Northern Marina Subarea in the first place, since it cannot legally acquire an
27
overlying or an appropriative groundwater right for purposes of the MPWSP or
28
otherwise. The report of the SWRCB to the Commission, which was provided
6
to MCWD and the other parties to A.12-04-019, noted that this preliminary and
crucial question remains open. A true copy of the SWRCBs Final Review of
Cal-Ams MPWSP, dated July 31, 2013, is attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit MCD-17. (See Ex. MCD-17 at pp. ii, 48-51; see also MCD-1A at pp.
13-14).
If the MPWSP cannot be configured to operate without illegally taking
groundwater, since it does not have a groundwater right, and without harming
current lawful users of the groundwater within the Northern Marina Subarea
such as MCWD, then Cal-Am cannot acquire a lawful right to pump
10
groundwater. (See SWRCB Final Review (Ex. MCD-17), at pp. ii, 48-51.) If
11
that is the case, then the project will be neither feasible nor in the public
12
interest.
13
14
15
Q14. Does MCWD have additional evidence to offer at this time concerning the issue of
return water to the SVGB?
A14. Yes. Consistent with its position in ongoing litigation, MCWD believes that the
16
California Coastal Commission improperly granted a Coastal Development
17
Permit to Cal-Am to develop its CEMEX test slant well for the proposed
18
MPWSP slant well technology, and most relevant to the return water issue
19
the test slant well, which is not returning any water to the SVGB, is currently
20
(1) pumping groundwater beyond the 500 AFY right of CEMEX (see Ex.
21
MCD-6), and (2) violating the anti-export prohibition of the Agency Act on a
22
daily basis. MCWD believes that Cal-Ams indiscriminate discharge of
23
groundwater withdrawn from the SVGB into the ocean as MCWD
24
understands Cal-Am is now doing in connection with its test slant well
25
withdrawals violates the anti-export provision of the Agency Act and also
26
violates groundwater law because Cal-Am is pumping groundwater without a
27
groundwater right and for no beneficial use and without any return water being
28
provided to offset the groundwater being pumped.

7
Q15. Does MCWD have any other evidence to offer at this time concerning the issue of
return water to the SVGB?
2
3
A15. Yes. MCWD has further evidence concerning the return water issue, which
is based on newly-available information and is provided concurrently by direct
testimony from MCWDs hydrogeologist, Curtis Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins
testimony concludes that (1) Cal-Am has underestimated the amount of
groundwater pumped by the MPWSP that would have to be returned and
(2) Cal-Am has not identified a method of returning groundwater to the
Northern Marina Subarea that will address the seawater intrusion induced by
10
the project, reduce the adverse impacts from project pumping to groundwater,
11
and protect groundwater users in that Subarea and the adjoining Seaside Area
12
Subbasin.
13
14
III.
15
Q16. What are MCWDs specific Phase 2 or GWR concerns?
16
Phase 2 Testimony
A16. MCWD takes the position that it is just, reasonable, and in the public interest
17
for Cal-Am to take potable water from a potentially readily-available local,
18
renewable resource such as GWR. Implementation of GWR through a
19
reasonable water purchase agreement between Cal-Am and PCA would appear
20
to serve the public interest far better than Cal-Am or the Commission declining
21
to support such a GWR agreement. MCWD is concerned that declining to
22
support a reasonable GWR water purchase agreement could lead Cal-Am to
23
imprudently and unnecessarily commit to development of a desalination plant
24
beyond what is actually required by the current and future public convenience
25
and necessity.
26
MCWD understands that the GWR project and its environmental review have
27
been approved by PCA and that project implementation could be undertaken
28
promptly upon the Commissions approval of a water purchase agreement.

8
Therefore, MCWD believes the Commission should expeditiously resolve
Phase 2 of this proceeding, and that it should do so prior to resolving
Phase 1. It is MCWDs position that the Commission cannot properly
determine whether the public convenience and necessity requires the
construction of the MPWSP at all, let alone determine appropriate sizing of any
MPWSP desalination facility, until it has determined whether Cal-Am has
committed to take a portion of its water supply from the GWR project and, if
so, until the Commission has approved that commitment.
In addition to its Phase 1 return water concerns noted above, MCWD has
10
particular concerns about the MPWSPs withdrawal of desalination sourcewater
11
from the Northern Marina Subarea, due to MCWDs own plans for a small
12
desalination facility to serve its own ratepayers long-term needs. (See MCD-
13
1A, pp. 15-16.) The potential cumulative impacts of multiple desalination
14
facilities in the Monterey coastal area could affect impacts and feasibility of any
15
and all planned desalination projects. Therefore, the Commissions prompt
16
authorization of Cal-Ams entry into a GWR water purchase agreement will
17
assist the Commission in ensuring that the MPWSP, if ultimately approved, is
18
sized appropriately, thereby minimizing negative impacts on the Northern
19
Marina Subarea.
20
Q17. Does MCWD have additional Phase 2 or GWR evidence to offer at this time?
21
A17. No. However, MCWD encourages the Commission to seek Cal-Ams
22
expeditious entry into a water purchase agreement to carry out PCAs GWR
23
and to begin delivering potable water to Cal-Am, which will then permit Cal-
24
Am to further reduce its unlawful withdrawals from the Carmel River, and to
25
refine its supply and demand evidence, which will assist the parties and the
26
Commission in evaluating the sizing of any proposed desalination plant
27
component of the MPWSP.
28
In addition, MCWD anticipates that it may provide rebuttal Phase 2 testimony

9
1
2
3
in response to Cal-Am and the other parties Phase 2 testimony.

Q18. Does that conclude your Direct Testimony?
A18. Yes.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
EXHIBIT MCD-17
(July 31, 2013 Cal. State Water Resources Control Board, Final Review)
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

FINAL REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN
WATER COMPANYS MONTEREY PENINSULA

WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
July 31, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. i
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2.
Background .............................................................................................................. 2
3.
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Description............................................. 4
4.
Physical Setting ........................................................................................................ 9
5.
4.1
Groundwater Aquifers ........................................................................................ 9
4.2
Groundwater Quality & Seawater Intrusion ...................................................... 14
4.3
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge ............................................................ 18
4.4
Groundwater Gradient ...................................................................................... 19
4.5
Groundwater Modeling ..................................................................................... 20
Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project ............................................. 21

5.1
Gravity Well Design .......................................................................................... 21
5.2
Pumping Well Design ....................................................................................... 22
5.3
Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation ........................................................... 23
5.4
Extraction Scenarios ........................................................................................ 25
5.4.1
Extraction of Feedwater by Gravity Wells .................................................. 25
5.4.2
Pumping from Unconfined Conditions ....................................................... 26
5.4.3
Pumping from Confined Conditions ........................................................... 30
5.4.4
Potential Pumping Effects on Seawater Intrusion ...................................... 30
5.5
6.
Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................ 31
Legal Discussion of Proposed Extraction Wells in Basin ........................................ 33

6.1
General Principles of Groundwater Law ........................................................... 34
6.2
Developed Water ............................................................................................. 36
6.3
Physical Solution Discussion............................................................................ 40
6.4
Summary of Legal Analysis .............................................................................. 46
7.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 48
8.
Recommendations .................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX A: RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ........................... 52

APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ................. 61
APPENDIX C: REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX D: TIMELY COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED .......................................... 66
APPENDIX E: LATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ............................................ 260
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) asked the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Water Board) whether the California American Water
Company (Cal-Am) has the legal right to extract desalination feedwater for the proposed
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). Cal-Am proposes several
approaches that it claims would legally allow it to extract water from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin (SVGB or Basin) near or beneath Monterey Bay without violating
groundwater rights or injuring groundwater users in the Basin. The purpose of this
report is to examine the available technical information and outline legal considerations
which would apply to Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP.
Technical Conclusions
There are gravity and pumped well designs proposed for the MPWSP, with several well
locations proposed. Well design and location tests will be needed for complete
technical and legal analysis. The conditions in the aquifer where MPWSP feedwater
would be extracted could be either confined or unconfined, however, there is currently
not enough information to determine what type of conditions exist at the location of the
MPWSP wells. Effects from confined aquifer pumping would be observed over a larger
area than if extraction occurred from an unconfined aquifer. Previous groundwater
modeling studies for one of the proposed MPWSP well locations indicated there would
be an approximate 2-mile radius for the zone-of-influence of the extraction wells, if
groundwater was pumped from an unconfined aquifer. It is unknown what the effects
would be if water was pumped from a confined aquifer with different hydrogeologic
conditions.
The aquifers underlying the proposed extraction locations have been intruded with
seawater since at least the 1940s. The impairment means that beneficial uses of the
water in the intruded area are limited; however the actual extent of water use is not
known. Groundwater quality in the Basin will be a key factor in determining the effects
i
of extraction on groundwater users in the Basin, assessing any potential injury that may
occur, and measures that would be necessary to compensate for it.
Legal Conclusions
To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is on Cal-Am to show their
project will not cause injury to other users. Key factors will be: (1) how much fresh
water Cal-Am extracts as a proportion of the total pumped amount, (to determine the
amount of water, that after treatment, would be considered desalinated seawater
available for export as developed water); (2) whether pumping affects the water table
level in existing users wells, (3); whether pumping affects seawater intrusion within the
Basin (4) how Cal-Am returns any fresh water it extracts to the Basin to prevent injury to
others; and (5) how groundwater rights might be affected in the future if the proportion
of fresh and seawater changes in the larger Basin area or the immediate area around
Cal-Ams wells.
If overlying groundwater users are protected from injury, appropriation of water

consistent with the principles discussed in this report may be possible. To export water
outside the Basin, Cal-Am must show 1) the desalinated water it produces is developed
water, 2) replacement water methods to return water to the Basin are effective and
feasible, and 3) the MPWSP can operate without injury to other users. A physical
solution could be employed to assure all groundwater users rights are protected.
Recommendations
Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current
and future conditions of the Basin regardless of whether the extraction occurs from
pumped or gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells
and aquifer conditions. Studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand
Aquifer, the water quality and water quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and
thickness of the Salinas Valley Aquitard, and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.
Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a
series of test boring/wells are needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
ii
Aquifer testing is also needed to determine the pumping effects on both the Dune Sand
Aquifer and the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. Pre-project conditions should be identified
prior to aquifer testing. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping rates. To avoid
unnecessary delays in development of the final system configuration, it is advisable that
Cal-Am conduct similar testing, concurrently, at the other potential alternative locations
for the extraction wells.
Third, updated groundwater modeling is needed to evaluate future impacts from the
MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios are necessary to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and
boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies are also necessary to
determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells,
percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. It may also be necessary to
survey the existing groundwater users in the affected area. The studies will form the
basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial
uses in the Basin. To ensure that this modeling provides the best assessment of the
potential effects of the MPWSP, it is important that any new information gathered during
the initial phases of the groundwater investigation be incorporated into the groundwater
modeling studies. In addition, modeling should include cumulative effects of the
MPWSP, the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project, and the Salinas Valley Water
Project on the Basin.
iii
1. Introduction
In a letter dated September 26, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) asked the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
whether the California American Water Company (Cal-Am) has the legal right to extract
desalination feedwater for the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP). The Commission, lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for the proposed project, did not request that the State Water Board make a
water rights determination, rather it requested an opinion on whether Cal-Am has a
credible legal claim to extract feedwater for the proposed MPWSP in order to inform the
Commissions determination regarding the legal feasibility of the MPWSP.
In a letter dated November 16, 2012, the State Water Board informed the Commission
that State Water Board staff would prepare an initial report for the Commission. On
December 21, 2012, the State Water Board provided the Commission an initial draft of
the report and on February 14, 2013, the Commission provided the State Water Board
comments on the initial draft report. The Commissions February 14, 2013
correspondence also contained additional information for the State Water Board to
evaluate, specifically, a revised design of the feedwater intake system for the MPWSP.
State Water Board staff reviewed the additional information and prepared a revised
draft. The revised draft was then noticed to the public for comment on April 3, 2013,
and additional information included with the comment letters received was considered
and used to revise the report where appropriate.
Cal-Am proposes several approaches it claims would legally allow it to extract water
from the Basin near or beneath Monterey Bay without violating groundwater rights or
injuring other groundwater users in the Basin. The purpose of this report is to examine
the available technical information and outline legal considerations which would apply to
Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP.
This paper will (1) examine the available technical information 1 and that provided by the
Commission; (2) discuss the effect the proposed MPWSP could have on other users in
the Basin; (3) discuss the legal constraints and considerations that will apply to any user
who proposes to extract water from the Basin; and (4) outline information that will be
necessary to further explore MPWSPs feasibility and impacts. Ultimately, whether a
legal means exists for Cal-Am to extract water from the Basin, as described in its
proposal outlined in the CEQA Notice of Preparation 2 (NOP) document and in the
additional information provided, will depend on developing key hydrogeologic
information to support a determination based on established principles of groundwater
law.
2. Background
In 2004, Cal-Am filed Application A.04-09-019 with the Commission seeking a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Coastal Water Project. The
primary purpose of the Coastal Water Project was to replace existing water supplies
that have been constrained by legal decisions affecting the Carmel River and Seaside
Groundwater Basin water resources. The Coastal Water Project proposed to use
existing intakes at the Moss Landing Power Plant to draw source water for a new
desalinization plant at Moss Landing. In January 2009, the Commission issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Coastal Water Project and two project
alternatives the North Marina Project and the Monterey Regional Water Supply
Project (Regional Project). In October 2009, the Commission issued the Final EIR 3
(FEIR) and in December 2009, it certified the FEIR. In December 2010, the
Commission approved implementation of the Regional Project.
In January 2012, Cal-Am withdrew its support for the Regional Project and
subsequently submitted Application A.12-04-019 to the Commission for the proposed
MPWSP as described in their September 26, 2012 letter. In October 2012, the
Please see Appendix C for a list of references relied upon and considered in this report.
California Public Utilities Commission, Notice of Preparation, Environmental Impact Report for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, October 2012.
3
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, October, 2009.
2
Commission issued a NOP for a Draft EIR for the proposed MPWSP. The Commission
requested in their September letter that the State Water Board prepare an initial staff
report by December 2012. The short timeframe for the initial report was necessary to
inform written supplemental testimony due in January 2013 for Cal-Am and written
rebuttal testimony from other parties due February 2013. The State Water Board
completed and transmitted its initial draft report to the Commission on December 21,
2012.
In a memo dated February 14, 2013, the Commission expressed its appreciation to the
State Water Board for the initial draft report. Additionally, the Commission included
comments and questions regarding the draft report and requested the State Water
Board evaluate new and additional information in its final report. State Water Board
staff reviewed the additional information and prepared a revised draft. 4
The revised draft was then noticed to the public for comment on April 3, 2013. At the
conclusion of the public comment period on May 3, 2013, six comment letters had been
received on the Draft Report. 5 Comments that pertain to the State Water Boards report
generally fell into the following categories: 1) State Water Boards role and objective in
preparing the Report; 2) sources of information used in preparing the Report (including
adequacy of the environmental document for the previously proposed Coastal Water
Project and use of previously developed groundwater model); 3) concerns about injury
to other legal users of water (including potential impacts on existing efforts to control
seawater intrusion); 4) legal issues related to the exportation of water from the Basin; 5)
the need for better information about the hydrogeology of the proposed project location
and the effects the proposed project would have on groundwater in the Basin; and 6)
legal interpretation of groundwater appropriation law and concepts discussed within the
Draft Report. We have modified the report to be responsive to the comments received,
Commission correspondence to State Water Board, February 14, 2013.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M047/K304/47304686.pdf
5
Monterey County Farm Bureau (Norman Groot), LandWatch Monterey County (Amy L. White), the
Salinas Valley Water Coalition (Nancy Isakson), Ag Land Trust (Molly Erickson of the Law Offices of
Michael W. Stamp), Water Plus (Ron Weitzman), and Cal-Am (Rob Donlan of Ellison, Schneider, & Harris
L.L.P)
where appropriate. Additionally, we have included summary responses to the above

general categories as Appendix A to this report.
3. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Description

When the Commission requested the assistance of the State Water Board in September
2012, the most current information available on the MPWSP was the description in the
NOP for a forthcoming Draft EIR. State Water Board staff analyzed the NOP and how
closely the new description matched the alternatives in the December 2009 FEIR
completed for the Coastal Water Project. Of the two project alternatives in the FEIR,
the North Marina Project more closely resembled the proposed MPWSP described in
the NOP. For this reason, State Water Board staff assumed most of the information,
including the slant well construction and operation as described in the FEIR North
Marina Project Alternative 6, was applicable to the proposed MPWSP. However,
because the configuration and location for the proposed extraction well system has not
yet been studied, direct comparison of the findings from the previous environmental
reviews to the system that is currently being considered is not possible. 7
On February 14, 2013, the Commission provided comments on an initial draft of this
report and requested that State Water Board staff make revisions to address
ambiguities while also considering new and additional information concerning
modifications to the design and configuration of the MPWSP. The new information
provided to the State Water Board by the Commission includes: an updated project
description, changes in the location and configuration of the extraction well system, new
information about the nature of the 180-Foot Aquifer, timing of implementation for
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 3.3 North Marina Project, October, 2009.
The use of the Cal-Am Coastal Water Project FEIR in this report was informative in creating a broad
picture of the potential impacts to groundwater resources in the Basin. The FEIR was not used to arrive
at specific conclusions of the definite impacts that would result from the MPWSP. The analysis provided
in this report can and should be applied in the context of a future EIR. It is anticipated that additional
information gained from the studies recommended in our report will assist the Commission in determining
the impacts of the MPWSP on the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
7
certain compensation measures, and supplemental testimony from Richard Svindland of

Cal-Am. 8
The Commission requested that the State Water Board evaluate two possible
alternatives for the MPWSP; (1) the Proposed Project (preferred alternative) with slant
wells located at a 376-acre coastal property owned by the CEMEX Corporation and
illustrated by the yellow dots on Figure SWRCB 1, and; (2) Intake Contingency Option
3 with a slant well intake system at Portrero Road north of the Salinas River as shown
in the top center of Figure SWRCB 2 by the small green dots. Figure SWRCB 3
shows the approximate locations of the alternatives in the greater geographic area. The
preferred alternative would consist of 7 to 9 slant wells that would draw water from
under the ocean floor by way of gravity for delivery to the desalination plant. Intake
Contingency Option 3 would consist of 9 wells extracting water from beneath the ocean
floor by use of submersible pumps. For both alternatives, approximately 22 million
gallons of water per day (mgd) would be extracted from the wells to produce 9 mgd of
desalinated water. The design of these options is further described in Section 5 of this
report.
Information provided to the State Water Board to date does not allow staff to definitively
address the issue of how the proposed project would affect water rights in the Basin.
Currently, it is unknown which aquifer(s) the wells will extract water from, and further
complicating the analysis, the relationship of the aquifers in the well area to surrounding
low-permeability aquitards is uncertain. Given these significant unknowns, this State
Water Board report assumes, for the purposes of this preliminary evaluation, that the
MPWSP hydrogeologic characteristics and effects to the SVGB would be similar to the
North Marina Project alternative analyzed in the FEIR, inclusive of the design
modifications described in the Commissions February 2013 correspondence. The
State Water Board provides recommendations for additional studies that are necessary
to clarify the hydrogeologic conditions that would allow for a more complete review.
Commission correspondence to State Water Board, February 14, 2013.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M047/K304/47304686.pdf
Figure SWRCB 1
Figure SWCRB 2
Figure SWRCB 3
4. Physical Setting
This section contains a discussion of the physical setting of the SVGB that includes
a description of the hydrogeologic characteristics, groundwater quality, movement
and occurrence of groundwater, and groundwater modeling results. It is important to
understand the physical characteristics of the Basin to accurately determine the
effects the MPWSP will have on the Basin.
4.1
Groundwater Aquifers
Knowledge of the hydrogeologic characteristics in the area of the proposed

MPWSP wells is important in determining the impacts of the proposed project.
As shown by the dark blue line in Figure SWRCB 4, the SVGB extends
approximately 100 miles from Monterey Bay in the northwest to the headwaters
of the Salinas River in the southeast. Major aquifers in the SVGB are named for
the average depth at which they occur. The named aquifers from top to bottom
include the 180-Foot Aquifer, the 400-Foot Aquifer and the 900-Foot or Deep
Aquifer. A near-surface water-bearing zone comprised of dune sands, commonly
referred to as the Dune Sand Aquifer, also exists but is considered a minor
source of water due to its poor quality. 9 The Dune Sand Aquifer is not regionally
extensive and is not a recognized subbasin within the SVGB. 10 The extent and
the amount of groundwater in storage in the Dune Sand Aquifer are unknown.
Figure SWRCB 5 is a cross-section taken from the FEIR for the Coastal Water
Project that shows the relationship of aquifers and aquitards. The estimated
extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer and its relation to the 180-Foot Aquifer can be
seen in the upper left hand corner of Figure SWRCB 5. Figure SWRCB 6
shows the westerly portion of the cross-section in the vicinity of the project area.
The proposed slant wells will either extract water from the 180-Foot Aquifer
subbasin and/or the Dune Sand Aquifer.
California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Central Coast
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, February 2004.
10
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2, Groundwater Resources, p. 4.2-5, October 2009.
The 180-Foot Aquifer is generally confined by the overlying Salinas Valley

Aquitard (SVA). The SVA is a well-defined clay formation with low permeability
that retards the vertical movement of water to the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer.
The SVA extends vertically from the ground surface to approximately 100 to 150
feet below mean sea level (msl) and extends laterally from Monterey Bay to 10
miles south of Salinas. Based on information from logs of two wells located
approximately mile south and mile northeast from the proposed MPWSP
slant wells, the top of the SVA is between 150 to 180 feet below msl. The well
logs show the top of the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer at approximately 190 to 220
feet below msl. 11
Studies have shown that in some areas the SVA thins enough to create
unconfined conditions in the 180-Foot Aquifer. 12 It is unknown if these
unconfined conditions exist in the proposed MPWSP well area. Determination of
the existence of the SVA, and thus the conditions of the aquifer at the location of
the proposed MPWSP wells will be critical in determining the area of impact of
the project as discussed at greater length in Section 5 of this report.
11
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2 Groundwater Resources, Figure 4.2-3, October,
2009.
12
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan,
Chapter 3 Basin Description, pp. 3.7 & 3.8, May 2006.
10
Figure SWRCB 4
11
Figure SWRCB 5
12
Figure SWRCB 6
13
4.2
Groundwater Quality & Seawater Intrusion
Groundwater quality at the site of the proposed MPWSP wells will play an
important role in determining the effects of extraction on the other users in the
Basin. Historic and current pumping of the 180-Foot Aquifer has caused
significant seawater intrusion, which was first documented in the 1930s. 13
Seawater intrusion is the migration of ocean water inland into a fresh water
aquifer. This condition occurs when a groundwater source (aquifer) loses
pressure, allowing the interface between fresh water and seawater to move into
the aquifer. A common activity that induces intrusion is pumping of the
groundwater basin faster than the aquifer can recharge. 14
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) uses the Secondary
Drinking Water Standard upper limit of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
concentration for chloride to determine the seawater intrusion front. The
MCWRA also uses the Secondary Drinking Water Standard to determine
impairment to a source of water. MCWRA uses 100 mg/L of chloride as a
threshold value for irrigation. 15 Standards are maintained to protect the public
welfare and to ensure a supply of pure potable water. MCWRA currently
estimates seawater has intruded into the 180-Foot Aquifer approximately 5 miles
inland as shown on Figure SWRCB 7. The increasing trend of inland
movement of seawater intrusion is also important and provides qualitative data
on future trends in the Basin. This seawater intrusion has resulted in the
degradation of groundwater supplies, requiring numerous urban and agricultural
supply wells to be abandoned or destroyed. In MCWRAs latest groundwater
management plan (2006), an estimated 25,000 acres of land overlies water that
has degraded to 500 mg/L chloride. The amount of 500 mg/L chloride water that
13
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, 180/400 Foot Aquifer subbasin, February 2004.
14
MCWRA, Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, pp. 4.3-25, March 2012,
15
Ibid.
14
enters the Basin was reported to be as high as 14,000 acre-feet per annum (afa)
or 4.5 billion gallons. 16
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan lists
designated beneficial uses and describe the water quality which must be attained
to fully support those uses. 17 The Basin Plan states that water for agricultural
supply shall not contain concentration of chemical constituents in amounts which
adversely affect agricultural beneficial use. Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan provides
guidelines for interpretation of the narrative water quality objective and indicates
that application of irrigation water with chloride levels above 355 mg/L may cause
severe problems to crops and/or soils with increasing problems occurring within
the range of 142-355 mg/L. 18
The MCWRA and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board show
impairment in the intruded area for drinking and agricultural uses. Since this
groundwater is reportedly impaired, it is unlikely that this water is, or will be put to
beneficial use. However, if groundwater use is occurring in the intruded area,
MPWSP effects that cause injury to legal users will need to be determined. 19
Conditions in the Basin will need to be monitored to determine the level of water
quality impairment and any changes that occur as a result of the MPWSP.
Local agencies have taken steps to reduce the rate of seawater intrusion and
enhance groundwater recharge in the SVGB. To address the seawater intrusion
problem, the MCWRA passed and adopted Ordinance No. 3709 in September
1993. 20 Ordinance No. 3709 prohibits groundwater extractions and installation of
new groundwater extraction facilities in certain areas within the seawater
intrusion zone. To enhance groundwater recharge, efforts have also been made
16
MCWRA, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, pages
3.14 & 3.15, May 2006.
17
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Basin, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast
Region. Page I-1, June 2011.
18
CCRWQCB, Basin Plan, pp. III-5 and III-8.
19
A comment letter submitted by Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp on behalf of Ag Land Trust on May 3,
2013, states that a well on the Armstrong Ranch, adjacent to the CEMEX site, is being used to irrigate
more than one acre of seed stock.
20
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Ordinance No. 3709, September 14, 1993.
15
to increase fresh water percolation through the Castroville Seawater Intrusion

Project (CSIP) which was completed in 1998. 21 The CSIP is a program operated
by the Monterey County Water Pollution Control Agency that reduces
groundwater pumping from seawater intruded areas and distributes recycled
water to agricultural users within the SVGB. The program provides a form of
groundwater recharge by effectively reducing groundwater extraction in those
areas of the Basin that are part of the CSIP area and providing some recharge
through deep percolation of applied irrigation water. The Salinas Valley Water
Project (SVWP) was initiated in 2000 to address seawater intrusion and provide
other benefits. The main components of the project involve reservoir
reoperation, modifications to the Nacimiento Dam spillway, and installation of a
rubber dam on the Salinas River in the northern part of the Salinas Valley to
increase summer flows and provide agricultural water to offset the use of
groundwater. 22 Despite these and other efforts, seawater intrusion continues an
inland trend into the Basin. 23
21
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR p. 4.2-17, October, 2009.

Although several components of the SVWP have been implemented and future phases of this project
are being considered, any potential implications the SVWP may have for development of the MPWSP are
unknown.
23
MCWRA, Monterey County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, March 2012, concludes
on page 4.3-33 that without the SVWP and the associated development of additional water supplies to
augment existing groundwater supplies, both existing and future water needs would result in further basin
overdraft and seawater intrusion.
22
16
Figure SWRCB 7
17
4.3
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge
An understanding of groundwater recharge and discharge in a groundwater basin

is important in determining whether a basin is in overdraft. Basins that have
overdraft (i.e. more discharge than recharge) experience a reduction in the
amount of available groundwater. This shortage may lead to a reduction in the
amount of water a legal user may extract under their water right.
Groundwater recharge in the lower portion of the Salinas Valley is largely by
infiltration along the channel of the Salinas River and its tributaries. This
accounts for approximately 50 percent of the total recharge within the SVGB.
Approximately 40 percent of the total recharge is from irrigation return water with
the remaining 10 percent due to precipitation, subsurface inflow and seawater
intrusion. 24
Approximately 95 percent of outflow from the Basin is from pumping with the
remaining 5 percent due to riparian vegetation evapotranspiration. Groundwater
withdrawal outpaces groundwater recharge of fresh water, resulting in overdraft
conditions. 25
Historically, groundwater flowed seaward to discharge zones in the walls of the
submarine canyon in Monterey Bay. 26 This seaward flow of groundwater
prevented seawater from intruding landward into the SVGB. In much of the area,
groundwater in the 180-Foot Aquifer and 400-Foot Aquifer is confined beneath
extensive clay layers, and the hydraulic head in the aquifers is influenced by the
elevation of the water table in the upgradient recharge areas where the aquifer
materials are near the surface. When a well is drilled through these confining
layers, this hydraulic head, or pressure head, forces water in wells to rise above
the top of the aquifer; such aquifers are called confined aquifers. With increased
pumping, groundwater head elevations in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers
have declined creating large pumping depressions in the aquifer pressure
24
MCWRA, County Groundwater Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, pp. 3-10, May 2006
Ibid
26
DWR, Bulletin 118.
25
18
surface. These cause the groundwater gradient to slope landward, reversing the
historic seaward direction of groundwater flow. The pressure surface for the
water in these aquifers is now below sea level in much of the inland area and
flow is now dominantly northeastward from the ocean toward the pumping
depressions. 27 This northeastward flow gradient has allowed seawater to intrude
into the SVGB, thereby degrading groundwater quality in the 180-Foot and 400Foot Aquifers.
The Department of Water Resources calculated that total water inflow into the
180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers is approximately 117,000 afa. Urban and
agriculture extractions were estimated at 130,000 afa and subsurface outflow
was estimated at 8,000 afa. 28 Therefore, there is currently a net loss or overdraft
of approximately 21,000 afa in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers. Basin
overdraft has averaged approximately 19,000 afa during the 1949 to 1994
hydrologic period with an average annual seawater intrusion rate of 11,000 af. 29
The overdraft condition is important because it limits the availability of fresh water
supplies to Basin users.
4.4
Groundwater Gradient
Based on the occurrence of large pumping depressions in inland areas, it can be

reasonably assumed that there is a strong landward gradient (slope) of
groundwater flow, at least within the 180-Foot Aquifer. 30 However, because the
degree of confinement of the 180-Foot Aquifer and the degree of connection
between this aquifer and the overlying Dune Sand Aquifer are not known it is not
possible to accurately predict what the effects of the landward gradient of
groundwater flow will be for various extraction scenarios. However, if present,
this landward gradient in the 180-Foot Aquifer would be a factor in determining
the effects of the groundwater extraction, regardless of whether the aquifer is
27
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4.2-9, October 2009.
DWR, Bulletin 118.
29
Monterey County Groundwater Manage Plan, p. 3-10, May 2006
30
Monterey County Water Resources Agency Groundwater Informational Presentation, August 27, 2012
(http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/Agency_data/Hydrogeologic%20Reports/GroundwaterInformational
Presentation_8-27-2012.pdf)
28
19
confined or unconfined in this area. It is important to understand the

groundwater gradient in the area of the proposed MPWSP because it will
influence the amount of water extracted from the landward side versus the
seaward side of the basin. More investigation will be needed to verify the degree
of the gradient and determine its effects on the MPWSP.
4.5
Groundwater Modeling
A groundwater model that accurately reflects the hydrogeologic characteristics of

the Basin is critical in providing insight to the effects the MPWSP would have on
the Basin. As part of the FEIR for the Coastal Water Project, a local groundwater
flow and solute transport model (Model) was developed to determine the effects
that pumping would have on groundwater levels and seawater intrusion in the
area. 31 This Model was constructed using aquifer parameters, recharge and
discharge terms, boundary conditions and predictive scenarios developed for a
regional groundwater model called the Salinas Valley Integrated Groundwater
and Surface Model (SVIGSM). The Model was developed to specifically focus
on the North Marina area and has a much finer cell size than the SVIGSM,
allowing for improved resolution in the vicinity of the proposed MPWSP. The
Model can model seawater intrusion, a capability that the SVIGSM does not
have.
The Model consists of six layers. The layers represented from top to bottom are
the following: (1) a layer directly beneath the ocean that allows direct connection
from the ocean to the aquifers; (2) the 180-Foot Aquifer and overlying Dune Sand
Aquifer; 32 (3) an unnamed aquitard; (4) the 400-Foot Aquifer; (5) an unnamed
aquitard; and (6) the Deep Aquifer. It should be noted the Model does not
include a layer that represents the SVA. 33 Therefore, the Model assumes that
31
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model
Evaluation of Projects, July and September 2008.
32
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4.2-47, October 2009.
33
Evaluation of Projects, p. 19, July 2008.
20
the 180-Foot Aquifer is unconfined and in hydraulic connection with the Dune
Sand Aquifer.
The Models aquifer parameters such as depth, hydraulic conductivity, storativity,
and effective porosity were obtained from the SVIGSM. In addition, monthly data
for recharge and discharge values were obtained from the SVIGSM. The North
Marina predictive scenario was run for a 56-year period from October 1948 through
September 2004. This is the same period used in the SVIGSM predictive
scenarios.
Two potential projects were evaluated with the Model: (1) the North Marina
Project; and (2) the Regional Project. In both of these alternatives, the 180-Foot
Aquifer was modeled as an unconfined aquifer. It is not known if the MPWSP
wells would indeed be in unconfined conditions. Consequently, the alternatives
results discussed below may or may not be predictive of the MPWSP. In
addition, the groundwater model did not include the Portrero Road alternative.
Therefore, an updated groundwater model that accurately reflects the most
current understanding of local hydrogeologic conditions for all alternatives is
needed in order to estimate the effects the MPWSP would have on the Basin and
groundwater users.
5. Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

On March 8, 2013, the Commission requested that the State Water Board evaluate two
possible alternatives for the MPWSP; a preferred alternative consisting of gravity well
design and a secondary alternative consisting of a pumping well design. This section
contains a discussion on the intake design of both alternatives and potential effects
each would have on the SVGB.
5.1
Gravity Well Design
The preferred alternative has two options for the feedwater intake system: a 6.4
mgd system consisting of seven slant wells and a 9.6 mgd system consisting of
nine slant wells. This report focuses on the 9.6 mgd system since it has the
potential to have a greater effect on the groundwater basin. The 9.6 mgd system
21
will consist of eight slant wells and one test slant well. Results of the test well will
dictate final well design and will determine whether the wells would extract water
from the Dune Sand Aquifer and/or the 180-Foot Aquifer. The proposed location
of the gravity intake system is adjacent to the 376-acre parcel of land owned by
the CEMEX Corporation (Figure SWRCB 1). The well system consists of two
four-well clusters (North Cluster and South Cluster) plus the test well. Each well
is thirty inches in diameter and up to approximately 630 feet in length with up to
470 feet of screen. The wells are designed as gravity wells without the
requirement for submersible well pumps. The output of each slant well is
estimated at approximately 1,800 gpm. Each slant well has an 8-foot diameter
vertical cassion, which is connected to a 36-inch diameter beach connector
pipeline via an 18-inch diameter gravity connector. Feedwater flows by gravity
from the slant well to the gravity connector and to the beach connector pipeline
where it enters a 23 mgd intake pump station. The intake pump system pumps
the feedwater to the desalination plant using four 250-horsepower pumps. The
total well capacity required is approximately 23 mgd to meet the feedwater
requirement for a 9.6 mgd desalination plant operating at an overall recovery of
42 percent.
The gravity well design is a new alternative presented to the State Water Board
for evaluation at the CEMEX owned property. Groundwater modeling for an
earlier pumping well alternative at the CEMEX site indicated that the pumped
wells would have an impact to groundwater users within a 2mile radius of the
wells due to the lowering of groundwater levels. Since modeling has not been
done for the gravity well alternative, State Water Board staff is unable to
accurately predict impact to existing users and the Basin from the gravity wells.
5.2
Pumping Well Design
As described in the Commissions February 14, 2013 correspondence, the

secondary alternative (Intake Contingency Option 3) includes a feedwater intake
system consisting of nine pumped slant wells extending offshore into the
Monterey Bay. The slant wells would extract 23 mgd of water from the Dune
Sand Aquifer and convey the water via a 36-inch diameter connector pipeline to
22
a 23 mgd intake pump station and finally to the desalination plant. The slant
wells would be installed at the parking lot on the west end of Portrero Road along
the roadway that parallels the beach north of the parking lot (Figure SWRCB 2).
The potential impacts from the pumping wells at this site cannot yet be
determined since groundwater modeling has not been done for this location.
Until a more detailed groundwater model is developed for this area, State Water
Board staff is unable to determine the extent of impacts to existing water users.
Staff recommends that the groundwater modeling include evaluation of potential
alternative Project locations that may be under consideration for meeting the
water supply needs of this area.
5.3
Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation
For aquifers with a substantial gradient (slope) in the direction of groundwater

flow, there is an important distinction between the cone of depression around the
pumping well (area where the water surface or pressure head is lowered) and the
capture zone for water that flows to the pumping well. Where there is an existing
slope to the water table or pressure surface of the groundwater system, not all
the water in the cone of depression flows to the pumping well, and much of the
water the pumping well intercepts is far outside the cone of depression in the
upgradient direction. 34 The practical effect of this situation is that, with a
landward gradient of groundwater flow, more of the water captured by the
pumping well comes from the upgradient direction (in this case from the seaward
direction) and a much smaller proportion of the water captured by the pumping
well is from downgradient (inland) direction. Water captured from the seaward
direction would likely be seawater. Water captured from the landward side could
potentially have a greater likelihood of capturing some portion of fresh water;
however, groundwater in this area is expected to be highly impacted by seawater
intrusion. Therefore, because the gradient means more water will be captured
from the seaward direction and the groundwater in the area is likely impacted by
seawater intrusion there is a reduced possibility that the wells will capture fresh
34
C.W. Fetter. 1994, Applied Hydrogeology 3rd Edition, p. 501
23
water. At this time it is unclear how many operational wells are in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed location for the extraction well system. Because more
seawater will be drawn into the extraction well system from offshore areas than
water flowing toward the wells from inland areas, any wells located in close
proximity to the extraction system could experience increased water quality
degradation due to complex flow paths within the capture zone of the extraction
well system. If there are wells currently in use within this area, Cal-Am would
need to monitor the situation and compensate 35 the well users if they are injured
by the decreased water quality or lower water levels.
The extraction wells are not predicted to draw water equally from seaward and
landward areas. In a system that has no gradient of flow, extraction wells would
draw water equally from seaward and landward directions, but this is not true in
the proposed MPWSP area because there is a significant gradient of
groundwater flow from the seaward areas toward the inland pumping
depressions. In the long-term, the situation may be altered and the source of the
water drawn from the extraction well system would need to be reevaluated under
the following conditions: (1) if pumping of water from inland areas is reduced to
the point that the groundwater system is in equilibrium, and (2) the pumping
depressions are reduced such that there is no longer a landward gradient.
The FEIR groundwater modeling studies conducted for the proposed extraction
of groundwater from the 180-Foot Aquifer included an evaluation of groundwater
elevations and gradients. The modeling evaluated the effects the landward
gradient of groundwater flow could have in determining the source of water that
would be captured by the extraction well system. As more information about the
groundwater system becomes available, a more detailed evaluation of the
capture zone for the extraction system will be possible. This type of capture
zone analysis will be important in evaluating the long-term effects of the
35
Compensation could be in the form of monetary payment or other forms to make the injured user
whole.
24
extraction well system and any potential impacts on existing water users and the
Basin.
5.4
Extraction Scenarios
There are three likely scenarios in which Cal-Am would extract groundwater for
its MPWSP: (1) extraction from gravity wells from an unconfined aquifer or a
confined aquifer; (2) pumping from an unconfined aquifer; or (3) pumping from a
confined aquifer.
5.4.1 Extraction of Feedwater by Gravity Wells
Cal-Am has proposed to construct a slant test well and collect data that
will determine if the gravity well alternative is feasible. If water is extracted
using gravity wells, the hydraulic effects on the aquifer would be the same
for either pumped wells or the proposed gravity wells as long as the
amount of drawdown in the wells is the same. Likewise, if the wells were
completed in either a confined or an unconfined aquifer, the effects on
those aquifers would be the same if the level of drawdown in the wells
were the same. However, if a pumping well had a greater drawdown than
a gravity well, there would be more of an effect to the aquifer from the
pumping well. The important factor is not what mechanism induces flow
from the wells but the actual drawdown produced in the groundwater
system.
The gravity well system would limit the maximum amount of drawdown
from the extraction wells. Drawdown would be limited to the head
differential between sea level and the depth of the intake pump station that
the gravity wells drain into. This would add a level of protection against
drawing more water from the shoreward direction because it would
preclude the larger drawdowns that could result with submersible pumps
in the wells. The cone of depression (zone of influence) for the extraction
well system would be limited by the fixed head differential established by
the depth of the intake pump station. This configuration will also likely
prevent the operator from being able to maintain maximum flow rates from
25
the extraction well system because there is no ability to increase pumping

rates should tidal effects become a factor. The obvious potential problem
with the gravity well scenario is that if the flow to the wells is limited by
lower permeability zones or well efficiency problems, the operator cannot
increase pumping rates to obtain the quantities of water the system is
designed to achieve.
5.4.2 Pumping from Unconfined Conditions
If pumping were to occur under unconfined conditions, water would be
extracted either from the Dune Sand Aquifer or from the 180-Foot Aquifer
(if the SVA is not present at the proposed well-site). In general, when
water is pumped from an unconfined aquifer, water is removed from the
aquifer and the water table in the aquifer is lowered as water drains by
gravity from the pore spaces in the aquifer. This lowering or drawdown of
the water table causes a cone of depression that is greatest close to the
well and gets smaller in all directions as the distance from the well
increases. 36 Modeling results of the North Marina Project show that
pumping would cause a decline in groundwater elevations at the slant
wells of approximately 15 feet. There would be about a 2-foot decline in
groundwater levels approximately one mile from the slant wells decreasing
to less than 0.5 feet about 1.5 miles away. 37 The lowering of groundwater
levels approximately 2 miles from the slant wells likely would be negligible.
If the final design calls for gravity wells at the north Marina site, then
modeling would be needed to estimate the effects from the gravity wells.
Since modeling was not done for the Portrero Road site the effects from
pumping at that location are unknown. Once the zone of influence is
estimated for each location and each pumping scenario, it will be possible
to determine whether any wells in the vicinity would be affected by project
pumping.
36
Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, pp. 63-64.

Evaluation of Projects, p. 21 (E-28), July 2008.
37
26
According to information from the State Water Boards GAMA database,

approximately 14 wells are within 2 miles of the proposed MPWSP (Figure
SWRCB 8). All of these wells are within the seawater-intruded portion of
the Basin. Currently, the predominant groundwater flow direction in the
180-Foot Aquifer is toward the northeast. Project pumping would likely
change the flow direction to more of a southwest to westerly direction
within the zone of influence. Outside the zone of influence there would be
little if any change to groundwater flow direction; however, the rate of flow
in the original direction (northeast) would be reduced. Therefore, the
MPWSP would slow the rate of seawater intrusion in a landward direction
from the wells. The GAMA database may not include all groundwater
wells, so it is not clear how many other wells are located in this area, or at
what depths the wells are screened. 38 Cal-Ams investigations should
include an inventory of existing wells near the MPWSP extraction well
location. Where Well Completion Reports are available, information from
those reports should be evaluated and considered for inclusion in
development of the groundwater model. If legal users of groundwater in
this area are found to be impacted by the groundwater extraction system,
either through a reduction in the water table level or the amount of fresh
water available at their wells, those impacts would need to be addressed
by Cal-Am.
38
A comment letter submitted by Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp on behalf of Ag Land Trust on May 3,
2013, states that a well on the Armstrong Ranch, adjacent to the CEMEX site, is being used to irrigate
more than one acre of seed stock.
27
Figure SWRCB 8
28
As mentioned above, groundwater flow to the MPWSP extraction wells

would initially be from all directions in a radial pattern. Because the ocean
provides a constant source of nearby recharge to the extraction wells, the
zone of influence for the extraction wells cannot expand much farther than
the distance between the extraction wells and the ocean, or in the case of
confined aquifer conditions, the distance between the extraction wells and
the undersea outcrop of the confined aquifer. While a portion of the water
flowing to the well does come from the less saline water on the shoreward
side, the relative percentage of water drawn from the shoreward side of
the wells will depend on various factors, including the gradient of
groundwater flow toward inland pumping depressions. If the North Marina
Project model is applicable, then approximately 87 to 97 percent of the
water pumped (approximately 21,400 to 23,938 afa) would come from the
ocean side of the wells and approximately 3 to13 percent of the water
(approximately 762 to 3,250 afa) would come from the landward side of
the wells. 39
It is unlikely that pumping from an unconfined aquifer would extract fresh
groundwater since the seawater intrusion front within the 180-Foot Aquifer
is approximately 5 miles landward from the proposed pumps. Because
the Model shows that the seawater intrusion front remains basically the
same with or without the North Marina Project, it is likely that the amount
of water extracted from the eastern portion of the aquifer will be seawater
intruded. Although this brackish 40 water may be of substantially better
quality than seawater, it is likely degraded to the point that it is, with few
39
Evaluation of Projects p. 22 (E-29), July and September 2008.
40
Brackish water in this report is defined as groundwater within the seawater intrusion zone that contains
chloride levels greater than 500 ppm. Water with chloride concentrations less than 500 mg/L is
considered fresh water.
29
exceptions 41, not suitable for any beneficial use other than feedwater for
desalination purposes.
5.4.3 Pumping from Confined Conditions
If pumping were to occur under confined conditions, water would be
extracted from the confined 180-Foot Aquifer. When a confined aquifer is
pumped, the loss of hydraulic head occurs rapidly because the release of
the water from storage is entirely due to the compressibility of the aquifer
material and the water. 42 This zone of influence in a confined aquifer is
commonly several thousand times larger than in an unconfined aquifer. 43
Therefore, the effects from MPWSP pumping on the groundwater
pressure head would occur more rapidly and over a much larger area than
the effects seen in an unconfined aquifer. Modeling in the FEIR did not
predict the effects of pumping from a confined condition, so there are no
estimates on the extent of potential impacts. Generally speaking, the
pressure head would be lowered in wells much further inland and the longterm effects on groundwater flow direction would be felt over a wider area.
Since pumping from a confined condition would affect a much larger area,
there would be a greater likelihood of the MPWSP affecting groundwater
users at greater distances from the project location.
5.4.4 Potential Pumping Effects on Seawater Intrusion
The seawater intrusion front, as defined by the 500 mg/L chloride limit,
currently extends approximately five miles inland from Monterey Bay.
Efforts to control seawater intrusion though implementation of the SVWP
and CSIP projects and various administrative actions have slowed but not
stopped the advance of the seawater intrusion front, and there is concern
that the implementation of the proposed MPWSP may hinder the efforts to
41
A commenter reported that there is a well in this general area used for a small agricultural plot,
however there is no information about the well location or depth, and further investigation would be
necessary to determine whether this well could be impacted by the proposed extraction wells.
42
Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, pp. 64-65.
43
United States Geologic Survey, Sustainability of Groundwater Resources, Circular 1186. Section A, p.
2.
30
restore water quality in the intruded areas. To the extent that the MPWSP
will generate new water that will be returned to the Basin as wastewater
return flows, any potential impacts on the seawater intrusion control efforts
may be lessened. Groundwater modeling conducted for the previously
studied North Marina Project indicated that the recession of the seawater
intrusion front would be affected positively during the first 13 years of
implementation of that project and that thereafter the project would have
little or no effect on the efforts to reverse the advancing front of seawater
intrusion. 44
Within the zone of influence of the MPWSP extraction wells, seawater
would be drawn into the aquifers from the seaward direction, and brackish
water from within the seawater intruded portion of the aquifers would also
be drawn toward the extraction well system. As discussed in Section 5.3,
the relative percentages of off-shore seawater and on-shore brackish
water extracted from the wells would depend on the local groundwater
gradient of flow and other factors.
Based on our current understanding of the groundwater system, a greater
volume of seawater, relative to brackish water, would be drawn into the
extraction well system. For groundwater wells that may be located in
close proximity to the extraction wells, i.e., within the capture zone for the
extraction wells, groundwater elevations would be lowered and water
quality may be adversely affected by the extraction well system. 45
5.5
Summary of Impacts
There are three types of potential impacts the proposed extraction wells could
have on inland water users. First, the inland groundwater users may experience
a reduction in groundwater levels in their wells, with associated increases in
pumping costs. This type of effect could be reasonably evaluated with
44
Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of
Projects, p. 21 (E-28), July 2008.
45
C.W. Fetter. 1994, Applied Hydrogeology 3rd Edition, p. 501
31
groundwater modeling. Until the degree of confinement and connection between

the Dune Sand Aquifer and the 180-Foot Aquifer has been more thoroughly
studied, the potential for injury to inland water users due to reduced groundwater
elevations and diversion of water from the aquifer cannot be conclusively
determined. As discussed in the above sections, however, the incremental effect
at any particular location would be relatively slight. Staff estimates, based on
currently available data cited in this report, that effect would be on the order of
less than a 0.5 foot decline in wells located 1.5 miles from the extraction well
system. 46 This impact alone would not likely be sufficient to take any currently
known operating production wells out of service.
The second type of effect the extraction well system could have on in-Basin
groundwater users is a reduction in the quantity of fresh water that is available for
their future use. The quantity would depend on a variety of factors as discussed
in the preceding sections. For users outside the capture zone this effect would
not be felt immediately; thus, replacement water could be provided after the
MPWSP has been in operation and modeling information becomes available to
evaluate the actual quantity of fresh water that needs to be returned to the
system. 47
One measure to address potential injury to those users would be to
supply replacement water to the existing CSIP system for delivery to

groundwater users in the affected area. 48 Since the capture zone for the
extraction well system will likely be limited to areas already heavily impacted by
seawater intrusion, it would not be appropriate to inject or percolate desalinated
water in this intruded area, as the water would essentially be wasted. For any
users within the capture zone of the MPWSP wells, Cal-Am would be required to
assess and compensate for any injury caused by a reduction in the quantity of
fresh water that is available for their use. Because injury could occur at the time
46
Coastal Water Project, FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of
Projects, July 2008. p. 21 (E-28)
47
A comment letter submitted by LandWatch Monterey County on April 28, 2013, expresses concern for
impacts to the groundwater users in the North County area who do not received CSIP water. Impacts
from the proposed project would need to be evaluated on a site specific basis.
48
The CSIP may not be a viable method to address injury at the Portero Road location if the users
affected by the MPWSP are outside of the CSIP recharge zone.
32
of pumping for those users in the capture zone, a supply replacement method
such as the CSIP would not be appropriate, and other measures may be
necessary.
The third type of effect the extraction well system could have on in-Basin
groundwater users is limited to groundwater users in close proximity to the
extraction wells. These users could experience additional degradation in the
quality of water drawn from their wells. This effect should be isolated to a very
localized area within the capture zone of the extraction wells system.
6. Legal Discussion of Proposed Extraction Wells in Basin

Although the Basin is in a condition of overdraft, the Basin has not been adjudicated
and water withdrawals by the Basins users are not quantified by court decree. Water
users assert that the Basins water is managed through cooperative agreements
reached by the Basins groundwater users. 49 Users claim that Cal-Ams proposed
Project would disrupt the agreements within the Basin, lead to a costly adjudication, and
are barred by principles of groundwater law. 50
Cal-Am needs no groundwater right or other water right to extract seawater from
Monterey Bay. Based on the information provided, however, the proposed MPWSP
could extract some fresh water from within the Basin. An appropriative groundwater
right is needed to extract water from the Basin for use outside the parcel where the
wells are located. 51 To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, Cal-Am will have to
demonstrate that the MPWSP will develop a new source of water that is surplus to the
needs of groundwater users in the Basin and that operating the Project will not result in
injury to other users. This includes showing that the Project will not adversely affect the
seawater intrusion front. Because the Basin is in a condition of overdraft, to
49
Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Letter to State Water Board Chair, Charles Hoppin, (December 3,
2012).
50
See generally, Application 12-04-019 before the California Public Utilities Commission, Opening Brief of
LandWatch Monterey County Regarding Groundwater Rights and Public Ownership, July 10, 2012;
Opening Brief of Various Legal Issues of Monterey County Farm Bureau, July 10, 2012, available at:
www.cpuc.ca.gov.
51
An appropriative groundwater right is not necessary to recover water injected or otherwise used to
recharge the aquifer, where the water used for recharge would not recharge the aquifer naturally.
33
appropriate water for non-overlying uses, MPWSP will have to account for any reduction
in the amount of fresh water that is available to legal groundwater users in the Basin,
and Cal-Am will need to replace and compensate for any reduction. 52
6.1
General Principles of Groundwater Law
Groundwater rights may generally be classified as overlying, prescriptive or

appropriative. 53 Overlying users of groundwater have correlative rights which are
rights similar to riparian users rights, and an overlying user can pump as much
water as the user can apply to reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying
parcel so long as other overlying users are not injured. (City of Barstow v.
Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1240 (Mojave).) In times of
shortage, pumping must be curtailed correlatively, to provide each overlying user
a reasonable share of the available supply. (Id. at 1241.)
Prescriptive rights are acquired through the taking of water that is not surplus or
excess to the needs of other groundwater users. Similar to other prescriptive
property rights, if the elements of prescriptive use are metthe use is actual,
open, notorious, hostile, adverse to the original owner, continuous and
uninterrupted for the statutory period of five yearsa user may acquire a
prescriptive right. (California Water Service Co. v. Edward Sidebotham & Son
(1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 715, 726.)
Appropriative groundwater rights apply to users who extract groundwater other
than those described above. (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p.1241.)
Appropriative groundwater rights are not to be confused with appropriative rights
that apply to surface waters or subterranean streams administered by the State
Water Board. Unlike appropriative water rights that are permitted by the State
Water Board, appropriative groundwater rights are any rights to pump
52
Additionally, the Monterey County Water Resources Act, (Stats. 1990 ch. 52 21, Wests Ann. Wat.
Appen. 52-21 (1999 ed.).) prohibits water from being exported outside the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin.
53
Groundwater rights referenced in this report apply to percolating groundwater only.
34
groundwater that do not fall into either the overlying or prescriptive category. 54
No permit is required by the State Water Board to acquire or utilize appropriative
groundwater rights.
Because Cal-Am proposes to export water from the Basin to non-overlying
parcels in the Monterey Region, an appropriative groundwater right is required.
To appropriate groundwater, a user must show the water is surplus to existing
uses or does not exceed the safe yield of the affected basin. (City of Los
Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 214.) The appropriator
must show the use will not harm or cause injury to any other legal user of water.
The burden is on the appropriator to demonstrate a surplus exists. (Allen v.
California Water and Tel. Co. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 466, 481.) But if, after excluding
all present and potential reasonable beneficial uses, 55 there is water wasted or
unused or not put to any beneficial uses, the supply may be said to be ample
for all, a surplus or excess exists and the appropriator may take the surplus or
excess (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 368-369 (Peabody).)
As discussed previously, because groundwater in the Basin is in a condition of
overdraft, the only way to show there is surplus water available for export to nonoverlying parcels is for a user to develop a new water source.
Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP would pump seawater, brackish water, and possibly
a fresh water component. The exact composition is yet to be determined, but the
proposed source water is substantially degraded by seawater intrusion and other
natural factors. Estimates based on the North Marina Project description are that
3 to 13 percent of the total water pumped through the proposed wells could be
attributed to the landward portion of the Basin and 87 to 97 percent could come
from the seaward direction relative to the pump locations.
54
This is generally true. There are other types of rights, including pueblo rights, federal reserved rights,
and rights to recover water stored underground pursuant to surface water rights. These other types of
rights are not discussed in detail in this report.
55
Potential overlying uses are often inherently implicated in determining whether a long-term surplus
actually exists. Where a basin is not in overdraft, however, there may be temporary surplus where
probable future overlying uses have not yet been developed.
35
Based on data currently available, the State Water Board is unable to estimate
what percentage or proportion of water extracted from the Basin landward of the
proposed well location could be attributed to fresh water sources. It is known,
however, that the Basins waters are degraded some distance landward from the
proposed wells. MCWRA currently estimates that seawater has intruded into the
180-Foot Aquifer approximately 5 miles inland. It is unknown whether seawater
has intruded the Dune Sand Aquifer, but the reported poor water quality of the
Dune Sand Aquifer likely limits beneficial uses of its water. 56 However, if the
groundwater is being used in this intruded area an evaluation of the effects to the
wells by the MPWSP will be needed to determine any potential injury to the
users.
6.2
Developed Water
Water an appropriator pumps that was not previously available to other legal
users can be classified as developed or salvaged water. 57 [I]f the driving of
tunnels or making of cuts is the development of water, as it must be conceded it
is, we perceive no good reason why the installation of a pump or pumping-plant
is not equally such development. (Garvey Water Co. v. Huntington Land & Imp.
Co. (1908) 154 Cal. 232, 241.) Further, it is generally accepted that whoever
creates a new source of water should be rewarded by their efforts. (See
generally Hoffman v. Stone (1857) 7 Cal. 46, 49-50.)
If Cal-Am shows it is extracting water that no Basin user would put to beneficial
use, Cal-Am could show its proposed desalination MPWSP develops new water
in the Basin, water that could not have been used absent Cal-Ams efforts to
56
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, February 2004.
57
The concepts of developed and salvaged waters are closely related and the legal concepts are the
same. Technically, salvaged waters usually refers to waters that are part of a water supply and are saved
from loss whereas developed waters are new waters that are brought to an area by means of artificial
works. (See Hutchins, The California Law of Water Rights (1956) p. 383.) For purposes of this report,
the distinction is largely irrelevant and the term developed waters will be used throughout for consistency.
36
make it potable. Of course, this does not apply to any source water that is
considered fresh water and would not be considered developed water.
Making use of water before it becomes unsuitable to support beneficial uses or is
wasted, is supported both by statute, case law, and the California Constitution,
which in part states: the general welfare requires that the water resources of the
State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capableand
that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the
reasonable and beneficial use thereof. (Cal. Const., art. X, 2; see also City of
Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (1936) 7 Cal.2d 316, 339-341 (Lodi);
[salvaged water that would otherwise be wasted should be put to beneficial use].)
The key principle of developed waters is if no lawful water user is injured, the
effort of an individual to capture water that would otherwise be unused should be
legally recognized. As the court determined in Cohen v. La Canada Land and
Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 680 (La Canada), if water would never reach or be
used by others there can be no injury. (Id. at p. 691.) In La Canada, waters
which were secured by the construction of tunnels could be considered
developed waters as the waters were determined to trend away from the
direction of the natural watershed and would never have reached it and would be
lost if left to percolate in their natural flow. (Ibid.)
Under these circumstances, as the waters developed by the
tunnels were not waters which would have trended towards or
supported or affected any stream flowing by the land of
appellant,she was not injured as an adjoining proprietor or as an
appropriator, and hence could not complain or insist upon the
application of the rule announced in the cases cited to prevent the
respondents from taking such developed waters to any lands to
which they might see fit to conduct them.
(La Canada, supra, 151 Cal. at p. 692.)
[F]ull recognition is accorded of the right to water of one who saves as well as of
one who develops it. (Pomona Land and Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co.
(1908) 152 Cal. 618, 623-624 (Pomona) citing Wiggins v. Muscupaibe Land &
Water Co. (1896) 113 Cal. 182, 195 (Wiggins).)
37
[I]f plaintiffs get the one half of the natural flow to which they are
entitled delivered, unimpaired in quantity and quality, through a
pipe-line, they are not injured by the fact that other water, which
otherwise would go to wastewas rescued. Nor can they lay claim
to any of the water so saved.
(Pomona, supra, 152 Cal. at p. 631.)
In summary, if there is no injury, a user should be able to develop all water
available:
The plaintiff could under no circumstances be entitled to the use of
more water than would reach his land by the natural flow of the
stream, and, if he receives this flow upon his land, it is immaterial to
him whether it is received by means of the natural course of the
stream or by artificial means. On the other hand, if the defendant is
enabled by artificial means to give to the plaintiff all of the water he
is entitled to receive, no reason can be assigned why it should not
be permitted to divert from the streamand preserve and utilize the
one hundred inches which would otherwise be lost by absorption
and evaporation.
(Wiggins, supra, 113 Cal. at p. 196.)
As discussed above, in developing a new water source Cal-Am must establish no
other legal user of water is injured in the process. Even if Cal-Am pumps water
unsuitable to support beneficial uses, the water could not be considered
developed water unless users who pump from areas that could be affected by
Cal-Ams MPWSP are protected from harm.
Cal-Am proposes a replacement program for the MPWSP water that can be
attributed to fresh water supplies or sources in the Basin. If Cal-Am can show all
users are uninjured because they are made whole by the replacement water
supply and method of replacement, export of the desalinated source water would
be permissible and qualify as developed water. In the future, this developed
water, under the above described conditions, would continue to be available for
export even if there are additional users in the Basin. Developed waters are
available for use by the party who develops them, subject to the no injury
standard discussed previously.
38
Cal-Am could use one or more of several possible methods to replace any fresh
water it extracts from the Basin. Cal-Am could return the water to the aquifer
through injection wells, percolation basins, or through the CSIP. Cal-Am would
need to determine which of those methods would be the most feasible, and
would in fact, ensure no harm to existing legal users. The feasibility analysis
would depend on site-specific geologic conditions at reinjection well locations
and at the percolation areas. These studies need to be described and supported
in detail before Cal-Am can claim an appropriative right to export surplus
developed water from the Basin.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Agency Act) an uncodified
Act adopted in 1990 sets out the role and jurisdiction of MCWRA in administering
the Basins waters. 58 In furtherance of the Agency Act, MCWRA adopted
Ordinance 3709 (Ordinance) which applies to groundwater extractions after
1995. The Ordinance essentially finds that seawater intrusion is a threat to
beneficial uses and the Ordinance prohibits extractions within the northern
Salinas Valley from a depth of 0 msl to -250 feet msl. The Ordinance provides a
variance procedure for a user to request relief from a strict application of the
Ordinance.
Section 21 of the Agency Act acknowledges that the Agency is developing a
project that will establish a balance between extraction and recharge in the
Basin. To preserve that balance, the Agency Act provides (with limited
exception) that no groundwater from that Basin may be exported for any use
outside that basin.... Export is not defined in the Agency Act. In the water
rights context, limitations on export ordinarily are not interpreted to apply to
situations where the conveyance of water to areas outside a watershed or stream
system is accompanied by an augmentation of the waters in that area, so there is
58
The applicability of the Agency Act to the MPWSP is unclear. As currently proposed, the project would
use slanted wells and have screened intervals located seaward from the beach. Although the project
would serve areas within the territory of the MPWSP, the points of diversion for these proposed wells may
be located outside the territory of MCWRA as defined by the Agency Act. (See Section 4 of the Agency
Act, Stats. 1990, ch. 1159, Wests Ann. Wat. Appen., 52-4 (1999 ed.); Gov. Code, 23127 [defining
boundaries as following the shore of the Pacific Ocean].)
39
no net export. 59 An interpretation based on the net effect of the project also
appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Agency Act. Section 8 of the
Agency Act states that one of the objectives and a purpose of the Agency Act is
to provide for the control of the flood and storm waters of the Agency, and to
[control] storm and flood waters that flow into the Agency, and to conserve those
waters for beneficial and useful purposes In reference to groundwater, the
Agency Act states the Agencys purpose is to prevent the waste and diminution
of the water supply in the Agencys jurisdiction, including controlling groundwater
extractions as required to prevent or deter the loss of usable groundwater
through intrusion of seawater. Another purpose of the Agency Act is to provide
for the replacement of groundwater through development and distribution of a
substitute water supply.
Based on the State Water Boards analysis, as reflected in the Report, the
Project as proposed would return any incidentally extracted usable groundwater
to the Basin. The only water that would be available for export is a new supply,
or developed water. Accordingly, it does not appear that the Agency Act or the
Ordinance operate to prohibit the Project. The State Water Board is not the
agency responsible for interpreting the Agency Act or MCWRAs ordinances. It
should be recognized, however, that to the extent the language of the Agency
Act and Ordinance permit, they should be interpreted consistent with policy of
article X, section 2 of the California Constitution, including the physical solution
doctrine, discussed below.
6.3
Physical Solution Discussion
To operate the MPWSP, Cal-Am must ensure the MPWSP will not injure other
legal users in the Basin. This could require implementation of a physical
solution.
59
See, e.g. SWRCB Decision 1594 (1984) [interpreting the priority of needs for beneficial use in the
watershed of origin over exports by the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project not to apply to
waters imported to the watershed by the projects].)
40
A physical solution is one that assures all water right holders have their rights
protected without unnecessarily reducing the diversions of others. The phrase
physical solution is used in water-rights cases to describe an agreed upon or
judicially imposed resolution of conflicting claims in a manner that advances the
constitutional rule of reasonable and beneficial use of the state's water supply.
(City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 266, 286 (City of Santa
Maria).) A physical solution may be imposed by a court in connection with an
adjudication of a groundwater basin where rights of all parties are quantified, as
part of a groundwater management program, or as part of a water development
project. 60 One important characteristic of a physical solution is that it may not
adversely impact a partys existing water right. (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1224,
1251.) Physical solutions are frequently used in groundwater basins to protect
existing users rights, maintain groundwater quality, allow for future development,
and implement the constitutional mandate against waste and unreasonable use.
(See California American Water v. City of Seaside (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 471,
480.)
From the standpoint of applying the States waters to maximum beneficial use,
and to implement Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution, physical
solutions can and should be imposed to reduce waste. 61 (See, e.g., Lodi, supra,
7 Cal.2d 316, 339-341, 344-345; Hillside Memorial Park and Mortuary v. Golden
State Water Co. (2011) 205 Cal.App.4th 534, 549-550.) In Lodi, a physical
solution was imposed to limit the wasting of water to the sea. The defendant
appropriator was required to keep water levels above levels that would injure the
senior user or to supply equivalent water to the plaintiff. (Lodi, supra, 7 Cal.2d
316, 339-341, 344-345.)
Agreement of all parties is not necessary for a physical solution to be imposed.
(See Lodi, supra, at p.341, citing Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay Strathmore
60
Sawyer, State Regulation of Groundwater Pollution Caused by Changes in Groundwater Quantity or

Flow (1998) 19 Pacific. L.J.1267, 1297.
61
Additionally, Water Code section 12947 states the general policy of promoting saline water conversion
to fresh water in the State.
41
Irrigation District (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 574.) In addition, a basin need not be
determined to be in a condition of overdraft for a physical solution to be instituted.
Although we may use physical solutions to alleviate an overdraft situation, there
is no requirement that there be an overdraft before the court may impose a
physical solution. (City of Santa Maria, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th, 266, 288.)
Likewise, a physical solution can also be imposed in a basin that is determined to
be in a condition of overdraft. (See generally Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33
Cal.2d 908 [in a situation of continued overdraft, the court imposed limits on all
users].)
Under the physical solution doctrine, although the Basin continues to be in a
condition of overdraft, to maximize beneficial use of the states waters Cal-Am
may be allowed to pump a mixture of seawater, brackish water, and fresh water
and export the desalinated water to non-overlying parcels. As a subsequent
appropriator, the burden is on Cal-Am to show its operations will result in surplus
water that will not injure users with existing legal rights. (See Lodi, supra, 7
Cal.2d at p.339.) To avoid injury to other users and protect beneficial uses of the
Basins waters, Cal-Am would have to show it is able to return its fresh water
component to the Basin in such a way that existing users are not harmed and
foreseeable uses of the Basin water are protected.
Modeling of the North Marina Project, which may be similar to the MPWSP,
indicates that approximately 762 to 3,250 afa could be extracted from the
landward direction of the slant wells, or approximately 3 to 13 percent of the total
water extracted could be water that is contained or sourced from the Basin rather
than seawater derived from Monterey Bay. The percentage of this water that is
fresh or potable would have to be determined and the proportion of fresh water
that is extracted for the desalination facility would have to be replaced. The
exact method for replacing the fresh water extracted will be a key component of
any legally supportable project. Replacement methods such as injection to
recharge wells, delivery to recharge basins, or applying additional water through
the CSIP program would need to be further examined to implement a physical
solution that ensures no injury to other legal users. Cal-Am would need to
42
determine which of those methods would be the most feasible and result in
returning the Basin to pre-project conditions.
One possibility raised by interested parties is that Basin conditions may change
in the future, for reasons independent of MPWSP operation. If the seawater
intrusion front were to shift seaward, Cal-Am might extract a higher proportion of
fresh water from its wells and reach a limit where it would be infeasible for it to
return a like amount of fresh water back to the Basin and still deliver the amount
of desalinated water needed for off-site uses. Based on the current project
design and location of the extraction wells, it is highly unlikely that in the
foreseeable future Cal-Am will draw an increased percentage of fresh water from
wells with intake screens located several hundred feet offshore. If pumping
within the Basin remains unchanged, it is projected that the MPWSP would not
pump fresh water within a 56-year period if pumping occurred in an unconfined
aquifer. 62 Since modeling has not been done simulating confined conditions, the
extent of the impact on fresh water supply or wells is unknown in this situation.
If, however, Basin conditions do change and Cal-Ams fresh water extractions
increase, several scenarios could develop.
One possible scenario is that Cal-Am could show that (1) but-for the MPWSP,
new fresh water would not be available in the Basin, and (2) as Cal Am continues
to operate the MPWSP, the increased amount of fresh water available is
developed water that would have previously been unavailable both to it and to
other users. If this increased fresh water available to Basin users alleviates
seawater intrusion issues, as well as provides for a new supply in excess of what
would otherwise be available in the Basin, a physical solution could be imposed
that would apportion the new water supply and allow continued pumping.
As discussed above, it is unlikely that Basin conditions would improve
independent of MPWSP operation. If there is increased fresh water availability in
62
North Marina Project modeling showed that if pumping occurred in an unconfined aquifer over a 56
year period, then pumping would have little to no effect on the movement of the seawater intrusion front
FEIR July 2008, Appendix E p. 21 (E-28).
43
the Basin that cannot be attributed to the MPWSP and Cal-Ams fresh water
extractions exceed what it can return to the Basin, Cal-Am may have to limit its
export diversions to ensure that other legal users are not injured. Alternatively, it
is possible that Cal-Am could implement modifications to the groundwater
extraction system to offset any impacts on fresh water sources 63.
Based on historical uses of water in the Basin and despite efforts to reduce
groundwater pumping in seawater intruded areas through enactment of
Ordinance 3709 and efforts to increase recharge through the CSIP, there is no
substantial evidence to suggest that Basin conditions will improve independent of
the MPWSP without a comprehensive solution to the overdraft conditions.
Although implementation of the SVWP has reportedly contributed to a reduction
in the rate of seawater intrusion, there are still very large pumping depressions in
the Basin, and these pumping depressions provide a significant driving force for
sustained seawater intrusion which will likely continue for many decades.
There is expected to be minimal impact to fresh water sources at start-up and for
the first several years of operation as water will certainly be sourced from the
intruded portion of the aquifer. The magnitude and timing of the effect on other
users would have to be determined to allow for a design solution to avoid or
compensate for the impact of continued operation. (See Lodi, 7 Cal.2d 316, 342;
[the fact that there is no immediate danger to the City of Lodi's water right is an
element to be considered in working out a proper solution.] The physical
solution doctrine could allow for an adjustment of rights, so long as others legal
rights are not infringed upon or injured. [I]f a physical solution be ascertainable,
the court has the power to make and should make reasonable regulations for the
use of the water by the respective partiesand in this connection the court has
the power to and should reserve unto itself the right to change and modify its
orders (Peabody, supra, 2 Cal.2d at pp. 383-384.)
63
For example, active groundwater barrier systems, or other means of isolating the extraction wells from
the groundwater system could be implemented.
44
Ongoing monitoring of the impacts of the MPWSP will be necessary to determine

whether, and to what extent, changes to the Basins conditions occur. If and
when impacts to fresh water resources in the Basin are identified, any fresh
water injection wells would have to be designed to ensure water is injected in
areas not already degraded. Alternatively, or in conjunction with injection wells,
Cal-Am could ensure an adequate supply of replacement water is maintained
within the CSIP program. Initial studies would be needed to determine the most
suitable location based on soil permeability for additional percolation basins, if
necessary. As with injection wells, percolation basins would need to be located
where the underlying aquifer does not contain degraded water.
Based on the information provided in the FEIR, North Marina Project modeling
suggests a zone of influence of approximately 2 miles from the proposed
extraction wells. 64 According to the State Water Boards GAMA database, there
are approximately 14 known water wells within this zone. These 14 wells are
within the seawater intruded portion of the Basin. The current use of these wells
is unknown; however, it is unlikely the MPWSP would injure users of these wells
as the wells are within a zone where water quality is significantly impacted from
seawater intrusion and may not serve beneficial uses. Within this 2-mile radial
zone, the three foreseeable injuries that overlying users could experience are: (1)
a reduction in the overall availability of fresh water due to possible incidental
extraction by the MPWSP; (2) a reduction in water quality in those wells in a
localized area within the capture zone; and, (3) a reduction in groundwater
elevations requiring users to expend additional pumping energy to extract water
from the Basin.
If the MPWSP wells are located where unconfined aquifer conditions exist,
Project pumping likely would extract both seawater and brackish groundwater.
Other than seawater, the majority of the source water would be from within the
seawater-intruded portion of the Basin as the seawater intrusion front extends
64
Evaluation of Projects p. 21 (E-28), July and September 2008.
45
approximately 5 miles landward from the proposed well locations. If the MPWSP
receives source water from a confined aquifer it would affect a much larger area
in the Basin, but without test wells and data showing operations under confined
aquifer conditions, it is not possible to determine what percentage of fresh water
would be pumped under confined conditions. Staff concludes, however, that the
potential for injury is greater if the source water is pumped under confined
conditions.
6.4
Summary of Legal Analysis
In summary, to appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is on Cal-Am

to show no injury to other users. Key factors will be the following: (1) how much
fresh water Cal-Am is extracting as a proportion of the total pumped amount and
how much desalinated seawater is thus available for export as developed water;
(2) whether pumping affects the water table level in existing users wells and
whether Cal-Am can avoid injury that would otherwise result from any lowering of
water levels through monetary compensation or paying for upgraded wells; (3)
whether pumping affects water quality to users wells within the capture zone and
whether Cal-Am can avoid or compensate for water quality impacts.(4) how Cal
Am should return any fresh water it extracts to the Basin to prevent injury to
others; and (5) how groundwater rights might be affected in the future if the
proportion of fresh and seawater changes, both in the larger Basin area and the
immediate area around Cal-Ams wells.
As discussed in this report, additional data will be necessary to ensure that
continued operation of the MPWSP, under different source water extraction
scenarios, will not injure other legal groundwater users.
Both near and long-term, a new water supply from desalination, or the
implementation of a physical solution could ensure an adequate water supply for
all legal water users in the Basin and provide an assured supply of groundwater
46
to the Basins users. 65 Even if overdraft conditions continued in the Basin

following imposition of the solution, Cal-Am possibly could continue pumping
brackish water legally so long as the quantity was not detrimental to the
conditions in the Basin and other Basin users rights. When the supply is limited
public interest requires that there be the greatest number of beneficial uses
which the supply can yield. (Peabody, supra, 2 Cal.2d at p. 368.)
So long as overlying users are protected from injury, appropriation of water
consistent with the principles previously discussed in this report should be
possible. (See generally Burr v. MacClay Rancho Water Co. (1908) 154 Cal.
428, 430-31, 438-39 [if an appropriator does not exceed average annual
replenishment of groundwater supply, lower users water levels in wells or restrict
future pumping, the appropriators use is not adverse to other users].). Additional
support is found in City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7,
20; No injunction should issue against the taking of water while the supply is
ample for all. But the respective priorities of each water right should be
adjudged, so that if in the future the supply falls below the quantity necessary for
all, he who has the prior right may have his preferred right protected.
Cal-Am must show any desalinated water it produces is developed water; a new
supply to the existing groundwater resources in the Basin. It must show
replacement water methods are effective and feasible, and the MPWSP can
operate without injury to other users. As discussed earlier, if the MPWSP pumps
65
Some parties argue an adjudication of the Basins rights would be needed for the MPWSP to proceed.
While adjudication could provide some benefits to the Basins users it is not necessary for a physical
solution to be imposed. For reference, there are three general procedures by which an adjudication or
rights to use groundwater in the Basin could be quantified and conditioned: 1) civil action with no state
participation; 2) civil action where a reference is made to the State Water Board pursuant to Water Code
section 2000; or 3) a State Water Board determination, pursuant to the outlined statutory procedure that
groundwater must be adjudicated in order to restrict pumping or a physical solution is necessary to
preserve the quality of the groundwater and to avoid injury to users. (Wat. Code, 2100 et seq.)
Whether Cal-Am could force an adjudication of water rights is beyond the scope of this report but will be
briefly discussed. As applied in Corona Foothill Lemon Co. v. Lillibridge, (1937) 8 Cal. 2d 522, 531-32,
an exporter cannot force an apportionment where it is conclusively shown that no surplus water exists
and there is no controversy among overlying owners. But a conclusive showing that there is no water
available for export does not appear to be the case here. Water that is currently unusable, both due to its
location in the Basin and corresponding quality, could be rendered usable if desalinated and would thus
be surplus to current water supplies in the Basin.
47
source water from an unconfined aquifer, there may be no injury to other users
outside of a 2-mile radius, with the exception of possibly slightly lower
groundwater levels in the seawater-intruded area. Based on current information
we do not know the exact effects on other users if source water is pumped from a
confined aquifer, but the effects in general will be amplified.
7. Conclusion
The key determination is whether Cal-Am may extract water from the SVGB while
avoiding injury to other groundwater users and protecting beneficial uses in the Basin.
If the MPWSP is constructed with gravity wells or pumping wells the effects on the
aquifer would be the same as long as the amount of drawdown in the wells is the same.
But in the case of a pumped well, the operator has the ability to induce greater
drawdown than they would in the gravity wells. In this case, there would be a greater
effect to the aquifer. Since modeling has not been completed for the gravity well
scenario, it is unknown at this time the total effect the gravity wells would have on the
Basin and other groundwater users.
If the MPWSP is constructed as described in the FEIR for the North Marina Project, the
slant wells would pump from the unconfined Dune Sand Aquifer. If groundwater is
pumped from an unconfined aquifer and the modeling assumptions in the FEIR for the
North Marina Project are accurate, there will be lowering of groundwater levels within an
approximate 2-mile radius. Since seawater intrusion occurs in this area, this water
developed through desalination is likely new water that is surplus to the current needs
of other users in the Basin. Based on the information available, it is unlikely any injury
would occur by the lowering of the groundwater levels in this region. Nevertheless, CalAm must show there is no injury and if the MPWSP reduces the amount of fresh water
available to other legal users of water in the Basin or reduces the water quality so that
users are no longer able to use the water for the same beneficial use, such impacts
would need to be avoided or compensated for.
If the proposed slant wells are determined to be infeasible, and the project is instead
designed to extract groundwater with conventional pumping wells, the potential impacts
could be greater, but they would not necessarily result in injury that could not be
48
avoided or compensated through appropriate measures. Impacts on other water users

in the form of increased groundwater pumping costs could be eliminated through
financial compensation within a reasonable time frame from when the costs are
incurred. Impacts on the availability of fresh water could be determined through
modeling and any replacement of fresh water would have to be returned in an area that
is not already degraded by seawater intrusion. Impacts on users in the form of
decreased water quality could be compensated through the replacement of water with
similar quality to the pre-project conditions.
Modeling for the North Marina Project does not predict that Basin users fresh water
supplies would be affected if its wells pump from an unconfined aquifer, which we
assume to also be true for the MPWSP. If however, further exploratory testing shows
water is removed from a confined aquifer, water levels would be lowered in a larger
area and the effect on groundwater flow direction would be greater. Although pumping
from a confined condition affects a much larger area of the Basin, the quantity of fresh
water extracted from the aquifer would not necessarily be greater because the capture
zone for the extraction wells would be greatly influenced by existing groundwater
gradients. Additional studies are needed to determine whether the revised MPWSP
configuration could cause injury to other groundwater users in the Basin that would
require additional measures to avoid or compensate for that injury.
Cal-Am could legally pump from the Basin by developing a new water supply through
desalination and showing the developed water is surplus to the existing supply. If CalAms extractions are limited to water that currently serves no beneficial use; for
example, it is entirely derived from brackish or seawater sources, and Cal-Am returns all
incidental fresh water to the Basin in a method that avoids injury to other users, it is
likely the MPWSP could proceed without violating other users groundwater rights. A no
injury finding would have to be shown through monitoring, modeling, compensation,
project design or other means
A physical solution could be implemented to ensure all rights are protected while
maximizing the beneficial uses of the Basins waters. Such an approach is consistent
with the general policy in California Constitution article X section 2, and case law
49
provides guidance on solutions to address complex groundwater issues where supply is

constrained. The ongoing development of solutions tailored to the specific conditions
that apply to a given groundwater basin reflects the understanding that California waters
are too valuable not to be utilized to the maximum extent possible if beneficial uses and
other legal users rights are maintained.
8. Recommendations
Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current
and future Basin conditions regardless of whether the extraction occurs from pumped or
gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells and aquifer
conditions. Specifically, studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand
Aquifer, the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and
thickness of the SVA and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.
Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a
series of test boring/wells would be needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at
the site. Aquifer testing is also needed to determine the pumping effects on both the
Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. Pre-project conditions should
be identified prior to aquifer testing. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping
rates.
Third, updated groundwater modeling will be needed to evaluate future impacts from the
MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios will need to be run to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and
boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies also will be necessary to
determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells,
percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. It may also be necessary to
survey the existing groundwater users in the affected area. The studies will form the
basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial
uses in the Basin. To ensure that this modeling provides the best assessment of the
potential effects of the MPWSP, it is important that any new information gathered during
the initial phases of the groundwater investigation be incorporated into the groundwater
50
modeling studies as well as all available information including current activities that
could influence the groundwater quality in the Basin.
51
EXHIBIT MCD-18
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

California-American Water Company (U
210 W) for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Construct and
Operate its Monterey Peninsula Water
and Future Costs in Connection Therewith in
Rates.
13
14
15
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CURTIS HOPKINS

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY
16
17
18
19
MARK FOGELMAN
RUTH STONER MUZZIN
350 Sansome Street, Suite 210
Telephone: (415) 834-3800
Facsimile: (415) 834-1044
Email: mfogelman@friedmanspring.com
Email: rmuzzin@friedmanspring.com
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attorneys for
26
27
28
January 22, 2016
EXHIBITS
2
3
MCD-19:
Resume of Curtis Hopkins, Hopkins Groundwater Consultants
MCD-20:
Memorandum of Hopkins Groundwater Consultants to Marina Coast

Water District, dated January 22, 2016
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
4
5
6
7
8

Convenience and Necessity to Construct
and Operate its Monterey Peninsula Water
and Future Costs in Connection Therewith
in Rates.
9
10
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CURTIS HOPKINS
11
(SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 1 TESTIMONY)
12
13
14
Q1.
Please state your name and address.
A1.
California 93006.
15
16
17
18
19
My name is Curtis Hopkins. My mailing address is P.O. Box 3596, Ventura,
Q2.
By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A2.
Q3.
I am a principal of Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc.
Briefly describe your educational background.
A3.
I have a B.A. in Geological Sciences, from the University of California at Santa
20
Barbara, and a Credential in Ground Water Science, from Ohio State
21
University, National Water Well Association.
22
23
Q4.
Do you have any other formal training or accreditations?
A4.
Yes. I am qualified as a Professional Geologist in California, No. 5695; I am
24
also a Certified Engineering Geologist in California, No. EG1800; and I am a
25
Certified Hydrogeologist in California, No. HG 114.
26
27
28
Q5.
Is your professional experience described on the document that is marked as

Exhibit MCD-19?
A5.
Yes. A true copy of my professional resume is marked and provided with this
1
testimony as Exhibit MCD-19.
1
2
3
Q6.
Have you previously testified in court proceedings or before a regulatory agency?
A6.
Recently, I was qualified as an expert witness and testified in superior court, in
litigation concerning the test slant well for the proposed Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP). In addition, I have served as an expert
witness and provided technical support for clients in a number of other cases
involving groundwater and water rights issues.
8
9
Q7.
What is the purpose of this direct testimony?
A7.
This testimony is intended to summarize the results of a report that HGC was
10
retained to provide for Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) in relation to
11
the proposed MPWSP. A true copy that report, dated January 22, 2016, is
12
attached hereto as Exhibit MCD-20.
13
Q8.
proposed MPWSP?
14
15
What is the subject of HGCs January 22, 2016 report to MCWD regarding the
A8.
California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) for its proposed MPWSP.
16
17
18
19
At MCWDs request, HGC examined the return water proposals of the
Q9.
Please summarize the results of HGCs January 22, 2016 report to MCWD
regarding the proposed MPWSP.
A9.
In our report, HGC concluded that monitoring data available to date from the
20
test slant well for the proposed MPWSP confirm that Cal-Ams previous
21
modeling and its estimates regarding the percentage of groundwater that would
22
be pumped by the full MPWSP are not accurate. Based on the findings of our
23
review, we concluded it is unquestionable that the MPWSP feedwater will
24
contain a substantial portion of groundwater, much higher than the 875 acre-
25
feet per year that Cal-Am initially estimated. Updated modeling using
26
information developed from the test slant well field investigations and available
27
from other studies must be used to refine the MPWSP modeling to accurately
28
simulate aquifer conditions and provide a reasonable estimate of the amount of

2
return water that will be required for the project to operate. Based on this
information, additional analysis regarding the method for returning this
groundwater must be provided that ensures the protective conditions that
currently exist in the Northern Marina Subarea of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer
Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin are not adversely impacted
to the detriment of the groundwater users in the subarea. Without updated
modeling and additional analysis, it is impossible for the public and public
agencies to provide meaningful testimony regarding Cal-Ams return water
proposal.
10
11
Q10. Does that conclude your Direct Testimony?

A10. Yes.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
EXHIBIT MCD-19
(Hopkins Resume)
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
Principal Hydrogeologist
EDUCATION:
B.A. Geological Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, 1986

Credential in Ground Water Science, Ohio State University, National Water Well
Association, 1991
QUALIFICATIONS:
Professional Geologist, California No. 5695

Certified Engineering Geologist, California No. EG1800
Certified Hydrogeologist, California No. HG 114
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Hopkins has over 27 years of experience as the manager and/or lead
investigator of groundwater development projects.
These projects include
groundwater basin resource availability and management studies, artificial recharge
and recovery programs, brackish and saline groundwater supply development
studies for desalination projects, and forensic groundwater studies utilizing isotope
geochemistry and surface geophysical methods. Mr. Hopkins technical experience
has focused on constructing groundwater models, providing well design and well
construction specifications for public bid, and directing construction management for
numerous production and injection well projects. His work throughout central and
southern California has included hydrogeologic study in coastal areas where
seawater intrusion into aquifer systems is a significant concern and impacts of
groundwater extractions and/or the design of abatement programs must be
considered.
Mr. Hopkins has served as an expert witness and provided technical support for
cases involving well construction disputes, impacts from groundwater pumping,
groundwater management, water quality impacts, and water rights issues. He has
provided responsible hydrogeologic services for numerous water resource projects
that include groundwater development and monitoring programs, and basin safe
yield studies in both fractured bedrock and sedimentary basin aquifer systems. He
has extensive experience in conducting aquifer tests and performing data analysis to
determine aquifer parameters and groundwater supply availability. Mr. Hopkins has
considerable experience evaluating well performance and the suitability of
rehabilitation and/or redevelopment options to cost effectively repair or increase
production in aging wells.
Before focusing his education on groundwater resources, Mr. Hopkins was a
geophysical technician and conducted borehole geophysical surveys for Water Well
Surveys and subsequently, Westech Geophysical, of Ventura California. During his
2-1/2 years with Westech, he operated geophysical exploration equipment and
provided field interpretation of borehole and cased hole geophysical logs that were
conducted for production, injection, and monitoring well projects. Mr. Hopkins also
worked on numerous water well rehabilitation or redevelopment projects for aging
wells with structural problems or declining production.
Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc. was incorporated in August 2001. The
following project list is partly experience gained by Mr. Hopkins, while working over
Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc./June 2007
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
the previous 14 years (1987 to 2001) with his former employer, Fugro West, Inc.
Santa Paula Basin Technical Advisory Committee, Professional Support to City
of San Buenaventura (2009 to Present). Participate in TAC meetings and TAC
Working Group Technical evaluations of the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin
conditions and historical changes in basin conditions. Contribute technical review of
annual basin conditions reports submitted to the Court, and provided a study of
historical changes in the Santa Paula Basin that contribute to long-term water level
variations.
Foster Park Well Field Water Supply Master Plan, City of San Buenaventura,
Ventura River Basin. Project manager and lead investigator for evaluation of the
City of Ventura Foster Park well field located in the Upper Ventura River alluvial
groundwater basin. A detailed study of the historical river supply was conducted and
included construction of a Modflow groundwater flow model to estimate the potential
to discontinue use of the City surface diversion structure and produce the entire river
supply from a well field. Existing well facilities were evaluated and tested to
determine their structural condition, production potential, aquifer properties, and
future well placement alternatives. The findings of the study concluded the City
could produce the historical supply from wells and provided potential well
construction locations. This study was performed in conjunction with design
engineering provided by Kennedy Jenks Consultants.
City of Santa Paula Water System Master Plan, Santa Paula and Fillmore
Basins. Project manager and lead investigator for evaluation of the City of Santa
Paula well field located in the eastern Santa Paula groundwater basin. Conducted a
detailed study of the historical municipal supply and provided an update of
anticipated groundwater conditions in the basin that would affect the proposed City
scheme of water and wastewater treatment. The study developed an understanding
of water quality and well yields that could be obtained from the shallow, intermediate,
and deep aquifer zones. Existing well facilities were evaluated to determine their
structural condition, production potential, aquifer properties, and the anticipated
remaining service life of each well facility. The findings of the study concluded that a
failure of Well 12 would virtually render 1 of the 2 City water treatment plans
inoperable. In addition, the study estimated the frequency of well rehabilitation
requirements and projected the timing for future well construction. The findings of
the study were incorporated in the comprehensive master plan and utilized to
develop the Citys water system capitol improvements and operations budgets. This
study was performed in conjunction with design engineering provided by Boyle
Engineering Corporation.
City of Santa Paula Municipal Groundwater Supply Wellfield Alternatives
Study, Santa Paula Basin. Project manager and lead investigator for evaluation of
the City of Santa Paula well fields located in the eastern Santa Paula groundwater
basin and evaluated the adequacy of the produced water quality to meet the
proposed City water and wastewater treatment strategy. The findings of the study
concluded the City could produce the required low chloride groundwater supply from
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
wells located east of Santa Paula Creek.
needs in the existing wellfield locations.
The study also prioritized well facility
City of Camarillo Groundwater Production Alternatives and Well Siting Study,

Pleasant Valley Basin. Project manager and lead investigator for evaluation of the
City of Camarillo well fields located in the northern Pleasant Valley Groundwater
Basin and evaluated the adequacy of the produced water quality to meet the
proposed City water supply strategy. The findings of the study concluded the City
could produce substantially more groundwater in the vicinity of its northern most
wellfield, but the quality of produced groundwater was superior at its southern
wellfield location. Both locations were subject to the Fox Canyon Groundwater
Management Agency ordinance.
Northeast Pleasant Valley Basin Surface Water and Groundwater Study,
Calleguas Municipal Water District. Project manager and lead investigator for
evaluation of the groundwater conditions in the northeastern Pleasant Valley
Groundwater Basin. The study evaluated the effluent dominated source of recharge
to the basin from the Arroyo Las Posas/Calleguas Creek flows. The study
documented the gradual degradation in produced water quality during the
approximate 200-foot rise in groundwater levels, which occurred over an
approximate 10-year period.
City of Oxnard Blending Station No. 3 Well Site Relocation Project and
Emergency Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, Oxnard Plain Basin. Project
manager and lead investigator for evaluation of the groundwater conditions in the
Oxnard Plain Groundwater Basin for establishment of a municipal supply. The study
evaluated the hydrogeology in the northeast area of the City and determined 4 wells
could be constructed on the same site into the Oxnard Aquifer, Mugu Aquifer, and
upper Hueneme Aquifer zones without mutual interference impacts during pumping.
Hopkins provided subsequent well construction inspection services and summarized
the production potential and aquifer condition encountered by each well. Provide
professional development and oversight of City emergency ASR program utilizing
Well No. 29, which was designed for this purpose in the upper Hueneme Aquifer.
The program conducted successful operations of storage and subsequent recovery
of 1,200 acre-feet of imported water supply from Calleguas Municipal Water District.
Well Site Evaluation, Groundwater Supply Development Project, Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Water Agency.
Contract Manager and lead investigator for groundwater development project. Zone
7 is increasing its capability to produce groundwater for emergency supply and
drought period shortfalls. The groundwater expansion project incorporates seasonal
groundwater injection, storage, and extraction of surplus surface water supplies.
Test wells were constructed to obtain water quality data and aquifer parameters that
were used to estimate well design capacities and provide well interference analyses.
Six well sites in the Pleasanton/Livermore area were evaluated to determine the
suitability of the aquifer system for proposed groundwater development.
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
Reclaimed Water Injection/Extraction Alternatives, Las Virgenes Municipal
Water District. Contract Manager and lead investigator for development of
groundwater conjunctive use options considered in an environmental impact
assessment for LVMWD Malibu Creek Discharge Avoidance Study. The project
included the conceptual design and study of groundwater injection and extraction
options that would prevent discharge to Malibu Creek and augment the reclaimed
water supply to balance with peak summer demands. Mr. Hopkins evaluated
groundwater quality impacts, aquifer storage capacities, and operational limitations
of proposed injection/extraction facilities for each of the viable groundwater
alternatives. This study was performed in conjunction with design engineering
provided by Boyle Engineering Corporation.
Saline Groundwater Supply Study, Cooperative Desalination Study, Central
Basin Municipal Water District. Project Manager and lead investigator for the
study managed by the Central Basin District on behalf of the City of Long Beach
Water Department, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Southern
California Edison Company (SCE), Water Replenishment District of Southern
California (WRD), and West Basin Municipal Water District. Mr. Hopkins developed
conceptual project alternatives for producing saline groundwater to supply raw water
to a desalination facility to be located at the SCE Los Alamitos Generation Station in
Long Beach. The study included installation and testing of demonstration wells and
a canal infiltration assessment to model the multiple aquifer system beneath the site.
The comprehensive model evaluated the amount of infiltration that could be induced
from groundwater production located between the SCE ocean water intake canals
and the San Gabriel River, and assessed the impacts on the WRD groundwater
injection barrier (for seawater intrusion). This study was performed in conjunction
with design engineering provided by Black and Veatch.
Hydrogeological Evaluation of Groundwater Supply Alternatives for the
Integrated Water Plan Project EIR, City of Santa Cruz. Project manager and lead
investigator for the evaluation of impacts of the groundwater production scenarios in
the coastal Purisima Formation aquifer system. The study evaluated the impacts of
continued operation of the Beltz well field in a historically manner that varied annually
based on climatic conditions. Annual production ranged from 30 to 1,200 acre-feet
per year and impacts evaluated included subsidence, seawater intrusion, depletion
of storage, well interference, and surface water body or stream depletion. This study
was performed in conjunction with the project environmental planning study provided
by EDAW.
North Coast Brackish Groundwater Desalination Project and Hydrogeologic
Evaluation of Groundwater Supply Alternatives, City of Santa Cruz. Project
manager and lead investigator for the evaluation of brackish groundwater in a
coastal bedrock aquifer system for use as a raw water supply to a desalination
facility. Subsequent redirection of this project expanded the scope to include
hydrogeologic evaluation of all the coastal groundwater supply options available to
the City. Each option was evaluated to determine the water quality, seasonal
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
availability, safe yield, and extraction facility requirements.
This study was
performed in conjunction with design engineering provided by Carollo Engineers.
North Las Posas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Demonstration Project,
Groundwater Supply Investigation, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California and Calleguas Municipal Water District. Project manager and lead
investigator of the hydrogeologic assessment of aquifer conditions used in a
comprehensive study and conceptual design of a 250,000 acre-foot groundwater
injection and storage project. The comprehensive data review and summary of the
Las Posas Groundwater Basin conditions were used to recommend the optimal
location of the proposed injection well field and identify existing wells that were
appropriate for immediate injection pilot testing. This study was performed in support
of a comprehensive conceptual program study provided by CH2MHILL.
Desalination Water Supply Study, Saline Groundwater Alternative, City of San
Buenaventura. Project manager and lead investigator for a coastal groundwater
study to assess the technical feasibility of using saline groundwater wells to provide
a feed water supply for a desalination facility. Test wells were constructed at three
locations along the City beach to provide data to assess groundwater quality issues,
aquifer properties of the beach sands, and allow flow modeling of groundwater
production scenarios. Production scenarios incorporated a shoreline collection
system of multiple well points and radial collector wells with horizontal screens that
would extend offshore beneath the surf zone. This study was performed in
conjunction with design engineering provided by Boyle Engineering Corporation.
Desalination Water Supply Study, Saline Groundwater Alternative, City of
Santa Cruz. Principal in charge and lead investigator for a coastal groundwater
study to assess the technical feasibility of using saline groundwater produced from
shoreline well facilities as feed water for a desalination plant. A detailed study of the
coastal hydrogeology was performed to develop a preliminary understanding of the
production potential. Production scenarios included a shoreline collection system of
multiple well points and/or radial collector wells with horizontal screens that would
extend offshore beneath the surf zone. The findings of the study indicated that the
required supply could not be provided from conventional coastal wells or lateral
collector wells along the shore. This study was performed in conjunction with design
engineering provided by Carollo Engineers.
City of Santa Paula Well Facility Siting Study. Project manager and lead
investigator for evaluation of potential well sites located within and proximate to the
City boundary. The study provided a detailed evaluation of over 30 potential well
sites and rated and ranked the sites with criteria developed to identify site suitability.
The findings of the study concluded the City should construct wells in three different
locations to maintain a stable supply until construction of the proposed water
softening/treatment facility. The study also scored the well sites in each wellfield
location and identified the highest ranking sites that would provide the greatest
benefits to the City water system.
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
City of Ventura Well Rehabilitation Projects; Saticoy Well No. 2, Victoria Well
No. 2, and Nye Well No. 7. Hopkins conducted a well conditions review study,
developed a well repair and rehabilitation program and project specifications for
solicitation of contractor bids, and provided construction management inspection
services for a 400-foot deep well, 2,000 gpm capacity (Saticoy Well No. 2, included
swage patch repair and cement seal prior to rehabilitation), 1,200-foot deep well
3,000 gpm capacity (Victoria Avenue Well No. 2), and 75-foot deep 1,500 gpm
capacity (Nye Well No. 7, included installation of a stainless steel liner during
rehabilitation).
Well Rehabilitation Projects. Hopkins conducted well conditions review studies,
developed well repair and rehabilitation programs and prepared technical
specifications for solicitation of contractor bids, and provided construction
management inspection service for numerous municipal water supply well projects.
Well repair methods have included reperforation of the original well casing and
installation of well liners and swage patches. Well rehabilitation methods utilized for
each well is unique based on specific well conditions and included chemical (acid
wash treatments), mechanical (brushing, bailing, swabbing, and jetting), detonation,
and hydraulic well redevelopment methods. Well rehabilitation services were
provided for clients that include: Crestview Mutual Water Company; Well No. 5
(1,400-foot deep well, 1,000 gpm capacity); City of Santa Cruz; Beltz Well Nos. 8
and 9 (200-foot deep wells, 800 gpm capacity); Del Norte Mutual Water Company;
Greenhill Well No. 10 (1,200-foot deep well, 600 gpm capacity); City of South Gate;
Well No. 27 (900-foot deep well, 1,500 gpm capacity) and Well No. 25 (1,300-foot
deep well, 2,500 gpm capacity); United Water Conservation District; PTP Well
No. 2 (1,100-foot deep well, 1,800 gpm capacity) and El Rio Well No. 11 (300-foot
deep well, 2,500 gpm capacity); City of Modesto FMC Well No. 6 (270 feet deep
well, 1,500 gpm capacity); Willdan/Morongo Band of Indians Morongo Well No. 5
(450 feet deep well, 1,200 gpm capacity); City of Santa Paula; Well No. 12 (700 feet
deep well, 2,000 gpm capacity); County of Ventura; Well Nos. 2, 15, 95, 96, 97, and
98 (depths of up to 1,500 feet and capacities in the range of 1,000 to 1,800 gpm);
Hiji Brothers; Freidrick Well No. 4, Kotaki Well No. 1, Montoalvo Well, Round
Mountain, and Cawelti Wells (400- to 900-foot deep wells, 600 to 1,200 gpm
capacities); Grether Farming Company: Rancho Roberto Well No. 2, Rancho
Medio Dia Well No. 3 (1,000 and 1,400-foot deep wells, 600 to 1,200 gpm
capacities).
Well Siting, Design, Specifications Preparation, and Construction Management
of Water Supply Wells for Municipal Water Agencies. Clients included the cities
of San Buenaventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz; County of Ventura;
United Water Conservation District; Las Virgenes Municipal Water District; Alameda
County Zone 7 Water Agency; and Carpinteria County Water District. Conduct well
siting studies to determine optimal well locations and provide construction manager
for municipal well projects in both fractured bedrock and sedimentary basin aquifer
Resume
Curtis J. Hopkins
systems. Well construction methods used for test hole and/or final well completion
include cable tool, direct air rotary, dual-air rotary (casing advancement), air
hammer, direct and reverse circulation mud rotary drilling methods. Well design
capacities range up to 4,000 gpm with completion depths of over 1,200 feet.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
GROUPS
Antelope Valley Well Technical Advisory Committee, Los Angeles County

Department of Public Works, Waterworks Division, Lancaster California.
Provided professional advice on the technical aspects of the County well
construction specifications being used in the Antelope Valley. Meetings were
conducted between February and May 2008.
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, Technical Advisory Group,
Ventura, California. Provide professional, review, analysis, and advice on the
technical issues related to ongoing groundwater management agency strategies to
achieve groundwater basin management objectives (2008 to 2010).
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS:
American Public Works Association

American Water Works Association
Association of California Water Agencies
Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers
Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County
California Groundwater Association, Technical Division
Channel Counties Water Utilities Association
Coast Geologic Society
Groundwater Resources Association of California
EXHIBIT MCD-20
(Hopkins Memorandum)
+23.,16

*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176,1&
7+(:$7(55(6285&(63(&,$/,676

M
EMORANDUM
To:
Mr. Keith Van Der Maaten

General Manager, Marina Coast Water District
From:
Curtis J. Hopkins
Principal Hydrogeologist, Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc.
Date:
January 22, 2016
Subject:
Cal-Ams Return Water Proposal for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
I. Introduction
Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc. (Hopkins) has reviewed California-American
Water Companys (Cal-Ams) return water proposals for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP or the project) as requested by Marina Coast Water District (MCWD).
Cal-Am proposes to return to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) the
percentage of the raw water (or feedwater) pumped from the MPWSP intake wells that is
determined to be groundwater as opposed to ocean water. This memorandum addresses two
components of Cal-Ams proposal for returning groundwater pumped by the MPWSP: (1) the
estimated amount of groundwater that must be returned; and (2) the method of returning the
groundwater pumped by the MPWSP. 1
Regarding the estimated amount of return groundwater, Cal-Ams plant sizing technical
memorandum assumes that 875 acre-feet per year (afy) of groundwater, representing
approximately 3.2 percent of the projects feedwater, would need to be returned to the SVGB for
a 9.0 million-gallon-per-day (mgd) desalination plant without the GWR Project.2 (RBF
Consulting, Memorandum from Paul Findley to Richard Svindland, Recommended Capacity for
the MPWSP Desalination Plant, dated January 7, 2013.) The technical memorandum further
estimates that 550 afy of groundwater would need to be returned to the SVGB for a 5.4 mgd
desalination plant with the GWR Project. The fundamental problems with these three-year old

1
/ This memorandum does not address whether the Cal-Ams preferred MPWSP alternative that proposes
slant wells as the CEMEX site in Marina, CA complies with California water rights law, the Monterey
County Water Resources Agency Acts (Agency Act), the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,
pumping limits imposed by Marina Coasts 1996 Annexation Agreement pertaining to the CEMEX
property, Ex. MCD-6, or other legal requirements.
2
/ Hopkins understands that Cal-Ams current proposal includes a 9.6 mgd desalination plant without the
GWR Project or a 6.4 mgd desalination plant with the GWR Project. In addition to addressing the other
deficiencies identified herein, the estimates should be updated to reflect the actual proposed project size.
{539556.DOCXv1}
Memo re MPWSP Return Water Proposals

January 22, 2016
Page 2
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

return water estimates are: (1) the estimates are based on outdated modeling that was

developed for the present project or its location; and (2) the estimates rely on critical
not
assumptions that recently available information demonstrates are false. As discussed below,
updated return water estimatesbased on unbiased modelingare required to provide any
meaningful basis for evaluating the efficacy of Cal-Ams return water proposals. We further note
this modeling must use and correlate actual datarather than unproven assumptionsfrom the
MPWSP test slant well project (TSW) and monitoring well data from the aquifers within the
Northern Marina Subarea 3 affected by the project as discussed below.
Regarding the method of returning the groundwater, we understand Cal-Am has not selected
its preferred method but proposes several options that it believes would meet its return water
obligations. As explained below, it is critical that the method selected returns the groundwater
pumped by the MPWSP intake wells back to the Northern Marina Subarea if the CEMEX site is
chosen. Several options advanced by Cal-Am would not meet this requirement, including the
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) option and selling water to SVGB users north of
the Salinas River. It is also critical that the return method ensure the protective groundwater
levels in the Northern Marina Subarea are maintained to prevent increased seawater intrusion
and erase the substantial conservation efforts that have restored (are restoring) this portion of the
SVGB.
II. Cal-Ams Estimates of Groundwater That Must Be Returned Are Substantially
Understated.
The estimated 875 afy of return groundwater utilized in Cal-Ams plant sizing technical
memorandum assumed that 4 percent of the feedwater would be groundwater based on studies
that were performed for the prior Regional Desalination Project. (Richard Svindland Testimony,
Reporters Transcript, December 2, 2013, Volume 13 at 2140:14-27.) Subsequent modeling
performed by Cal-Ams consultant Geoscience 4 in 2014 and modified in 2015 (hereafter CalAms 2014/15 modeling (Geoscience, 2014a and 2015a) for this project indicates that the initial
groundwater percentage in the projects feedwater would be much greater during the initial
production period (as high as 40 to 50 percent during the first year) and could decrease to as low
4 percent after 4 years of production. Cal-Ams 2014/15 modeling further indicates that the
percentage of ocean water in the feedwater would vary by year but average approximately 93 to
96 percent. Based on Cal-Ams 2014 modeling, between 7 percent and 4 percent (1,890 afy and

3
/ For purposes of the memorandum, the Northern Marina Subarea is defined as that portion of the
180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin located south of the Salinas River and north of the northern boundary of
the adjoining Seaside Area Subbasin. The CEMEX property is located in the northwest corner of the
Northern Marina Subarea.
4
/ Hopkins understands that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the process of
preparing updated modeling that utilizes the data from the TSW Project and monitoring wells within the
Northern Marina Subarea. We further understand that Geoscience is no longer a consultant to both the
CPUC and Cal-Am, and only represents Cal-Am in these proceedings due to potential conflicts of
interest.
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 3
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

1,080

to the
afy) of the estimated 27,000 afy5 of feedwater for the MPWSP would need to be returned
Basin. (See Appendix E2 of the DEIR. Geoscience, 2015a, pages 41 and 55.) Even these
higher estimates, however, vastly understate the projects return water requirements for at least
three reasons.
First, Cal-Ams 2014/15 modeling inaccurately assumes that the entirety of the
geographical area of the SVGB that would be affected by the project (primarily the Northern
Marina Subarea) contains brackish or high salinity ocean water rather than fresh water, that the
project would not draw any fresh water through the MPWSP source water supply wells over the
life of the project, and consequently that the project may actually improve the Basins seawater
intrusion issue. Recent monitoring data developed for the TSW project demonstrates all of these
assumptions are false. The TSW Monitoring Wells at MW-5S, MW-6S, MW-7S, and MW-8S
are located in the Dune Sand Aquifer within the geographical area that would be affected by the
project, and the average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration for samples from these wells
ranges from approximately 608 to 1,237 mg/l and is considered fresh water. (See Table 2
Geoscience 2015p, and Water Quality Data Produced by Cal Am in these CPUC Proceedings)
Moreover, the chloride levels/salts impacting these wells are derived from overlying uses and not
seawater intrusion. An illustration of the location of these data points and the fresh water zone
within the Northern Marina Subarea is shown on Plate 1 Average Chloride Concentrations
Dune Sand and 180 Foot Aquifer.
In addition, TSW Monitoring Wells at MW-5M and MW-6M along with the Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) Wells are located in the 180-Foot
Aquifer within the geographical area that would be affected by the project and the average TDS
concentration for samples from these wells ranges from approximately 454 to 966 mg/l and is
also considered fresh water. (See Table 2 Geoscience 2015p, and Water Quality Data Produced
by Cal Am in these CPUC Proceedings]) However, the TDS concentration for MW-7M (3,832
mg/l) and MW-8M (22,250 mg/l) show that closer to the coast and closer to the main portion of
the Basin north of the river, seawater has had an impact in the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. An
illustration of the location of these data and the fresh water zone within the Northern Marina
Subarea is shown on Plate 2 Average Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations Dune Sand and
180 Foot Aquifer. In fact, available data shows that the percentage of ocean water decreases
significantly within a short distance from the coastline in the project area and the salinity of
seawater up to 8 miles inland is not as assumed by Cal-Am in its modeling and evaluation of
return water requirements. A visual presentation of these data is shown in Figure 1 Percent
Groundwater with Distance From the Shoreline. These data are further correlated with borehole
field data provided by the TSW investigations and shown on Plate 3 Conceptual Hydrogeology
from Field Data.

5
/ This memorandum does not address the validity of assumptions concerning the volume of feedwater
required for the MPWSP
{539556.DOCXv1}
Memo ree MPWSP Return

R
Water Proposals
January 22,
2 2016
Page 4
+
+23.,
16
*5281':$ 7(5
*
&
&2168/7$
176

Figu
ure 1 Perccent Ground
dwater with
h
Distance From
F
the Sh
horeline
These
T
data in
ndicate a uniique conditio
on exists in the Marina Subarea souuth of the Saalinas
River thaat provides a significant degree of prrotection agaainst seawateer intrusion under the prresent
and recen
nt past hydrrologic cond
ditions. Upd
dated modeliing that acccounts for thhese conditioons is
required to accurateely estimatee the amoun
nt of grounndwater thatt would be pumped byy the
MPWSP intake wellls. In additiion, this info
ormation muust be takenn into accounnt in determ
mining
the method of returning water to
o this area off the SVGB, to ensure thhe protectionns afforded tto the
Basin by these conditions are nott impacted by
b the projecct, as explainned further below.
Second, Cal-A
Ams 2014/15 modeling
g did not usee wells locatted south of the Salinas R
River
for calib
bration to compare
c
sim
mulated resu
ults with oobserved grooundwater level elevattions.
Consequently, there cannot be a high level of confidennce in their accuracy inn the projectt area
because accuracy
a
has not been demonstrated
d
d through a ccomparison of actual daata. Furtherm
more,
Cal-Ams 2014/15 modeling
m
reesults indicaate that appproximately 29 percent of the projjects
feedwateer will be pro
oduced from
m the Dune Sand
S
Aquifeer and 71 peercent will bbe produced from
the 180--FTE Aquiffer. (Geoscience, 2015
5, Table 1,, and Geosscience, 2015a, Figuree 59)
Preliminaary results of
o the TSW project repo
ortedly indiccate the sim
mulated resullts are inacccurate
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 5
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

and that the proportional

2,000 gallons per minute
aquifer zone productivity is reversed in the project area. Production of

(gpm) from the TSW reportedly produces 1,600 gpm (80 percent) from
the Dune Sand Aquifer and 400 gpm (20 percent) from the 180-FTE Aquifer (Geoscience,
2015p, see Figure 8). Cal-Ams 2014/15 modeling did not predict this distribution of
groundwater production.
Importantly, additional information generated by the TSW project indicates a semiperched condition within the Dune Sand Aquifer. This condition has resulted in Dune Sand
Aquifer groundwater elevations in the Fort Ord area of 70 to 80 feet above mean sea level (amsl)
(Ahtna, 2015), which decline to approximately 35 feet amsl at MW-5S. The presence of this
perched layer of fresh water was not included in Cal-Ams 2014 modeling.
The significance of this condition south of the Salinas River is illustrated by Figure 2 and
3 below. Cal-Ams 2014/15 modeling incorrectly assumed a landward gradient in both the 180FTE Foot and Dune Sand Aquifers. Cal-Ams 2014 particle tracking results during operation of
wells for the MPWSP are similar to Figure 2, which has a flat gradient prior to pumping. As
shown in Figure 3, an 8-foot gradient across the entire model toward the coastline results in a
different flow pattern and the capture of groundwater that is flowing toward the shoreline.
Figure 2 Particle Tracking With No Background Gradient
FROM MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT STUDY (HYDROMETRICS, 2006)

{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 6
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

Figure 3 - Particle Tracking With 8-Foot Background Gradient
FROM MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT STUDY (HYDROMETRICS, 2006)
The steep gradient flowing toward the shoreline in the perched Dune Sand Aquifer along
with the proportional shift of production from the 180-Foot Aquifer (71 percent simulated by the
model) to the Dune Sand Aquifer (80 percent reported from the TSW) indicate that Cal-Ams
2014/15 modeling calculations of groundwater production (7 to 4 percent) are inaccurate and
may underestimate the groundwater capture by 2 to 3 times the amount calculated.
Another problem with Cal-Ams 2014/15 modeling is that it assumed the 180-FTE
Aquifer was unconfined within the project area. As Cal-Am has acknowledged elsewhere, the
TSW project data demonstrates this assumption was incorrect. As a result of this error, the
drawdown effects of the MPWSP intake wells will extend a far greater distance than estimated in
Cal-Ams 2014 modeling. Therefore, the impact from the slant wells drawdown will be
significantly larger than that modeled by Cal-Am. This also is likely to significantly increase the
estimate of groundwater that must be returned.
Third, while Cal-Am has not stated exactly how its return water estimates were
determined, information presented in the CPUCs May 2015 modeling workshop indicated that
the analysis of the salinity of the feedwater included ocean water with a TDS concentration of
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 7
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

33,500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and groundwater with an average TDS

mg/l. Using these values and the laboratory test results obtained during
concentration of 440
the MPWSPs TSW
production period and included in the Geoscience water quality report (Geoscience, 2015p, Table
2), the TSW produced water with an average TDS concentration of 25,033 mg/l and was
comprised of 25.6 percent groundwater and 74.4 percent ocean water.
Over the period of the reinitiated long-term pumping test, the TDS concentration
increased and reached a concentration of 29,800 mg/l by the end of November 2015 (the last
available laboratory test results [Geoscience, 2016, Table 2]). Using this value and considering
the groundwater component produced if a groundwater TDS concentration of 1,000 mg/l (State
Drinking Water secondary standard) or 3,000 mg/l (Regional Water Quality Control Board
[RWQCB] Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) for the Central Coast Basin, water quality
defined for beneficial uses) were used, we calculated a range of return water that would be
required under test conditions. Table 1 Feedwater Composition Based on TDS Concentrations
shows a comparison of the results using these values. As shown, approximately 11.2 to 12.1
percent of the feedwater is groundwater.
Table 1 Feedwater Composition Based on TDS Concentrations
OCEAN WATER
SALINITY
(MG/L)
GROUNDWATER
SALINITY
(MG/L)
FEEDWATER
SALINITY
(MG/L)
GROUNDWATER
PERCENTAGE
OCEAN WATER
PERCENTAGE
33,500
440
29,800
11.2
88.8
33,500
1,000
29,800
11.4
88.6
33,500
3,000
29,800
12.1
87.9
If a greater percentage of groundwater is pumped than estimated by the model, or if

groundwater salinity is increased in the project area, the annual amount of return water required
would increase accordingly. These higher return water volumes are not included in the projects
return water estimates. As a result, the anticipated feedwater of 24.1 mgd (27,000 afy) may need
to increase in order to provide the required return water and constant potable water supply
proposed by the project.
III.Cal-Am Has Not Provided Sufficient Information to Evaluate its Proposed Methods for
Returning Groundwater.
It is Hopkins understanding that Cal-Am has identified several potential options for
returning water to the SVGB. Cal-Am has indicated these options include injection wells,
percolation basins, providing treated water to the CSIP, and possibly by selling treated water to
other SVGB users. Insufficient information is available for Hopkins to evaluate efficacy of these
options with the exception of the CSIP option.
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 8
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

the
Hopkins understands that Cal-Ams primary proposed return water option is to provide
return water to the CSIP pond or directly into the reclaimed water CSIP pipe for use by the
agricultural users that obtain water through CSIP. While this alternative would return
groundwater to the SVGB, it would only provide a benefit to well operators located north of the
Salinas River, which is outside of the Northern Marina Subarea that will experience most of the
impacts from the project and is located south of the river. Moreover, this return method would
not offset (or mitigate) the projects proposed impacts on the Northern Marina Subarea aquifers
and its users. Therefore, Cal-Ams proposal to provide return water to CSIP would not satisfy the
MPWSPs return water requirements. For these same reasons, selling water to SVGB users
north of the Salinas Riverusers that do not pump or have water rights within the Northern
Marina Subarea aquifers that are affected by the projectis not a viable option.
We note that providing return water though injection wells or percolation basins within
the Northern Marina Subarea may be a viable option. However, additional information and
analysis is needed to determine whether these possible options would offset the impacts of the
project on the Northern Marina Subarea aquifers and the groundwater users within the subarea.
To evaluate such an alternative, we would need know the location where the water is proposed to
be injected or percolated, the zones and rates for an injection proposal, and what quality of water
would be injected or percolated. Depending on the location, method, and quality of the
groundwater returned, the return water volumes could be significantly higher than the return
water volumes estimated by Cal-Am.
Importantly, the return water method selected must also ensure that the protective water
level elevations within the Northern Marina Subarea aquifers are maintained to prevent further
seawater intrusion within this portion of the SVGB. Hopkins has generated a groundwater
elevation contour map using data based on available studies and the TSW monitoring program in
Figure 4 below Dune Sand Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Contour Mapshowing the
protective layer that exists in the Northern Marina Subarea. The map show the seaward direction
of groundwater flow in the perched Dune Sand Aquifer, which results in protective water levels
near the coast.
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 9
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

Figure 4 Dune Sand Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Downward recharge where the aquitard layer (Salinas Valley Aquitard) thins (or ends)
provides fresh water recharge into the costal unconfined Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying
180-Foot Aquifer. This condition is evidenced by the elevated water levels in both MW-7S and
MW-7M during the dry season in the fourth year of a severe drought. Figure 5 Conceptual
Drawing of the Hydrogeology in the Marina Subarea illustrates the subsurface conditions
indicated by these available data. Years of reduced pumping has resulted in beneficial
groundwater conditions that are apparently slowing the movement of seawater and providing a
freshwater source that is replenishing the aquifers. Notably, the fact that the Dune Sand and 180Foot Aquifers at Monitoring Well MW-7 are no longer contaminated by high concentrations of
seawater can likely be explained by the changing hydrogeological conditions resulting from the
efforts of MCWD (e.g., Annexation Agreement, Ex. MCD-6, etc.) and others to reduce pumping
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 10
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

in the area. As a result, recharge from rainfall into

freshwater that flows toward the Salinas River and
the Dune Sand Aquifer creates a mound of

the ocean.
Monitoring data indicate that the elevation of the water level in Monitoring Well MW-7M
(approximately -1 feet below mean sea level [msl]) is higher than the levels in both MW-4M and
MW-5M, which are approximately -3 feet msl, and -6 feet msl, respectively. This condition
supports coastal recharge from the perched Dune Sand Aquifer south of the Salinas River as
show in the conceptual drawing below.
Figure 5 Conceptual Drawing of the Hydrogeology in the Marina Subarea
This is a very significant development. Given that the groundwater found with a 35-foot
elevation in the Dune Sand Aquifer at the location of MW-5 (and a 4.5-foot elevation at MW-7),
has a potable quality based on its TDS concentration, the Dune Sand Aquifer effectively
provides a protective layer preventing seawater intrusion from moving into the Basin at a
shallow depth and percolating downward into the underlying aquifers. Instead, the Dune Sand
Aquifer appears to be slowly recharging the lower aquifers (i.e., the 180-Foot and 400-Foot
Aquifers), which has significantly reduced their TDS levels in this coastal area.
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 11
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

We further note this protective condition is not

condition was previously documented as part of the Fort
isolated in a small area. This coastal

Ord cleanup effort located south east of
the CEMEX site. The study named the aquitard layer the Fort Ord-Salinas Valley aquitard.
Figure 6 - Perched Dune Sand Aquifer Schematic from Fort Ord Groundwater Monitoring
Program shows a drawing of this condition which was modified to illustrate groundwater flow
directions (Ahtna, 2014).
Figure 6 Perched Dune Sand Aquifer Schematic

from Fort Ord Groundwater Monitoring Program
This unique condition in the Marina Subarea is believed to provide recharge all along the coast in
an area that effectively forms a linear recharge barrier. The extent of the Fort Ord-Salinas Valley
Aquitard was delineated in a 2001 study conducted as part of the Fort Ord cleanup program
(Harding ESE, 2001). Using a diagram from that study, we have indicated the area of recharge
where the aquitard thins and potentially ends along the coast. This area is shown in light yellowgreen on Figure 7 Approximate Extent of Perched Dune Sand Aquifer.
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 12
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

Figure 7 Approximate Extent of Perched Dune Sand Aquifer
Unless a return water method ensures the protective conditions discussed above are not
harmed, the MPWSP will induce seawater intrusion into the Dune Sand Aquifer (and will
exacerbate seawater intrusion in the 180-Foot Aquifer through vertical leakage) in the Northern
Marina Subarea and likely result in cumulative impacts to aquifers and wells much further
inland. It will also delay (or eliminate benefit from) efforts to reverse the trend of seawater
intrusion in the Northern Marina Subarea and throughout the SVGB. Moreover, the MPWSP
will also undercut extensive efforts by MCWD and others to eliminate the long-term overdraft
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 13
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

condition and to respond to the serious existing drought conditions.

water proposals do not consider or address this potential harm.
Cal-Ams current return
IV. Conclusion.
The TSW project monitoring data available to date confirm that Cal-Ams 2014/15
modeling and its estimates regarding the percentage of groundwater that would be pumped by
the MPWSP are not accurate and must be updated. Based on the findings of our review, Hopkins
concludes it is unquestionable the projects feedwater will contain a substantial portion of
groundwatermuch higher than the 875 afy amount Cal-Am initially estimated would need to
be returned in most years. Updated modeling using information developed from the TSW field
investigations and available from other studies in the Marina Subarea must be used to refine the
MPWSP modeling to accurately simulate aquifer conditions and provide a reasonable estimate of
the amount of return water that will be required for the project to operate. Based on this
information, additional analysis regarding the method for returning this groundwater must be
provided that ensures the protective conditions that currently exist in the Northern Marina
subarea are not adversely impacted to the detriment of the groundwater users in the subarea.
Without updated modeling and additional analysis, it is impossible for the public and public
agencies to provide meaningful testimony regarding Cal-Ams return water proposal.
Sincerely,
HOPKINS GROUNDWATER CONSULTANTS, INC.
Curtis J. Hopkins
Attachments: Plate 1 Average Chloride Concentrations Dune Sand And 180 Foot Aquifer
Plate 2 Average Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations Dune Sand and 180 Foot
Aquifer
Plate 3 Conceptual Hydrogeology from Field Data.

{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 14
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

References
Ahtna Environmental Inc. (Ahtna, 2015), Operable Unit Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Fourth
Quarter 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Fort Ord, California, Prepared
for Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dated February.
Brown and Caldwell (B&C, 2015), State of the Salinas River Groundwater Basin, Prepared for
Monterey County Resource Management Agency, dated January 16.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA, 2015), Calam Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Prepared for California Public Utilities
Commission, dated April.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2013), Technical Memorandum, Protective
Elevations to Control Sea Water Intrusion in the Salinas Valley, Prepared for Monterey
County Water Resources Agency, Dated November 19.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2014), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Hydrogeologic Investigation, Technical Memorandum (TM1) Summary of
Results Exploratory Boreholes, Prepared for California American Water, RBF
Consulting, Dated July 8.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2014a), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Results of Test Slant Well Predictive Scenarios Using the CEMEX Area Model,
Draft, Prepared for California American Water, Dated July 8.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015), Draft Technical Memorandum, MPWSP
Action Items Discussed at the 19-May-15 Geohydrology Workshop, To Mr. Eric Zigas
ESA, From Dennis Williams, Dated June 12.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015a), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Groundwater Modeling and Analysis, Draft, Prepared for California American
Water and Environmental Science Associates, Dated April 17.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015b), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Groundwater Monitoring Report No. 1, 19-Feb-15 13-Mar-15, Coastal
Development Permit #A-3-MrA-14-0050, Prepared for California American Water, Dated
March 16.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015c), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Groundwater Monitoring Report No. 2, 13-Mar-15 20-Mar-15, Coastal
March 23.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015d), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Groundwater Monitoring Report No. 3, 20-Mar-15 27-Mar-15, Coastal
March 30.
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 15
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

Geoscience Support Services,

Project, Groundwater
Inc. (Geoscience, 2015e), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply

Monitoring Report No. 4, 27-Mar-15 3-Apr-15, Coastal
April 6.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015f), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Groundwater Monitoring Report No. 5, 3-Apr-15 10-Apr-15, Coastal
April 13.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015g), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
April 20.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015h), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
May 5.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015i), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 1, 22-Apr-15 29Apr-15, Coastal Development Permit #A-3-MrA-14-0050, Prepared for California
American Water, Dated May 15.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015j), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 2, 29-Apr-15 6May-15, Coastal Development Permit #A-3-MrA-14-0050, Prepared for California
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015k), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 3, 6-May-15 13May-15, Coastal Development Permit #A-3-MrA-14-0050, Prepared for California
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015l), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015m), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
American Water, Dated June 2.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015n), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 6, 27-May-15 3{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 16
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

June-15, Coastal Development Permit #A-3-MrA-14-0050, Prepared for California

Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015o), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project, Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Monitoring Report No. 7, 3-June-15 10June-15, Coastal Development Permit #A-3-MrA-14-0050, Prepared for California
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015p), Technical Memorandum, Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project, Baseline Water and Total Dissolved Solids Levels, Test
Slant Well Area, Submitted to the Hydrogeologic Working Group, Dated April 20.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015q), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Test and Coastal Development Permit #A3-MRA-14-0050, Submitted to the California Coastal Commission, Dated June 10.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2015r), Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Test and Coastal Development Permit #A3-MRA-14-0050, Submitted to the California Coastal Commission, Dated June
22.Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience, 2016), Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project Test Slant Well Long Term Pumping Test Monitoring Report No. 35, 16December-15 to 30-December-15, and Coastal Development Permit #A-3-MRA-14-0050,
and Ammendment No. A-3-MRA-14-0050-A1,Submitted to the California Coastal
Commission, Dated January 5.
Harding ESE (2001), Final Report Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Salinas Valley Basin in
the Vicinity of Fort Ord and Marina, Salinas Valley, California, Dated April.
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (2009), First Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Operable
Unit 1, Fritzsche Army Airfield Fire Drill Area, Former Fort Ord, California, Prepared
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dated August.
HydroMetrics, LLC. (2006), Preliminary Modeling Results for the MCWD Desalination Intake,
Draft Technical Memorandum, Prepared for Martin Feeney, Dated November 27.
HydroMetrics, LLC. (2013), Water Year 2013, Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report, Seaside
Basin, Monterey County, California, Dated December 5.
Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel (ISTAP, 2014), Final Report: Technical
Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for the Proposed Poseidon Water Desalination
Facility at Huntington Beach, California, Under the Auspices of the California Coastal
Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC, Dated October 9.
Kennedy-Jenks Consultants (KJC, 2004), Hydrostratigraphic Analysis of the Northern Salinas
Valley, Prepared for Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Dated May 14.
Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE, 2015), Updated Draft Version 2,
Hydrologic Modeling of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, Using the Salinas
{539556.DOCXv1}

January 22, 2016
Page 17
+23.,16
*5281':$7(5
&2168/7$176

Valley Integrated Ground and Surface Water Model, Prepared for Geoscience, Dated
March.
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA, 2014), Historic Seawater Intrusion Map,
Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer 500 mg/L Chloride Areas and Pressure 400-Foot Aquifer,
Dated December 16.
RBF Consulting, (RBF, 2013), Memorandum from Paul Findley to Richard Svindland,
California American Water, Subject: Recommended Capacity for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Desalination Plant, dated January 7.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, State Water Resources Control
Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, (RWQCB, 2011), Water Quality
Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, Dated June.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. (2010), Report of Off-Site Groundwater Extraction Pilot Study and
Quarterly Monitoring, Operable Unit 1, January to March 2010, Former Fort Ord,
California, Total Environmental Restoration Contract, DACW05-96-D-0011, Submitted
to U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Revision 0, Dated August.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA, 2014), Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the California American Water Slant Test Well Project, Prepared for City
of Marina, Dated May.
{539556.DOCXv1}
MW-7 MONITORING WELL

LOCATION WITH
BRACKISH WATER
QUALITY
MW-4
MONITORING WELL
LOCATION WITH
SALINE WATER QUALITY
LOCATION WITH
FRESH WATER QUALITY
S - 271
M - 105
DUNE SAND AQUIFER

AVERAGE CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
180-FOOT AQUIFER
AVERAGE CHLORIDE
- AREA OF 180 FOOT AQUIFER,

FILLED WITH FRESH WATER
- AREA OF DUNE SAND AQUIFER,

MW-9
S - 1,119
M - 13,478
MW-8
S - 256
M - 11,463
MW-1
S - 14,890
M - 15,808
MW-4
S - 5,881
M - 9,664
MW-7
S - 387
M - 1,739
COLORED AREAS SHOW

SEA WATER INTRUSION
IN THE 180-FOOT
AQUIFER ZONE
MW-5
S - 271
M - 105
MRWPCA
(180-FOOT AQUIFER)
WELL 1 - NA
WELL 2 - NA
MW-6
S - 67
M - 167
HOPKINS
GROUNDWATER
CONSULTANTS
PLATE 1
AVERAGE CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
DUNE SAND AND
180-FOOT AQUIFER
PLATE MODIFIED FROM: STATE OF THE SALINAS RIVER

GROUNDWATER BASIN, DATED JANUARY 16, 2015,
BROWN AND CALDWELL

LOCATION WITH
BRACKISH WATER
QUALITY
MW-4
MONITORING WELL
LOCATION WITH
SALINE WATER QUALITY
LOCATION WITH
FRESH WATER QUALITY
S - 1,141
M - 558
DUNE SAND AQUIFER

AVERAGE TDS
180-FOOT AQUIFER
AVERAGE TDS
- AREA OF 180 FOOT AQUIFER,

- AREA OF DUNE SAND AQUIFER,

MW-9
S - 3,101
M - 29,800
COLORED AREAS SHOW
SEA WATER INTRUSION
IN THE 180-FOOT
AQUIFER ZONE
MW-8
S - 1,237
M - 22,250
MW-1
S - 27,050
M - 29,600
MW-4
S - 12,350
M - 17,700
MW-7
S - 1,200
M - 3,832
MW-5
S - 1,141
M - 558
MRWPCA
(180-FOOT AQUIFER)
WELL 1 - 900
WELL 2 - 350
MW-6
S - 608
M - 966
HOPKINS
GROUNDWATER
CONSULTANTS
PLATE 2
AVERAGE TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
CONCENTRATIONS
DUNE SAND AND
180-FOOT AQUIFER
PLATE MODIFIED FROM: STATE OF THE SALINAS RIVER

GROUNDWATER BASIN, DATED JANUARY 16, 2015,
BROWN AND CALDWELL
MONITORING WELL NO. 7

CONCEPTUALLY PROJECTED
INTO THE CROSS-SECTION
MW-7S
MW-4M
MW-4S
MW-7M
MEAN SEA LEVEL

24,800
MG/L
7,936
MG/L
26,700
MG/L
4,815
MG/L
12,350
MG/L
1,200 MG/L
DUNE SAND AQUIFER

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
3,832 MG/L
17,700
MG/L
Area of Sea Water Intrusion
HOPKINS
GROUNDWATER
CONSULTANTS
Area of Fresh Water Flushing
PLATE 3
CONCEPTUAL HYDROGEOLOGY
FROM FIELD DATA
PLATE MODIFIED FROM: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM (TM1) SUMMARY OF RESULTS - EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES, DATED JULY 8, 2014, GEOSCIENCE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.

Agenda Report
FROM:

Item No: 3.
SUBJECT: 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
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority TAC discuss the Adopted Policy Position
Statement, and make recommendations to the Water Authority Board as appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
Nearly three years have passed since the Water Authority Board adopted its Policy
Position Statement. The Statement addresses a "Portfolio Approach" to new water
supplies. Further, it identifies four (4) requirements that any competing water project
must satisfy as well as eight (8) requirements that Cal Am must satisfy in order to gain
Water Authority support.
The Policy Position Statement is at attachment A and a power point of the Statement
will be available for the TAC meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Water Authority Policy Position Statement of July 11, 2013.
06/12
ATTACHMENT A

DRAFT POLICY POSITION STATEMENT
The Authority considered and adopted this position statement as direction to our staff and
consultants in preparing Public Utilities Commission (PUC) testimony due
February 22nd, 2013. This position was adopted, in advance of a completed EIR and in
recognition that more information will be forthcoming, because the PUC decision process is
underway and the Authority seeks to have a voice in that process. This document was adopted
at the January 31, 2013 Special Meeting and amended at the June 13, 2013 Regular meeting.
POSITION STATEMENT
Reiterate our support for a portfolio approach. This includes Ground Water Replenishment
(GWR), Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), and Pacific Grove Small Projects, all of which
have public ownership, in addition to a desal project described here. Benefits of a portfolio
approach allow each individual element (PG small projects, GWR, ASR, desal) ability to move
on its own track and schedule such that a delay in one doesn't necessarily delay others. As
such, the Authority supports efforts to move forward with any individual element on its own,
especially if one element of the portfolio can move faster than the rest. For example, we
support ASR (and the associated pipeline infrastructure) moving forward even if desal is
delayed." The Authoritys position is consistent with the powers afforded to the Governance
Committee and as set forth in the Authoritys direct PUC testimony submitted on February 22,
2013.
Any project must meet four basic criteria:
1. Project economics must be competitive.
2. Project must have suitable public governance, public accountability and public
transparency.
3. Project must have clear path to permitting and constructing the facility as near to the
CDO deadline as feasible.
4. Project must have contingency plans to address significant technical, permitting and
legal risks.
None of the three projects (Cal Am, Deepwater Desal or DWD, or Peoples Moss Landing or
PML) as proposed meet these criteria. Therefore, none of the three projects as proposed
warrant Authority support. However, at this time Cal Ams proposed project appears to be
closest to meeting these four criteria. Cal Ams Project would earn our support if Cal Am
makes certain modifications. Consequently, the Authoritys support for the Cal Am Project is
subject to the following conditions:
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Cal Am must accept a significant contribution of public funds consistent with the
parameters set forth within the Authoritys direct testimony submitted to the PUC on
February 22, 2013. Without the interest rate advantages afforded by such approach,
the costs of water from the Cal Am Project will be materially higher, and likely
substantially in excess of the cost of water from the alternative projects. A significant
ATTACHMENT A

contribution of public funds will avoid such an unwarranted expense to Cal Ams rate
payers. At the May 23, 2013 meeting, the Authority approved the refinement of the
previously adopted position to define significant contribution of public funds to mean
that Cal Am must accept the contribution of public funds of approximately 50% of the
cost of the project to include both surcharge two and the rate reduction bonds to count
toward the public contribution of 50%. Cal Am's traditional financing entails a blend
of 53% equity and 47% debt. A significant public contribution (combined with
Surcharge 2) should be of sufficient size to reduce Cal Am's equity to
approximately half that much (26 to 27%).
2. Cal Am must diligently seek to secure lower electricity rates for the project (e.g., $0.08$0.09 cents/kWh as most recently estimated by Cal Am) including agreement to
purchasing power through a municipal electrical utility, generation of on-site power if
necessary, other public entity or other source of low-cost power.
3. Cal Am must agree to limit the use of revenue from Cal Ams Surcharge 2 to reduce risk
to Cal Am ratepayers in the event the Cal Am project does not move forward. For
example, Cal Am could agree only to use Surcharge 2 to fund lower risk parts and
phases of the project (such as only the construction phase after the issuance of a
Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission) or could provide other
mechanisms of reducing the risk to Cal Am ratepayers.
4. Cal Am must show something in writing from the State demonstrating its ability to
secure SRF financing. Absent such a document, the Authority will work with the Water
Management District to secure SRF financing as public agencies. Cal Am must accept a
public agency partner for SRF purposes if necessary, even if doing so results in a
reduction in Cal Ams equity position.
GOVERNANCE
5. Cal Am must agree, upon mutually-acceptable terms, to form a Governance Committee
to provide publicly-accountable oversight of the project.
PERMITTING & CONTINGENCY PLANS
6. To promptly address concerns pertaining to Cal Ams proposed intake wells, Cal Am
must:
a. Address or cause to be address all issues raised in the December 2012 Tim
Durbin testimony;
b. Proceed with the planned test wells and any other advanced geotechnical work
to support the proposed intake wells as soon as practically feasible;
c. Collaborate with local public agencies to advance permitting efforts with other
responsible agencies, including the California Coastal Commission;
d. Seek to clarify whether the installation of Cal Ams intake wells will require
approval from any federal agency, which would, in turn, require NEPA
compliance; and
ATTACHMENT A

7. Continue to explore and advance alternative intake strategies as a contingency if Cal
Am's proposed intake wells prove legally or technically infeasible.
a. Cal Am must fully develop a contingency plan or plans and implement that plan
or those plans for source water that do not involve wells in the Salinas Basin.
This must be done concurrently along with Cal Am planning and testing of slant
wells.
8. Cal Am must address questions about sea level rise and coastal erosion with respect to
the placement and longevity of their proposed slant wells. Coastal sands are also prone
to liquefaction in seismic events and coastal facilities are susceptible to damage from
tsunami events as well.
If Cal Am meets the above conditions, the Authority conditionally supports the Cal Am Project
because:
1. Cal Ams desal project size (9.6 desal only or 6.4 desal with GWR) appears to be
consistent with the Authoritys position of focusing on water for replacement and
replenishment including lots of record, pebble beach, allocation entitlement, and
economic rebound and accommodates the policy desire to pursue a portfolio of projects to
meet the needs of our communities, thereby reducing the risk associated with any project
failing or being delayed. The Coastal Commission identifies proposed projects with a
defined service area with a known level of build-out as involving an easier review while
projects with an unknown or extensive service area as involving a more difficult review.
Cal Ams project would involve this easier review while DWD would involve a more
difficult review.
2. Cal Ams project, DWD project and PML project are all in the planning stage although Cal
Ams project is the most advanced according to both SPI and the TAC.
3. Permitting agencies will require the least environmentally harmful feasible alternative for
source water intake. The Coastal Commission states that a subsurface intake (such as Cal
Ams proposed slant wells) involve an easier review while an open-water intake involves
a more difficult review. State Water Board staff likely will recommend that subsurface is
preferred. If subsurface is not feasible, consider Track 2 (infiltration galleries or open
water intake). It is unlikely that open water intake will be permitted unless test slant wells
have shown subsurface intake to be infeasible. Any project must therefore include a test
slant well. Only Cal Ams project proposes to do so.
4. Only Cal Am has demonstrated ability to finance a project. Their financing plan is
comprised of four different sources of capital; short-term construction financing, Surcharge
2, SRF, and equity. Neither of the other two projects have a detailed financing plan and
neither would likely have access to short-term construction financing, Surcharge 2 or SRF,
all advantageous forms of financing (Cal Am offers the short-term construction financing
but only for their project. Surcharge 2 is only permitted for a Cal Am facility. SRF is unlikely
to be available for open water intake.) We propose to include a significant public
ATTACHMENT A

contribution as a fifth source of capital. Doing so would significantly lower the Net Present
Value (NPV) cost of the project.
5. Cal Am has the capital necessary to complete the permitting of its project. Neither of the
other projects have demonstrated this ability.
6. Cal Am has indicated the potential for securing electricity at $0.087 per kwh and could
possibly purchase electricity at a lower rate through a municipal electrical utility formed by
a local public agency. DWDs proposed municipal electrical utility involves the City of
Salinas and its success is therefore outside of the direct control of the Authority.
7. The ultimate unit cost of water from the Cal Am Project in comparison to the cost of water
from the DWD and PML projects are close in amount presuming a significant public
contribution is made to lower the financing costs of the Cal Am Project and that Cal Am
secures electricity in the $0.08-0.09 per kwh range.
a. SPI estimates that Cal Ams production cost would be $2,310/$3,015 per acre foot
for the larger/smaller desal projects respectively if the cost of financing is brought
down to 4% and the cost of electricity is reduced to $0.087 per kwh. This is within
about 10% of the unit production costs of DWD ($2,100/$2,670) and is largely due to
the increased cost of slant wells.
b. The range of these estimates is minus 30% to plus 50%. The TAC recommends the
Authority focus its attention on the ranges.
c. For the larger plant, the range of the cost per acre foot of Cal Ams project with
Authority conditions is $1617 to $3465. The corresponding range for DWD is $1470
to $3150.
d. For the smaller plant, the range of the cost per acre foot of Cal Ams project with
Authority conditions is $2110 to $4522. The corresponding range for DWD is $1870
to $4005.
8. The DWD project involves a complex relationship of various entities, including a
municipal electrical utility, a data center, the formation of a regional JPA, a water purchase
agreement with Cal Am. The Authority is not aware that any of these relationships have
been established. This unresolved complexity leaves more room for possible delay or
failure. In contrast, Cal Ams organization structure is described as good by SPI.
9. Both DWD and PML will likely face questions from permitting agencies regarding the
placement of the desalination plant in relationship to the 100 year flood plain and sea level
rise. It is unclear how either project will respond to such questions.
10. The CEQA review for Cal Ams project is well underway and is being handled by the
Public Utility Commission as the lead agency. Any court challenge to the CPUCs EIR
must be made by a petition directly to the State Supreme Court (very few petition are
granted), reducing the legal risk of a challenge and also reducing the likelihood of project
delay in comparison to a CEQA challenge to a project involving a local lead agency.
Moreover, the Authority reiterates its request that both alternatives be reviewed at a
project level such that no further environmental review would be required if the Cal Am
project fails in whole or part.
11. The draft Governance Committee agreement strikes the right balance of ensuring that the
most important decisions are either made by public agencies or are fully informed by
ATTACHMENT A

recommendations from public agencies. The draft Governance Committee agreement
avoids inserting the public agencies into decisions that are judged to be better made by a
private entity.
ADDITIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Water Allocation. The proposed project is sized based on an estimate of the water needed for
replacement, replenishment, economic rebound, Pebble Beach allocation entitlement, and lots
of record. The estimate has been established for project design, engineering, and financial
planning purposes. The Authority supports this size for this purpose. Allocation decisions about
the use of the water should not be made by the PUC but instead should be made locally. The
Authority supports the MPWMDs proposal to initiate a process, in collaboration with the
Authority and other public agencies, to develop proposed amendments to MPWMDs water
allocation ordinances to address the allocation of water obtained from the Project. While the
Project is not sized for General Plan build-out within Peninsula jurisdictions, the Authority has
requested that the EIR evaluate a full range of plant sizes up to and including the size
necessary for full General Plan build-out. Further, the MPWMD, in collaboration with other
public agencies, should seek to update the estimate of the added capacity necessary to meet
the General Plan build-out projections for the Peninsula jurisdictions. The Authority
recognizes that future circumstances may trigger a need for review of future water
supply needs for the Peninsula to either expand or develop a new water supply to avoid
future pending shortage situations. The Authority will request Cal Am to initiate a
process to address the adequacy of the water supply to meet the future service
obligations of Cal Am customers as defined by the California Public Utilities
Commission.
Pacific Grove Non-Potable Water Projects. The Authority supports Cal Ams inclusion in its
next general rate case application proposals for Cal Am to collaborate with Pacific Grove in the
development of its projects to generate as much as 500 acre-feet of recycled, non-potable
water per year.
Project Cost Control. The Authority is working to reduce the Projects ratepayer impacts
through a significant public contribution, appropriate use of Surcharge 2, the Governance
Committees review of the RFP process, and the Governance Committees value engineering
process. Any cost cap imposed on the Project should be reasonably calculated to avoid
frustrating project financing or causing project delay.
Contingency Planning. As described in condition #6 above, the Authoritys primary concern

regarding contingency planning involves contingencies for the source water intake. We also
recognize the need to do contingency planning for certain other aspects of the Project,
including brine discharge.
Water Connection Fee. At the May 23, 2013 regular meeting the Authority approved support of
the concept of a new water service connection fee with the reservation of seeing further
information and study to refund the connection fee costs for possible integration.

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-07-16

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-07-16

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Created date 03/02/2016 5:11 PM

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Date: March 07, 2016

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Latest CPUC Schedule for Consideration of the Monterey

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Date: March 07, 2016

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss, and Make Recommendations to the Water

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

In the Matter of Application of CaliforniaAmerican Water Company (U210W) for

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF JASON BURNETT

RUSSELL M. MCGLOTHLIN (SBN 208826)

Dated: January 22,2016

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

In the Matter of Application of CaliforniaAmerican Water Company (U210W) for

The Water Authority's Support for Inclusion of GWR in the MPWSP

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF JASON BURNETT

Please state your name and business address.

The purpose of my testimony is to testify in support of the following subjects:

The "return water" settlement term sheet; and

The draft brine discharge settlement term sheet.

The Water Authority's Support for Inclusion of GWR in the MPWSP

An Elift has been completed for GWR without challenge;

The California Department of Health or the Regional Water Quality Control

The GWR Project is on schedule;

Preliminary design for the GWR Project is sufficient to generate an accurate

A sufficiently detailed GWR Project funding plan to support an application for a

California American Water, MPWMD, and MRWPCA have agreed on a WPA

GWR project within the MPWSP as follows:

Q20: Does this conclude your testimony?

ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P.

November 20, 2015

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P,

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

Continued development and implementation of efficiency and conservation measures;

Continued development and implementation of projects to develop alternative and

Continued development and implementation of fish and wildlife protection and

Water Conservation Programs

a. Application for Approval of114PWSP and Permittinz Activity

conducting separate procurements to construct distribution system improvements and construct

CAW 's MPWSP website (http://www.watersupplyproject.org,/). Preliminary test well results

3. Petitioners Have Implemented Other Projects to Replace and Authorize

Carmel River Diversions

a. Table 13 Water Rights

h. Pebble Beach Wastewater Reclamation Project

Carmel River In stream Flow Enhancement Program

City ofPacific Grove Recycled Water Project

4. CAW and Petitioners have Implemented and Propose Additional

Sleepy Hollow Fish Rearing Facility Intake Improvements;

Cannel River Lagoon Large Wood Augmentation;

Cannel Lagoon Water Augmentation;

Cannel Lagoon Ecological Barrier;

Additional Fish Passage Barrier Removal;

Off-stream Storage of Excess Flows in Exchange for Forbearance of Summer Pumping;

Improve habitat for threatened California red-legged frogs;

Reduce beach erosion that contributes to destabilization of structures;

Commitment to Fund and Implement Additional Mitigation Projects

Upon SWRCB approval of this Application on terms substantially similar to those

Petitioners Request Assistance from the SVVRCB.

during dry months;