County of Monterey - File #: 11-027

• File #: 11-027
• Type: Minutes
• Status: Passed
• File created: 1/11/2011
• In control: Board of Supervisors
• On agenda: 1/11/2011
• Final action: 1/11/2011
• Title: As the Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency consider the Regional Desalination As the Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency consider the Regional Desalination

Date	Action By	Action	Result
1/11/2011	Board of Supervisors	approved

COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"?|E???S-6 Before the Board of Supervisors of Monterey County In Its Capacity as the Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency County of Monterey, State of California Resolution No. 11-003 Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Monterey County Water Resources Agency In Its Capacity as the Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Adopting Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Reaffirming Approval of the Regional Desalination Project, as Approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in Decision December 2, 2010 WHEREAS, California American Water Company CAW") is a public utility providing water service in California and is subject to regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC"); WHEREAS, on September 20, 2004, CAW submitted an application, A.04-09-019, to the CPUC which, among other things, sought the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CPCN") to construct and operate a desalination project, the Coastal Water Project, on the Monterey Peninsula; WHEREAS, various local agencies that are involved in water resources management on the Monterey Peninsula, including Marina Coast Water District MCWD") and Monterey County Water Resources Agency MCWRA") and are not subject to the CPUC's jurisdiction, have been active participants in the CPUC's A.04-09-019 proceedings; WHEREAS, the CPUC issued Decision No. 03-09-022, designating itself as the lead agency for environmental review of the Coastal Water Project under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA"); WHEREAS, during the environmental review process, the CPUC considered the Regional Desalination Project, which would address water demands in CAW's service area as well as other areas of northern Monterey County and would incorporate agreements among CAW, MCWD, and MCWRA and between MCWD and MRWCPA; WHEREAS, the Regional Desalination Project contemplates that MCWRA would construct, own, and operate a series of wells that would extract brackish water and a portion of the pipeline and appurtenant facilities collectively, Intake Facilities") that would convey the brackish water to a desalination plant that would be owned and operated by MCWD; BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"?|E???Resolution No. 11-003 S-6 Page 2 WHEREAS, on December 17, 2009, the CPUC issued Decision No. 09-12-017, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report Final EIR") that analyzes the potential impacts of the Regional Desalination Project on the environment and confirming the CPUC's role as the lead agency for the Coastal Water Project; WHEREAS, on March 24, 2010, an addendum to the Final EIR Addendum") was released, which responds to comment letters that had been inadvertently omitted from the Final EIR and includes an errata to the Final EIR; WHEREAS, the Final EIR designates MCWRA as a responsible agency under CEQA; WHEREAS, on November 5, 2009, the CPUC ordered that its A.04-09-019 proceedings be held in temporary abeyance so that the parties could devote their resources to settlement discussions; WHEREAS, on April 6, 2010, the Board of Supervisors of Monterey County in its capacity as the Board of Supervisors of MCWRA adopted Resolution No. 10-091; WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 10-09 1, MCWRA conditionally approved the Regional Desalination Project subject to final approval of the CPUC Conditional Project Approval") and authorized execution of certain agreements, including a Settlement Agreement and Water Purchase Agreement, that proposed the means by which the CPUC proceedings could be settled and the Regional Desalination Project could be carried out; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10-091 explained that MCWRA intended to reaffirm its Conditional Project Approval and its adoption of Findings and mitigation measures following final approval of the Project by the CPUC; WHEREAS, on April 7, 2010, certain parties to the CPUC proceedings, including CAW, MCWD, and MCWRA, filed a Motion to Approve Settlement and submitted executed agreements to the CPUC, including the Settlement Agreement and Water Purchase Agreement, which proposed settlement terms; WHEREAS, on December 2, 2010, following a hearing and the submission of briefs regarding the proposed settlement, the CPUC issued Decision No. 10-12-016, which approves the Settlement Agreement and Implementing Agreements including the Water Purchase Agreement), filed on April 7, 2010, and updated by the Settling Parties on August 31, 2010, and makes no material modifications to the referenced agreements; WHEREAS, Decision No. 10-12-016 constitutes the lead agency's approval of the Regional Desalination Project under CEQA; WHEREAS, MCWRA discussed the certified Final EIR during its meetings on April 6, 2010 and December 14, 2010 and provided the opportunity for the public to give comments on the Final EIR during those meetings; BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"?|E???Resolution No. 11-003 S-6 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Regional Desalination Project will result in the following benefits: 1) diversify and create a reliable drought-proof water supply; 2) protect the Seaside basin for long-term reliability; 3) address CAW's obligations to find alternative water sources to reduce diversions from the Carmel River; 4) protect listed species in the riparian and aquatic habitat below San Clemente Dam; 5) protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply; and 6) minimize water rate increases by creating a diversified water supply portfolio; WHEREAS, MCWRA has made written findings for each significant effect associated with the Intake Facilities and prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which explains that the benefits of the Regional Desalination Project outweigh any significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; WHEREAS, the Board wishes to approve the Findings, which includes the Statement of Overriding Considerations; WHEREAS, the Board wishes to approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which includes all mitigation measures designed to substantially lessen or eliminate the adverse impact on the environment associated with construction and operation of the Intake Facilities, as well as a plan for reporting obligations and procedures by parties responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures; WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Regional Desalination Project comports with and advances MCWRA's duties under the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act; WHEREAS, the Board intends to reaffirm its Conditional Project Approval by approving the Regional Desalination Project, as approved by the CPUC in Decision No. 10-12-016; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Board hereby certifies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15050(b) and 15096(f), that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR as certified by the CPUC on December 17, 2009 in Decision D.09-12-017 and the Addendum that was released on March 24, 2010. 2. The Board hereby approves and adopts the Findings, which are incorporated herein, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15091 and 15096(h). 3. The Board hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan identified and attached to the Findings, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15096(g). 4. The Board hereby approves the Regional Desalination Project, as approved by the CPUC in Decision No. 10-12-016. 5. The Board hereby directs staff to take all other actions that may be necessary to carry out this project approval, including, but not limited to, filing a Notice of BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"?|E???Resolution No. 11-003 S-6 Page 4 Determination regarding MCWRA's project approval with the Office of Planning and Research and the County Clerk for the County of Monterey and limit staffs authority to take actions regarding financing; and direct staff to return with a financing plan with sufficient time to allow for an independent review by the financial advisor within three to four months. 6. Directed the County Administrative Officer to hire an independent financial advisor to review the Water Resources Agency and Marina Coast Financing Plans to ensure that the terms do not expose the taxpayers of Monterey County other than the CalAm Ratepayers) to any liability or exposure to litigation. On motion of Supervisor Potter, seconded by Supervisor Calcagno the foregoing Resolution is adopted this 11th day of January 11, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Armenta, Calcagno, Salinas, Parker, Potter NOES: None ABSENT: None I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in the minutes thereof of Minute Book 75 for the meeting on January 11, 2011. Dated: January 21, 2011 Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Monterey, State of California By Deputy BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 BIB] 40586-U01 COMPLETED-U02 BOARD-U02 ORDER-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98138-U03 C1-U03 GENERAL-U03 DOCUMENTS-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Boyd, Arlene P. 759-6642 From: Sent: To: David David8@l hope.org] Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:54 AM 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone Attachments: MoCo2DesaIDEIR.pdf MoCo2DesaIDEIR.p df 585 KB) Hello Arlene, Can you please also get these to the Supervisors for today's meeting? Thank you, David 624-6500 |10
13| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Bringing you HOPE Helping Our Peninsula's Environment Box 1495, Carmel, CA 93921 Info7 at 1hope.org 831/ 624-6500 www.lhope.org Monterey County Supervisors April 15, 2009 Cal-Am Moss Landing Desalination Proposal EIR/EIS Must Include Right-Sized" In-District Solution/Alternative Good Morning Supervisors, I am sorry to report that this is a horrible pretense of an EIR. Among many other vital blunders it astoundingly fails or refuses to examine the one protect that could provide our Monterey Peninsula legal drinking water within 3 years. Trustees 2009 Dena Ibrahim Holly Kiefer Vienna Merritt-Moore Terrence Zito Founding Trustees Terrence Zito Darby Worth Ed Leeper Robert W. Campbell David Dilworth Science Advisors Herman Medwin, Ph.D. Acoustics Susan Kegley, Ph.D. Hazardous Materials & Pesticides Arthur Partridge, Ph.D. Forest Ecology This is compounded by the DEIR whopper falsely claiming the 3 giant water projects evaluated would have no growth inducing impacts then failing to analyze the single project which actually would have no growth inducing impacts. Having reviewed many, many dozen EIRs and provided assistance for many successful efforts litigating faulty EIRs I have reached these sad conclusions, that beyond the other systematic flagrant legal inadequacy of the documents This DEIR is extremely biased aj'ainst Allowing a lowest cost project; a project which would legalize our Monterey Peninsula water supply without costing a dollar more than necessary, Allowing the public to participate in this decision', Voting by voters of the Monterey Peninsula Water District on a project as they are allowed to by special legislation, A project within the boundaries of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's Desalination project at Sand City, A design which would combine projects rather than a silver bullet." There is a long history of this anti-democracy work. Attached are two photographs of 1995 articles. One from the daily Herald and one from the Carmel Pine Cone where Cal-Am is arrogantly going to build a Dam even if the voters reject it. Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100?/. Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?This DEIR is highly biased-for Advocating the largest water project possible even though there is no project of the proposed sizes operating successfully in the United States, Hiding the growth inducing effect of the 3 projects presented, Hiding the dramatically higher cost of the preferred projects by misleadingly incompletely) asserting the preferred project costs less per gallon, a project outside the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District boundaries specifically to prevent voters from rejecting it, Preferring highly complex projects over simpler, proven technology such as the proposed project which needs analysis of various pipeline methods all by itself; and the permanently moored ship based desal plant), Preferring a Silver bullet" project one that appears to generate water all by itself, rather than combining smaller alternatives to reach success? 1. Extreme Efforts to Avoid Public Participation A. The DEIR process has taken pains not negligent, but deliberate adroit efforts) to prevent and limit public participation. 1. The DEIR only analyzes projects outside the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. They do this to prevent the voters of the Monterey Peninsula Water District from voting down poor, costly giant-growth solutions." 2. The only public meeting" was a fake meeting. Hundreds of people showed up only to find out they would not be allowed to make verbal comments only CPUC staff and EIR preparers could comment in public. Dozens left angry at the deception. 3. The DEIR in printed form is prohibitively expensive $200. Few can afford it. 4. The DEIR was not available in local Libraries as claimed. 5. The DEIR CD-ROM is encrypted3 preventing commenters from cut-and pasting data or sentences from the documents. 2 Attached is an article on How alternatives added together could provide sufficient water without a dam and without causing growth. It was published in the Carmel Valley Sun in 1995. As the most requested reprint in that paper's history it was updated and republished in 1997. 3 128 bit RC4 encryption. This prevents anyone outside NSA from cutting and pasting text that should be in the public domain. Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?6. The DEIR CD-ROM is only in PDF format preventing commenters from searching for large alternatives) subjects or small items when the Table of Contents fails to adequately identify topics. There is no Index. This prevents commenters from saying with certainty that something is missing. 7. Failed to provide a public EMAIL address for comments. But allows comments by Fax which are notoriously poorer quality than email), or by mail, which takes days longer. B. This DEIR ignored virtually all of HOPE's Scoping comments 4 1. It refused/failed to analyze as an Alternative the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's Desalination project at Sand City. The Administrative Draft EIR for this proposal was completed in 2003, staff reported in public that it was only $150,000 away from a complete EIR when it was shelved purely for political reasons 5 As of 2010 it has been revived by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District as their top project and given a unanimous vote to get cots estimates. Water District D1 Dec. 10, 2003 Water District DEIR page I 4 Attached is HOPE's Thursday, October 26, 2006 letter. 5 This proposal was revived by the new Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board in January 2008. While the original 2003 proposal had only a 4-3 majority support, the revived version enjoys a 6-1 Board support. Only Sand City Mayor David Pendergrass opposes it, perhaps because it would be in his city of no more than 90 voters) and he has proudly never voted against a growth project no matter how gigantic or outrageous, nor against anything which would limit growth. Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Carmel River's imperiled species would be enjoying a much safer habitat, and we would have a fully legal water supply at a lower cost than any of the 3 giant projects in the DEIR. In addition this project would cost dramatically less because of less energy needs and greenhouse gas emissions). It would also cause dramatically lower traffic impacts, lower imperiled species impacts and lower desal brine impacts. 2. It refused/failed to measure the levels of the pesticide DDT in the proposed water supply source for the Cal-Am desalination project, the intake water to the Moss Landing Power plant. This is critical because the silt under the intake waters has had the highest measured concentrations of DDT found in California. To fulfill the will and the letter of the law created by the California Legislature and the Governor when the enacted CEQA, California's Environmental Quality Act This DEIR needs to be rewritten to include analyzing as an Alternative the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's Desalination project at Sand City and then recirculated.6 This DEIR needs to be rewritten to include measuring the levels of the pesticide DDT in the proposed water supply source for the Cal-Am desalination project, the intake water to the Moss Landing Power plant. This is critical because the silt under the intake waters has had the highest measured concentrations of DDT found in California. We do not want estimates" or modeling" of the DDT amounts, we want to know how much DDT is actually in the source water for the proposed project This measurement is easily legally done with or without permission from the Moss Landing power company. Since this document is intended by law to be an objective disclosure document, it needs a rewrite by a different EIR consulting firm; a firm which actually provides professional objectivity rather than bends to political pressures. We also respectfully request you include the two Coast Weekly articles on Cal-Am 6 Attached is a nine page article providing the context of the water situation on our Monterey Peninsula. It illuminates the science, the law and some recent political history. Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Panted On 100% Post-Consumer Remvered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?1. Liquid Assets," Oct 28, 1999 2. Would You Buy a Used Dam from This Man?" 1997 make them a part of this administrative record and any hearings and considered. Thank you, David Dilworth, Executive Director Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100?/ Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?w 9 k 1 11 #r#r 883 p |10
13| c4P 8 r; sa, a mai M is Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes including stopping both Dirty Harry" and The Terminator," H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E?? ^?i From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: David David8@1 hope.org] Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:58 AM 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone Today's Agenda: Opposition to Regional Desal Project and EIR 3rd doc) EnoughWater20101130.MemotoWaterSupplyPlanning Committee re Constraints Analysis report Revised.pdf EnoughWater20101 130.MemotoWate... Hello Arlene, Can you please also get this document to the Supervisors for today's meeting? Thank you again, David 624-6500 |10
13| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E?? ^?MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2010 Revised November 30, 2010 TO: Water Supply Planning Committee Members: Directors Brower, Markey, and Edwards FROM: CC: Andrew M. Bell, District Engineer / Board of Directors Darby Fuerst, General Manager David C. Laredo, General Counsel 9 SUBJECT: Water Supply Quantities in August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis Report At the November 16, 2010 meeting of the Water Supply Planning Committee, Committee members asked that staff clarify a table from the August 2008 Constraints Analysis report that is included on page 60 in the packet for the November 15, 2010 Board meeting. Table 1 of the Constraints Analysis report copy attached, with hand-written potable water yields in acre-feet per year) lists 25 alternatives for development of feed water for a desalination project. The first 24 alternatives are listed in groups of three, each group representing a single location with lines in the table separating the groups. For each of the first eight locations, feed water capacity is listed for three different well technologies: horizontal directionally-drilled HDD) wells, radial wells, and conventional vertical) wells. Only one of the three types of wells could be constructed at each site. For example, in the first group of three alternatives, for the Sand City Desal Site Sand City" the stated feed water collection rate for an HDD well is 3,000 gallons per minute gpm), for radial wells is 6,000 gpm, and for conventional wells is 7,500 gpm. In this case, the table shows conventional wells to have the greatest capacity. In the second group of three alternatives, for the Sand City Malibu Development LLC" site, the feedwater collection rate for an HDD well is 1,000 gpm, for a radial well is 3,000 gpm, and for conventional wells is 1,000 gpm. In this case, a radial well would have the greatest capacity. It should also be noted that the feed water capacities at two or more sites could be combined for a larger project yield. Examples of combining sites are shown in the Constraints Analysis report on Table 5 copy attached, with hand-written potable water yields in acre-feet per year). In Table 5, Example Project 2 combines two feed water sites with conventional wells, Alternatives 18 and 23. Example Project 3 combines three feed water sites with conventional wells, Alternatives 18, 24, and 25. Example Project 4 combines four feed water sites, three with conventional wells Alternatives 18, 24, and 25) and one with a radial well Alternative 22). Development and use of any of the sites is subject to technical and regulatory constraints. Please see next page for list of attachments. Page 1 of 2 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Attachments: August 2008 report, MPWMD 95-10 Project Constraint Analysis, by ICF Jones & Stokes and Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. Cover Table 1 Summary of Feed Water Collection Well Alternatives Table 2 Potential Projects and Capacities U:Andy\Word\desal\2010\20101130.Memo to Water Supply Planning Committee re Constraints Analysis report Revised.doc Page 2 of 2 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis Prepared for: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 5 Harris Court, Building G Monterey, CA 93942-0085 Contact: Andy Bell Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Mike Rushton 916/737-3000 and Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3580 Contact: Polly Boissevain Stokes ICF-& an ICY International Company August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E?? ^?Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Ass~P s SDI v?cxc~~ din I. & I Z9 A tr Table 1. Summary of Feed Water Collection Well Aft rnatlves FJ Alt Own Location Description Well Type Details, Flow Rate Pubc p h roperty? South of Tioga Avenue. HDD 1,500 ft 3,000 gpm Y Z,.ZO Sand City Desal Site- Sand Cm~ Project facilities located in vicinity of Sand City collection and disposal Radial Conv. Shallow) 2 wells 15 wells 6,000 gpm 500 gpm 7 Y Y wells. 4 Sand City North of Tioga Avenue. HDD 500 ft 1,000 gpm N 7 CO 5 Malibu Property slated for re- Radial 1 well 3 000 gpm ZO1 N 2 Development development, though no 6 LLC identified active plans. Conv. Shallow) 2 wells 1,000 gpm N 700% 7 Sand City Property owned by Sand Ci R d l HDD 500 ft 1,000 gpm N 700 8 Sand City Re- opment ty e- eve Radial 2 wells 6,000 gpm N 4 L.fjO 9 Development Agency Agency. An EIR is underway for a resort Conv. Shallow) 7 wells 3,500 gpm N 2 5 DO planned at this site. 10 Sand City HDD 1,000 ft 2,000 gpm Y / goo 11 Monterey Property owned by Radial 1 well |1013| 000 gpm Y Z, ZEi4'i P ainsuIa e M t Peninsula on erey 12 Regional Parks Regional Parks District. Conv. Shallow) 5 wells 500 gpm 2 Y 7,() District 13 Sand Cit HDD 600 ft |10
13| 200 gpm N 00 y Property owned by SNG. 14 SNG Property slated for re- Radial 2 wells 6,000 gpm N 4,440 15 Development Corporation development. Cony. Shallow) 6 wells 3,000 gpm N 2,20C 16 Approximate northern HDD 1,000 ft 2,000 gpm Y f 5DQ 17 Former Fort Ord: Bunke extent of Seaside Basin. l i i 2 wells 6,000 gpm 4I 400 Y t r y Former ammun t on supp 18 Site- DPR bunkers. Slated for development as a camping Conv. Shallow) 8 wells 4,000 gpm Y 2., goC2 area. 19 Radial 1 well 3,000 gpm Y Z, Z ac 20 Former Fort Ord: MW-1- Location of Seaside Basin Sentinel Well # 1, and test boring location in 2004 Conv. Shallow) 2 wells 1,000 gpm Y 700 DPR d CDM t 21 y. s u HDD 1,000 ft 2,000 gpm Y TOO 22 23 Former Fort Ord: Stilwell- Former site of Stillwell Hall Planned parking area Radial Conv. Shallow) 1 well 4 wells 3,000 gpm 2,000 gpm Y 2, ZoO Y Svc 24 DPR and trail access point. 2 Conv. 180) wells 4,000 gpm Y O q00 25 Former Fort Ord: WWTP Site of former Fort Ord Wastewater Treatment Cony. 180) 2 wells 4,000 gpm Y 2 qOC DPR Plant. Constraints Analysis August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project 1 g ICFd&S 00494.08 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Monterey Peninsula Water Management Districts I SIC D= 1, I 7-0., t A-// 7.5 mgd, 15 mgd 10,400 gpm) of feed water collector capacity is required. Additional capacity must also be included, assuming that at least one well is out of service at any given time for maintenance. Table 5 summarizes four possible combinations of the alternatives that could be developed into a project. Table 5. Potential Projects and Capacities Project Alternatives in Project Total Capacity Firm Capacity 1) WTP Capacity Notes Projects in the Dune Sands Aquifer Example Project 1 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Least implementation issues Bunker Site of all projects evaluated. Totals gpm) 4,000 3500 Totals mgd) 5.8 5.0 2.5 2 40 Example Project 2 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Potential inter-basin transfer Bunker Site issues for wells at Stilwell. Alt 23: Conventional Wells at 2.000 Stilwell Site Totals gpm) 6,000 5,500 Totals mgd) 8.6 79 4.0 j Ua Projects in the Dune Sands Aquifer and 180 foot Aquifer Example Project 3 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Potential inter-basin transfer Bunker/Dune Sands issues for wells at Stilwell Alt 24: Conventional Wells at 4,000 and WWTP Stilwell/180-foot Aquifer Alt 25: Conventional Wells at 4.000 WWTP/180-foot Aquifer Totals gpm) 12,000 10,000 Totals mgd) 17.3 14.4 7.2 Example Project 4 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Potential inter-basin transfer Bunker/Dune Sands issues for wells at Stilwell Alt 22: Radial Well at Stilwell/Dune 3,000 and WWTP Sands Alt 24: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Stilwell/180-foot Aquifer Alt 25: Conventional Wells at 4,000 W WTP/180-foot Aquifer Totals gpm) 15,000 12,000 Totals mgd) 21.6 17.3 8.7 R 70O 1) Computed assuming the largest well out of service as a standby Constraints Analysis August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project 24 ICFJ&S 00494.08 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: David David8@1 hope.org] Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:58 AM 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone Today's Agenda: Opposition to Regional Desal Project and EIR 3rd doc) EnoughWater20101130.MemotoWaterSupplyPlanning Committee re Constraints Analysis report Revised.pdf EnoughWater20101 130. MemotoWate... Hello Arlene, Can you please also get this document to the Supervisors for today's meeting? Thank you again, David 624-6500 |10
13| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2010 Revised November 30, 2010 TO: Water Supply Planning Committee Members: Directors Brower, Markey, and Edwards FROM: Andrew M. Bell, District Engineer,44 CC: Board of Directors Darby Fuerst, General Manager David C. Laredo, General Counsel SUBJECT: Water Supply Quantities in August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis Report At the November 16, 2010 meeting of the Water Supply Planning Committee, Committee members asked that staff clarify a table from the August 2008 Constraints Analysis report that is included on page 60 in the packet for the November 15, 2010 Board meeting. Table 1 of the Constraints Analysis report copy attached, with hand-written potable water yields in acre-feet per year) lists 25 alternatives for development of feed water for a desalination project. The first 24 alternatives are listed in groups of three, each group representing a single location with lines in the table separating the groups. For each of the first eight locations, feed water capacity is listed for three different well technologies: horizontal directionally-drilled HDD) wells, radial wells, and conventional vertical) wells. Only one of the three types of wells could be constructed at each site. For example, in the first group of three alternatives, for the Sand City Desal Site Sand City" the stated feed water collection rate for an HDD well is 3,000 gallons per minute gpm), for radial wells is 6,000 gpm, and for conventional wells is 7,500 gpm. In this case, the table shows conventional wells to have the greatest capacity. In the second group of three alternatives, for the Sand City Malibu Development LLC" site, the feedwater collection rate for an HDD well is 1,000 gpm, for a radial well is 3,000 gpm, and for conventional wells is 1,000 gpm. In this case, a radial well would have the greatest capacity. It should also be noted that the feed water capacities at two or more sites could be combined for a larger project yield. Examples of combining sites are shown in the Constraints Analysis report on Table 5 copy attached, with hand-written potable water yields in acre-feet per year). In Table 5, Example Project 2 combines two feed water sites with conventional wells, Alternatives 18 and 23. Example Project 3 combines three feed water sites with conventional wells, Alternatives 18, 24, and 25. Example Project 4 combines four feed water sites, three with conventional wells Alternatives 18, 24, and 25) and one with a radial well Alternative 22). Development and use of any of the sites is subject to technical and regulatory constraints. Please see next page for list of attachments. Page 1 of 2 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Attachments: August 2008 report, MPWMD 95-10 Project Constraint Analysis, by ICF Jones & Stokes and Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. Cover Table 1 Summary of Feed Water Collection Well Alternatives Table 2 Potential Projects and Capacities U:\Andy\Word\desal\2010\20101130.Memo to Water Supply Planning Committee re Constraints Analysis report Revised.doc Page 2 of 2 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 95-10 Project Constraints Analysis Prep ared for: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 5 Harris Court, Building G Monterey, CA 93942-0085 Contact: Andy Bell Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Mike Rushton 916/737-3000 and Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3580 Contact: Polly Boissevain Stokes ICF-& August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Monterey Peninsula Water Management District sw?~,~~r5 57X. rec~r,~u h Table 1 Summary of Feed Water Collection Well A ernatives Location Owner Description Well Type Details, Flow Rate Public property? 1 South of Tioga Avenue. HDD 1,500 ft 3,000 gpm Y 2, Z-,ma Sand City Desal Site- Sand ityC y Project facilities located in vicinity of Sand City collection and disposal Radial Conv Shallow) 2 wells 15 wells 6,000 gpm 500 gpm 7 Y Y 54 wells. 4 Sand City North of Tioga Avenue. HDD 500 ft 1,000 gpm N 700 Malibu Property slated for re- 5 Radial 1 well 000 gpm 3 N 2 2'P Development development, though no 6 LLC identified active plans. Conv. Shallow) 2 wells 1,000 gpm N 7 2c 7 Property owned by Sand HDD 500 ft 1 000 gpm N 700 Sand City Sand City Re- City Re-development Radial 2 wells |1013| 000 gpm N 4 14oO 9 Development Agency Agency. An EIR is underway for a resort onv Shallow) wells |1013| 500 gpm N r SDO planned at this site. 10 Sand City HDD 1,000 ft 2,000 gpm Y I 5-00 11 Monte Property owned by Radial 1 well |1013| 000 gpm Y ZOO Z Peninsula Monterey Peninsula J 12 Regional Parks Regional Parks District. Conv Shallow) 5 wells |1013| 500 m Y gOO I District gp 13 Sand City HDD 600 ft 200 gpm 1 N 9'OO 14 SNG Property owned by SNG. Property slated for re- Radial 2 wells 6,000 gpm N 4--(OC3 Development d l 15 Corporation eve opment. Conv. Shallow) 6 wells 3,000 gpm N Z, ZOO 16 Approximate northern HDD 1,000 ft 2,000 gpm Y rr5 17 Former Fort Ord: Bunker extent of Seaside Basin. Former ammunition supply Radial 2 wells 6,000 gpm Y 4,400 18 Site- DPR bunkers. Slated for development as a camping Conv. Shallow) 8 wells 4,000 gpm y Zi qO 2 area. 19 Radial 1 well 3,000 gpm 2, Zc'o 20 Former Fort Ord: MW-1- Location of Seaside Basin Sentinel Well # 1, and test boring location in 2004 Conv Shallow) 2 wells |10
13| 000 m Y Z00 DPR CDM d gp 21 stu y. HDD 1,000 ft 2,000 gpm Y G5 O0 22 Radial |10
13| ell |1013| 000 Y Former Fort Former site of Stillwell w gpm Z ZOC 2 O Stil d ll 3 r we Hall. Planned parking area Conv. Shallow) 4 wells 2,000 gpm Y C 0 24 DPR and trail access point. Conv. 180 2 wells 4,000 gpm Y 2,700 25 Former Fort Ord: WWTP Site of former Fort Ord Wastewater Treatment Conv. 180) 2 wells 4,000 gpm Y 2,'OC DPR Plant. Constraints Analysis August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project 18 ICFJ&S 00494.08 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?&21 JJIP P 1 Ie- l v~-tea Peninsula Water Management District tere Mo y n jbarc 1, r A-F/y 7.5 mgd, 15 mgd 10,400 gpm) of feed water collector capacity is required Additional capacity must also be included, assuming that at least one well is out of service at any given time, for maintenance. Table 5 summarizes four possible combinations of the alternatives that could be developed into a project. Table 5. Potential Projects and Capacities Firm Total Capacity WTP Project Alternatives in Project Capacity 1) Capacity Notes Projects in the Dune Sands Aquifer Example Project 1 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4.000 Bunker Site Totals gpm) Totals mgd) 4,000 3500 5.8 5.0 2.5 Least implementation issues of all projects evaluated. Example Project 2 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Potential inter-basin transfer Bunker Site issues for wells at Stilwell Alt 23: Conventional Wells at 2.000 Stilwell Site Totals gpm) 6,000 5,500 Totals mgd) 8.6 79 4.0 4,.T U7 Projects in the Dune Sands Aquifer and 180 foot Aquifer Example Project 3 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Potential inter-basin transfer Bunker/Dune Sands issues for wells at Stilwell Alt 24: Conventional Wells at 4,000 and WWTP Stilwell/l80-foot Aquifer Alt 25: Conventional Wells at 4.000 W WTP/i 80-foot Aquifer Totals gpm) 12,000 10,000 C G/ Totals mgd) 17.3 14.4 7.2 Example Project 4 Alt 18: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Potential inter-basin transfer Bunker/Dune Sands issues for wells at Stilwell Alt 22: Radial Well at Stilwell/Dune 3,000 and WWTP Sands Alt 24: Conventional Wells at 4,000 Stilwell/180-foot Aquifer Alt 25: Conventional Wells at 4,000 W WTP/180-foot Aquifer Totals gpm) 15,000 12,000 Totals mgd) 21.6 17.3 8.7 q~ 7OO 1) Computed assuming the largest well out of service as a standby Constraints Analysis August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project 24 ICFJ&S 00494.08 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal MOSS LANDING DESAL, LLC PROPOSED 10 MGD REGIONAL DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT PLAN SUMMARY January 10, 2011 A. OVERVIEW The proposed Moss Landing Desalination SWRO project is taking a truly innovative approach toward providing an alternative water supply for the Monterey Bay region. The proposed project would deliver raw seawater to the desalination plant through the use of an existing deep-water outfall, currently permitted to discharge 60 MGD, regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES CA0007005). The existing 51-inch diameter outfall pipeline is sufficiently large in diameter to allow use as both an intake via a new pipeline installed inside the existing structure) and outfall, by utilizing the interior void space remaining between the new intake pipeline and the existing outfall pipe walls. The project is presently designed to deliver 10 MGD of high quality drinking water to a distribution pipeline by others) at a projected cost of between $1,850 $2,000 per acre-foot. The project could be design, built and commissioned within 24-months following issuance of final permits. B. PLANT LOCATION The proposed project would be located at the Moss Landing Commercial Park, adjacent to the Moss Landing Power Plant, on the former National Refractories and Minerals Corporation site. The approximately 200-acre site is presently zoned for light and heavy industrial use and contains approximately 300,000 ft2 of building space. Importantly for the proposed desalination project, the site is presently permitted for seawater intake and discharge of up to 60 MGD, conveyed from existing pipelines and pumps station, originally installed and permitted to support the magnesium extraction and refining operations previously conducted at the site. Figure 2 Moss Landing Commercial Park, California BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary Figure 1 Moss Landing, California \1o Larnclinu'. A |1013| rauvG VI i BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary C. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUMMARY When compared to surface or near-surface seawater open-intakes, which have been proposed for other reverse osmosis desalination plants presently under development along the California coast and elsewhere in the United States), a deep-water intake offers significant benefits including: i) greatly reduced biomass and substantially better water quality; thereby mitigating adverse environmental impacts; and ii) significantly reducing capital costs associated with pre-treatment. Through associated support from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories which currently uses the outfall structure as a water supply to their laboratory data suggests that the deep-water intake will provide significantly improved water quality to the proposed desalination facility when compared to a surface or near-surface water open intake. The proposed deep-water intake also promises to alleviate the need for expensive engineered intake systems, which are typically required to address the adverse environmental impacts associated with impingement and entrainment issues, and will provide a reliable source of seawater free of red tide biomass, organics, and rainwater/agricultural runoff. The desalination plant will incorporate existing building structures and service facilities located at the Moss Landing Commercial Park site, including the outfall as previously indicated) and available electrical power supply. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The desalination project will consist of the following major components: 1. Screened, passive intake 2. Intake pump station 3. Pretreatment media filtration system 4. 10 MGD seawater desalination system 5. Energy recovery system to reduce power consumption 6. Post-treatment facilities 7. Product water pump station 8. Solids handling system 9. Electrical power supply E. TREATMENT COMPONENTS Seawater to the pretreatment system will be provided by an intake pump station, which will be located near-shore, within the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories facilities immediately adjacent to the existing outfall. A new pipeline will be installed inside the existing outfall to convey up to 21 MGD of intake seawater to the desalination plant. Pretreatment will utilize a granular media filtration system, a proven technology, to protect the integrity, useful life, and reliability of the seawater reverse osmosis SWRO) membrane system. The system will consist of a single-stage, deep-bed, dual media granular media system with sufficient redundancy to ensure a reliable, sustainable supply for downstream desalination. Coagulant and filter aid polymer Page 3 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary systems will be provided to improve the efficiency of the pretreatment system, if needed during system operation. The filters will be fully automated and monitored to assure trouble-free operation. Filtered, pretreated water, will be temporarily collected in a clearwell, insuring continuous operation of the downstream SWRO system, prior to being pumped through cartridge filters, and the downstream SWRO desalination system. The media filters are designed to utilize filtered seawater as a source of backwash water or alternatively concentrate. The feed flow rate to the SWRO system will be 20 MGD at 50-percent feedwater recovery); producing 10 MGD of desalted, high quality drinking water. The system will be design with redundant capacity to ensure a reliable, sustainable source of water for post-treatment conditioning. High pressure feed pumps will produce approximately 900 1000 psi pounds per square inch) of pressure to drive the seawater through the reverse osmosis membrane elements. The energy recovery system will recapture approximately 25 to 35-percent of the energy needed for the high-pressure feed pumps. The entire membrane system will be automated and monitored continuously. Permeate produced by the SWRO will require post-treatment conditioning with lime and/or carbon dioxide; followed by disinfection and corrosion control to protect the distribution pipeline. The plant will supply product water quality in compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California Department of Public Health, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the California Title 22 Code for Drinking Water Standards. The finished product water from the desalination plant will have compatible quality to the water quality of the other sources of potable water delivered to the same distribution system. Product water will be stored onsite for distribution. Sufficient storage will be provided to meet all regulatory requirements for disinfection. The product water pump station will provide high quality drinking water to the distribution pipeline by others) at the flow and pressure required for distribution. The desalination plant will generate waste streams, consisting of concentrate from the SWRO process, sludge from the media filter backwash), sanitary wastewater, spent membrane solution, solid waste, and surface runoff. The plant will be designed and constructed to handle all waste streams generated in an environmentally sound manner and in compliance with all codes and regulatory requirements as may be applicable. Power will be provided to the project by the local electrical supply existing within the footprint of the existing facility. Circuits feeding the desalination plant would be 4.1 kV and 460 V. F. Service and Support Facilities The desalination plant will incorporate existing structures and service facilities located at the Moss Landing Industrial Park, including buildings, roads, parking lots, and the railroad spur. Some paving will be necessary, as well as infrastructure improvements consistent with a desalination facility. Handicapped access and landscaping will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Page 4 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary G. FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The seawater desalination facility will be designed and constructed for continuous operation 24 hours per day and seven days per week) and will be adequately staffed to support continuous operations. The plant will be fully automated and will have operations and maintenance staff of approximately 8 full-time employees. Additionally, outside services will be required from electrical, equipment and instrumentation contractors, and the service industry. H. SITE FEATURES AND BENEFITS As above mentioned, the following table summarizes the features and benefits of the Moss Landing Commercial Park site, which will significantly reduce both the cost of the desalination facility and accelerate the construction schedule when compared to other undeveloped site locations. Site Features and Benefits Available 200 Acre Eliminates need for land / / Site acquisition Presently zoned for light and heavy Eliminates need for re-zoning / / industry Close Proximity to Eliminates project risk deep water for SW associated with technical Intake and feasibility and cost viability of Concentrate Disposal other seawater intake methods, e.g. vertical beach wells, slant wells, radial collector wells, etc. / / Mitigates adverse environmental impacts associated with entrainment and entrapment of marine organisms 300,000 ft of Existing building Reduces project infrastructure / / Space cost Reduces project infrastructure 12 KVA Electrical cost Service available on Reduces permitting time and / / site cost Page 5 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary Existing 60 MGD Eliminates or reduces project permit for seawater cost and accelerates / / intake and discharge construction schedule. Existing easements May reduce or eliminate costs and infrastructure for and time associated with some SW Intake and permits. Eliminates costs and / / Concentrate Disposal inconvenience associated with construction across Highway 1. Enables less expensive bulk chemical delivery and Railroad Spur Access pretreatment solids removal. / Reduces heavy truck traffic on Hwy 1. 40 million gallons of Reduces project infrastructure / / storage capacity cost Existing Sedimentation and Reduces project infrastructure / / Sludge Handling cost Infrastructure Available water source to On Site Fresh Water support construction activities Wells and plant operations. / / 1. COST OF TREATED WATER PRODUCED The Moss Landing Desal team has completed development of concept designs for the proposed 10 MGD SWRO desalination facility based on the existing deep water intake and the inherent benefits associated with the existing infrastructure afforded by the Moss Landing Commercial Park site, as described above, and projects a cost of $1,850 to $2,000 per acre foot of high quality drinking produced excluding the distribution pipeline). For comparison purposes the recent California Public Utilities Commission decision approving the Regional Project states: Based on the cost to the delivery point where Cal-Am would receive the desalinated water) and the various scenarios analyzed by all parties using the agreed on Financing Model, the cost of desalinated water excluding the cost of the Cal-Am facilities) ranges from $3,200 to $5,600 per acre-foot for the Regional Project." CPUC Decision 10-12-016, December 2,2010, page 79. Page 6 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary J. SCHEDULE Moss Landing Desal projects a 24-month schedule from issuance of all required permits to construct and commission the proposed 10 MGD SWRO facility. K. TEAM EXPERIENCE The Moss Landing Desal project management and engineering team is highly experienced. Team members bring more than 120 years of combined experience in the design, construction and operation of large capacity reverse osmosis desalination plants constructed in more than 30 countries around the world. Team members have project managed the first 2 SWRO plants ever constructed in California Diablo Canyon and Gaviota) and are presently providing professional engineering consulting services as SWRO experts in the design, construction and commissioning for many of the SWRO desalination projects presently underway in the United States. The team has successfully managed more than 40 large capacity RO desalination plant projects globally. OV'4~ 6&yt-~ C--Q- Page 7 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Page 1 of 1 4P From: Sent: To: jricci@mosslandingdesal.com Monday, January 10, 2011 4:43 PM 1 00-District 1 831) 647-7991; 100-District 2 831) 755-5022; 100-District 3 831) 385-8333; 100-District 4 831) 883-7570; 100-District 5 831) 647-7755 Cc: Weeks, Curtis Ext.4896; Bauman, Lew; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone Subject: MOSS LANDING DESAL, LLC PROPOSED 10 MGD REGIONAL DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT PLAN SUMMARY Moss Landing Desalination/Deep Water Project Economic Considerations Attachments: Moss Landing Desal Concept Summary 1-10-10.pdf; MLD Economic Summary for Board of Supervisors meeting 1.10.1 Dear Board of Supervisors, For you information and review please find attached the Moss Landing Proposed 10 MGD Regional Desalination Plant Project Summary and Desalination/Deep Water Project Economic Considerations documents Kind regards, Jane Ricci Moss Landing Desal 1/10/2011 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal MOSS LANDING DESAL, LLC PROPOSED 10 MGD REGIONAL DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT PLAN SUMMARY January 10, 2011 A. OVERVIEW The proposed Moss Landing Desalination SWRO project is taking a truly innovative approach toward providing an alternative water supply for the Monterey Bay region. The proposed project would deliver raw seawater to the desalination plant through the use of an existing deep-water outfall, currently permitted to discharge 60 MGD, regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES CA0007005). The existing 51-inch diameter outfall pipeline is sufficiently large in diameter to allow use as both an intake via a new pipeline installed inside the existing structure) and outfall, by utilizing the interior void space remaining between the new intake pipeline and the existing outfall pipe walls. The project is presently designed to deliver 10 MGD of high quality drinking water to a distribution pipeline by others) at a projected cost of between $1,850 $2,000 per acre-foot. The project could be design, built and commissioned within 24-months following issuance of final permits. B. PLANT LOCATION The proposed project would be located at the Moss Landing Commercial Park, adjacent to the Moss Landing Power Plant, on the former National Refractories and Minerals Corporation site. The approximately 200-acre site is presently zoned for light and heavy industrial use and contains approximately 300,000 ft2 of building space. Importantly for the proposed desalination project, the site is presently permitted for seawater intake and discharge of up to 60 MGD, conveyed from existing pipelines and pumps station, originally installed and permitted to support the magnesium extraction and refining operations previously conducted at the site. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary Figure 1 Moss Landing, California Figure 2 Moss Landing Commercial Park, California BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary C. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUMMARY When compared to surface or near-surface seawater open-intakes, which have been proposed for other reverse osmosis desalination plants presently under development along the California coast and elsewhere in the United States), a deep-water intake offers significant benefits including: i) greatly reduced biomass and substantially better water quality; thereby mitigating adverse environmental impacts; and ii) significantly reducing capital costs associated with pre-treatment. Through associated support from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories which currently uses the outfall structure as a water supply to their laboratory data suggests that the deep-water intake will provide significantly improved water quality to the proposed desalination facility when compared to a surface or near-surface water open intake. The proposed deep-water intake also promises to alleviate the need for expensive engineered intake systems, which are typically required to address the adverse environmental impacts associated with impingement and entrainment issues, and will provide a reliable source of seawater free of red tide biomass, organics, and rainwater/agricultural runoff. The desalination plant will incorporate existing building structures and service facilities located at the Moss Landing Commercial Park site, including the outfall as previously indicated) and available electrical power supply. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The desalination project will consist of the following major components: Screened, passive intake Intake pump station Pretreatment media filtration system 10 MGD seawater desalination system Energy recovery system to reduce power consumption Post-treatment facilities Product water pump station Solids handling system Electrical power supply E. TREATMENT COMPONENTS Seawater to the pretreatment system will be provided by an intake pump station, which will be located near-shore, within the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories facilities immediately adjacent to the existing outfall. A new pipeline will be installed inside the existing outfall to convey up to 21 MGD of intake seawater to the desalination plant. Pretreatment will utilize a granular media filtration system, a proven technology, to protect the integrity, useful life, and reliability of the seawater reverse osmosis SWRO) membrane system. The system will consist of a single-stage, deep-bed, dual media granular media system with sufficient redundancy to ensure a reliable, sustainable supply for downstream desalination. Coagulant and filter aid polymer Page 3 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E?? ^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary systems will be provided to improve the efficiency of the pretreatment system, if needed during system operation. The filters will be fully automated and monitored to assure trouble-free operation. Filtered, pretreated water, will be temporarily collected in a clearwell, insuring continuous operation of the downstream SWRO system, prior to being pumped through cartridge filters, and the downstream SWRO desalination system. The media filters are designed to utilize filtered seawater as a source of backwash water or alternatively concentrate. The feed flow rate to the SWRO system will be 20 MGD at 50-percent feedwater recovery); producing 10 MGD of desalted, high quality drinking water. The system will be design with redundant capacity to ensure a reliable, sustainable source of water for post-treatment conditioning. High pressure feed pumps will produce approximately 900 1000 psi pounds per square inch) of pressure to drive the seawater through the reverse osmosis membrane elements. The energy recovery system will recapture approximately 25 to 35-percent of the energy needed for the high-pressure feed pumps. The entire membrane system will be automated and monitored continuously. Permeate produced by the SWRO will require post-treatment conditioning with lime and/or carbon dioxide; followed by disinfection and corrosion control to protect the distribution pipeline. The plant will supply product water quality in compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California Department of Public Health, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the California Title 22 Code for Drinking Water Standards. The finished product water from the desalination plant will have compatible quality to the water quality of the other sources of potable water delivered to the same distribution system. Product water will be stored onsite for distribution. Sufficient storage will be provided to meet all regulatory requirements for disinfection. The product water pump station will provide high quality drinking water to the distribution pipeline by others) at the flow and pressure required for distribution. The desalination plant will generate waste streams, consisting of concentrate from the SWRO process, sludge from the media filter backwash), sanitary wastewater, spent membrane solution, solid waste, and surface runoff. The plant will be designed and constructed to handle all waste streams generated in an environmentally sound manner and in compliance with all codes and regulatory requirements as may be applicable. Power will be provided to the project by the local electrical supply existing within the footprint of the existing facility. Circuits feeding the desalination plant would be 4.1 kV and 460 V. F. Service and Support Facilities The desalination plant will incorporate existing structures and service facilities located at the Moss Landing Industrial Park, including buildings, roads, parking lots, and the railroad spur. Some paving will be necessary, as well as infrastructure improvements consistent with a desalination facility. Handicapped access and landscaping will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Page 4 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??!^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary G. FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The seawater desalination facility will be designed and constructed for continuous operation 24 hours per day and seven days per week) and will be adequately staffed to support continuous operations. The plant will be fully automated and will have operations and maintenance staff of approximately 8 full-time employees. Additionally, outside services will be required from electrical, equipment and instrumentation contractors, and the service industry. H. SITE FEATURES AND BENEFITS As above mentioned, the following table summarizes the features and benefits of the Moss Landing Commercial Park site, which will significantly reduce both the cost of the desalination facility and accelerate the construction schedule when compared to other undeveloped site locations. Site Features and Benefits Available 200 Acre Eliminates need for land Site acquisition Presently zoned for light and heavy Eliminates need for re-zoning / / industry Close Proximity to Eliminates project risk deep water for SW associated with technical Intake and feasibility and cost viability of Concentrate Disposal other seawater intake methods, e.g. vertical beach wells, slant wells, radial collector wells, etc. / / Mitigates adverse environmental impacts associated with entrainment and entrapment of marine organisms 300,000 ft of Existing building Reduces project infrastructure / / Space cost Reduces project infrastructure 12 KVA Electrical cost Service available on Reduces permitting time and / / site cost Page 5 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??"^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary h 1 Existing 60 MGD Eliminates or reduces project permit for seawater cost and accelerates / / intake and discharge construction schedule. Existing easements May reduce or eliminate costs and infrastructure for and time associated with some SW Intake and permits. Eliminates costs and / / Concentrate Disposal inconvenience associated with construction across Highway 1. Enables less expensive bulk chemical delivery and Railroad Spur Access pretreatment solids removal. / Reduces heavy truck traffic on Hwy 1. 40 million gallons of Reduces project infrastructure / / storage capacity cost Existing Sedimentation and Reduces project infrastructure / / Sludge Handling cost Infrastructure Available water source to On Site Fresh Water support construction activities Wells and plant operations. / / I. COST OF TREATED WATER PRODUCED The Moss Landing Desal team has completed development of concept designs for the proposed 10 MGD SWRO desalination facility based on the existing deep water intake and the inherent benefits associated with the existing infrastructure afforded by the Moss Landing Commercial Park site, as described above, and projects a cost of $1,850 to $2,000 per acre foot of high quality drinking produced excluding the distribution pipeline). For comparison purposes the recent California Public Utilities Commission decision approving the Regional Project states: Based on the cost to the delivery point where Cal-Am would receive the desalinated water) and the various scenarios analyzed by all parties using the agreed on Financing Model, the cost of desalinated water excluding the cost of the Cal-Am facilities) ranges from $3,200 to $5,600 per acre-foot for the Regional Project." CPUC Decision 10-12-016, December 2,2010, page 79. Page 6 of 7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??#^?Moss Landing Desal, LLC Proposed 10 MGD SWRO Project Plan Summary J. SCHEDULE Moss Landing Desal projects a 24-month schedule from issuance of all required permits to construct and commission the proposed 10 MGD SWRO facility. K. TEAM EXPERIENCE The Moss Landing Desal project management and engineering team is highly experienced. Team members bring more than 120 years of combined experience in the design, construction and operation of large capacity reverse osmosis desalination plants constructed in more than 30 countries around the world. Team members have project managed the first 2 SWRO plants ever constructed in California Diablo Canyon and Gaviota) and are presently providing professional engineering consulting services as SWRO experts in the design, construction and commissioning for many of the SWRO desalination projects presently underway in the United States. The team has successfully managed more than 40 large capacity RO desalination plant projects globally. Page 7of7 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??$^?Page 1 of I S-U From: Bonnie Adams badams@adcomm4.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 4:08 PM To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone Subject: mcha PUC letter Attachments: img-101129193033.pdf For distribution at Tuesday's meeting. Thank you, Bonnie Adams Received by Clerk to the Board Additional Material for Board Agenda Date of. Item No: Dist I CAO Dist 2 County Counsel Dist 3 Dist 4 Dist 5 1/7/2011 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??%^?November 19, 2010 The Honorable Ambassador John Bohn, Commissioner The Honorable Angela Minkin, Administrative Law Judge California Public Utilities Commission 560 Van Ness Nvenuc San Francisco, California 94102 Dear Commissioner Bohn and Judge Minkin. The Monterey County Hospitality Association takes this opportunity to renew its support for the Regional Water Project but also to express its concerns that while we work to solve the Peninsula's water problems we create a solution that we can live with. The Monterey County f lospitality Industry is the trade association for the travel and tourism industry in Monterey County. Our industry generates $2 billion per year in direct spending in Monterey County, employs 23,000 workers, and earns over $55 million per year in local taxes. Over go`,-,a of this activity takes place within the Cal Akin service area on the Monterey Peninsula. Our need for an adequate water supply is indisputable. The fact that we have waited three decades for development of an adequate water supply is also indisputable. Given that your approval of the Regional Water Plan is soon to be a reality, we point out that the potential outcomes are alarming given the range of estimates of project costs and revenue requirements. Under the best outcomes, the project will be a painful economic reality for all of us and devastating under the highest estimates. As an industry we support the Regional Water Project, Most of the community recognizes the urgent need for a new water source and the devastating effects on our industry and the residents of our region of the State Water Resources Control Board's Cease and Desist Order. After years of bickering, this project will finally accomplish that critical goal. As the primary industry on the Peninsula, we do remain deeply concerned over the po cost of this system if not controlled. The current expected cost of the new water along with the current rate case and the San Clemente darn removal will likely result in the tripling of water costs, which is already a significant cost for businesses and residents alike. Many of the larger hospitality proper-ties have annual water bills in the oo,ooo range and a potential tripling will have a dramatic effect on incomes, reducing net incomes by as much as percent. For smaller properties with lower room rates the effect will be even more dramatic. A financial analyst for a major hospitality company with many varied holdings provides the following analyses of the effects of rates on industry facilties; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OCEAN 8. MISSION- SUITE 201? P.0. BOX 223542 CARMEL. CA 93922 PHONE: 831-626-8636 FAX 634-625.3259 EMAIL; badan1S1dn0rttm4.C*sti BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??&^?An impact of the higher rates will be a significant reduction in the long-term values of properties. The value of property is based on the income it produces so any significant change in cost will reduce values. increases of this magnitude may impact financing, appraisals and debt coverages as well as the elimination of a great deal of hard earned equity. For larger properties facing a $200,000 increase in water bills this reduction in value could be in excess of $3 million for each property based on current capitalization rates. The impact will be proportionally greater for smaller properties. If the potential new revenue requirements for the project, the dam removal and the current rate case amount to $,--o million per year the potential reduction in values would be Sibillion dollars based on a 7 percent capitalization rate. The impacts to our employees and the other residents of the Peninsula will be equally hard felt, resulting in a great deal less discretionary income. We support the concept of the caps contained in the proposed decision and the alternative proposed decision. The PD and API) both appropriately establish project cost caps in a manner that allow all parties to commit to the project on an informed basis. The proposed caps can still result in desalinated delivered water costs that are among the highest, if not the highest in the United States. his should result in caps that are more than reasonable. Absent some level of caps, the concern is that the cost of the project can escalate significantly, exposing the ratepayers to even higher multiples of existing rates. If the Settling Parties do not believe that the caps are appropriate, it seems that now would be the time to discuss the real expected cost of the system. Further, if the costs were to escalate, the caps will force the parties to address the costs and modify the project or increase the caps, if necessary, without undue In evaluating the impacts of this project to the long-term economic health of the community and industry, it is important that all of the costs of this project be identified. If there are to be additional capital costs in excess of the direct financing costs to be requested by any of the parties, those should be disclosed and an estimate of the magnitude factored into the estimated cost of our new water. In addition to the initial capital costs, the other driver of costs is the ongoing operating costs. We believe that it important to have a comprehensive agreement that clearly defines the basis for allocating costs so there are no disagreements in the future. While there is an obligation to treat all customers fairly, the MCWI) Board appropriately is responsible to its constituency. An agreement well considered now ultimately avoids later disputes. We also believe that if the rate schedule retains the present tiers with pricing increased proportionately it is not reasonable to assume that those currently absorbing, the rate at the highest brackets will continue to do so. The magnitude of these increases will force many customers to alter their usage. If a significant portion of reduced demand were at the highest rate the result would be a minimal reduction in usage with a significant revenue drop that would be spread to all ratepayers. We fully appreciate the consequences of not going forward and do not look to delay the proje+ At the same tinge, we feel that it is only prudent to fully understand and accept the costs and BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??'^?risks associated with the project. In short, we expect the public agencies and Cal Am to comply the various mandates of state law with respect to costs but we think adequate benchmarks should be established to verify that every effort is made to assure all ratepayers will get the lowest possible costs. We thank you, the Commission, and all who have put in countless hours in capturing the elusive solution to the Peninsula's water problems. Sincerely, Sincerely, Chris Chidlaw Mike4Lirl ni President Chair, MCI IA Wate MCI'IA Joan N rigi ask Force I3oaa 7I NI ember, MC14A Chief Operating Officer Cannery Row Company Vice President, General Manager Monterey Plaza Hotel Spa Cc: City of Monterey, Mayor Chuck Della Sala, Fred Meuer, City Manager City of Pacific Grove, Mayor Carnmelita Garcia, Tana Frutchey, City Manager City of Caramel, Mayor Sue McCloud, Rich Guillen, City Manager City of Sand City, Mayor David Pendergrass, Steve Mataraazzo, City Manager City of Seaside, Mayor Ralph Rubio, Ray Corpuz, City Manager City of Del Rey Oaks, Mayor Jerry Edelen, Daniel Dawson, City Manager Board of Supervisors, Simon Salinas, Chair Monterey County, Lew Bauman, County? Administrative Officer BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??(^?Boyd, Arlene P. 759-6642 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: WaterMoCo.pdf 26 KB) David David8@1 hope.org] Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:53 AM 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone Today's Agenda: Opposition to Regional Desal Project and EIR WaterMoCo. pdf Hello Arlene, Can you please get these to the Supervisors for today's meeting? Thank you, David 624-6500 |10
13| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??)^? NOTEXTPAGE BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??*^?Bringing you HOPE Helping Our Peninsula's Environment Box 1495, Carmel, CA 93921 lnfo7 at 1hope.org 8311624-6500 www.1hope.org Monterey County Supervisors January 11, 2011 Desal FEIR Legally Inadequate and Project is Awful It would make the World's Most Expensive Desal Water District Project Would Solve Problem Would Cost far Less, Could be Working in 3 Years But the FEIR refused to Evaluate it Trustees 2010 Dena Ibrahim Holly Kiefer Vienna Merritt-Moore Terrence Zito Founding Trustees Terrence Zito Darby Worth Ed Leeper Robert W. Campbell David Dilworth Science Advisors Herman Medwin, Ph.D. Acoustics Susan Kegley, Ph.D. Hazardous Materials & Pesticides Arthur Partridge, Ph.D. Forest Ecology The FEIR on the Cal-Am water project for our Monterey Peninsula seems twisted in so many ways to explicitly avoid allowing Monterey Peninsula ratepayers and voters to decide on their futures which we are guaranteed by state law passed by both houses in California and signed by the Governor. The way you can see this most clearly is the response to our request to Please evaluate the Alternative where the favored proposed project is administered by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District instead of the Marina Coast Water District." The reason it is clear is there was absolutely no response to our request in the FEIR. Supervisors might be more than a little amused to ask project proponents if they would agree with this Alternative and to hear their responses. The reason is solving our water problem is NOT the developer's goal. Their goal is twofold Get unlimited water for growth, and Getting rid of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District control over Peninsula water. Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??+^?1. The evasive nature of the comment responses seriously undermines our confidence in the FEIR. The FEIR response format makes it practically impossible for us to understand responses to our own questions and we have a lot of experience with the proposed project and in reviewing EIRs. Someone unfamiliar with questions from others would give up before understanding the already elusive responses. The FEIR needs to have the commenter's Question text adjacent to the Answer so we can know exactly what question was asked, and decide whether the answer is relevant and meaningful to the question. 3. Please include a copy of the December 2003 Board Review Draft EIR" for the 95-10 Project to provide 8,400 acre-feet/year AFY) desalination plant using offshore horizontal directionally drilled HDD) wells by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District in the administrative record. 4. Please include a copy of the FINAL MINUTES of the of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board of Directors Regular Meeting on January 24, 2008 showing the District voted 7-0 to revive the 95-10 Project in the administrative record. FINAL MINUTES Regular Meeting Board of Directors Monterey Peninsula Water Management District January 24, 2008 Director Brower made a motion to: 1) seek cost proposals from the engineering and environmental consultants to complete the Environmental Impact Report for the MPWMD Seawater Desalination Project at Sand City; 2) develop a timeline displaying the necessary steps involved to complete the project; and 3) to present this information at the March 27, 2008 Special Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Edwards. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 7-0. 22. Consider Request of Director Bob Brower to Direct Staff to Prepare a Report on the Status of the MPWMD Seawater Desalination Project at Sand City, for Review on a Future Board Agenda Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??,^?During the public comment period on this item, David Dilworth, representing HOPE urged the Board to move forward with this project. Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Association, expressed his support for Director Brower's request and urged the Board to move forward. 4a. Please note this action was never reported in the local media. 5. Please include a copy of the FINAL MINUTES of the of the Monterey Peninsula Water March 27, 2008 Management District Board of Directors Special Meeting/Board Workshop Monterey Peninsula Water Management District in the administrative record. It shows the District voted 6-1 to make the 95-10 Project the Board's highest priority among the seven projects. Director Brower made a motion that the Board's highest priority among the seven projects listed in the Matrix of Water Supply Alternatives, should be the District's proposed 8,400 acre-feet per year seawater desalination project in Sand City. In addition, the project should be known as the 95-10 Project." The motion was seconded by Director Lehman and adopted on a vote of 6 1. Directors Brower, Doyle, Edwards, Lehman, Markey and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass was opposed." 5a. Please note this action was never reported in the local media. This feasible alternative was rejected because To date, there is no detailed project description for the project, and project engineering studies or designs have not begun." which is actually a more accurate description of the FEIR's proposal and alternatives. Yet there has been more work done to prepare for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's 95-10 project than any alternative analyzed in the FEIR. So essentially the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's 95-10 Project alternative was rejected because it had more work done on it than any of the FEIR's proposal and alternatives. ES.4.1.4 Growth the Phase 2 project would have a significant growth inducing impact. Since there are no feasible mitigation measures that would lessen the impact, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable" Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Panted On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??-^?This shows the growth causing impacts of the project in spite of the project proponents denial that the project would allow any growth. The impacts of illegal pumping have not been analyzed. This project proposes that ground water is pumped yet none of the participants have a legal right to do so in the locations identified. These impacts need to be analyzed. HOPE respectfully objects to the project and the inadequate CEQA review and requests the FEIR be rewritten and recirculated to include and seriously analyze the two feasible alternatives we have requested 1. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's 95-10 project combined with other small projects to make our water supply legal. 2. Administration of the favored project by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District instead of the Marina Coast Water District. Thank you, David Dilworth For the Board of Trustees Founded in 1998, and known for helping with hundreds of environmental and democracy successes H.O.P.E. is a non-profit, tax deductible, public interest group protecting our Monterey Peninsula's natural land, air, and water ecosystems and public participation in government, using science, law, education, news alerts and advocacy. Printed On 100% Post-Consumer Recovered Chlorine Free Fiber BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??.^?Page 1 of 1 From: Molly Erickson erickson@stamplaw.us] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 4:50 PM To: Borkowski, Gail T. x5842 Subject: Ag Land Trust letter on Regional Project corrected page 46 Attachments: Ag.Land.Trust.Itr.to.COB.11.01.10.pdf Ms. Borkowski: Attached is a letter enclosing the corrected page 46, showing that exhibit V was included in the exhibits delivered to the County. Thank you for alerting us to the accidental omission of exhibit V from the table of exhibits. Regards, Molly Molly Erickson Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp 479 Pacific Street, Suite One Monterey, CA 93940 tel: 831-373-1214 fax: 831-373-0242 1/10/2011 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??/^?t.AW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Facsimile 479 Pacific Street, Suite 1 Telephone 831) 373-0242 Monterey, California 93940 831) 373-1214 January 10, 2011 Via Email Gail T. Borkowski Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors County of Monterey 168 W. Alisal Street, 15` Floor Salinas, CA 93901 Subject: January 10, 2011 letter to the Board of Supervisors on Regional Project; corrected page 46 Dear Ms. Borkowski, The letter we submitted in hard copy and electronic format today to the Board of Supervisors did not list exhibit V in the Table of Exhibits. The attached page is the corrected page that lists exhibit V. Thank you for your courtesy. Very truly yours, Molly Erikson Enclosure: As noted. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??0^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 46 pipeline agreed on for Monterey Peninsula. March 31, 2010. S January 11, 2011 Monterey County Board of Supervisors Staff Report for Item S-6, Attachments B-1 and B-2 as taken from the Monterey County Clerk to the Board website. T Figures 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b and 5-3 from the CalAm Coastal Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report. U Application of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates for Rehearing of Decision 10-12-016, filed January 3, 2011 in the matter of California Public Utilities Commission Application 04-09-019. V North County Land Use Plan, Local Coastal Program Certified June 1982, Monterey County, California excerpts) Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 2, Regulations for Development in the North County Land Use Plan Area Chapter 20.144) excerpts) BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??1^?LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP1~' Facsimile 479 Pacific Street, Suitt 4 Telephone 831) 373-0242 Monterey, California 93940 p4 3~ l(31) 373-1214 n Ja 201 t JAN 1 nuary 10, 2011 Clot O A % t'0'iJ Via Hand Delivery Jane Parker, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency 168 W. Alisal Street, 1" Floor Salinas, CA 93901 Subject: January 11, 2011 Board Agenda Item No. S-6 Regional Desalination Project Dear Chair Parker and Members of the Board of Supervisors: This Office represents the Ag Land Trust, which owns property that would be affected by the proposed Regional Project. The Ag Land Trust was formerly known as the Monterey County Agricultural and Historical Land Conservancy. The Ag Land Trust strongly objects to any approval of the proposed Regional Project under the environmental documentation prepared to date. In addition to comments provided by the Ag Land Trust in the past, which we incorporate here as part of this letter, the Ag Land Trust joins in the objections made by others to the Board's approval of the Regional Project. Because the CPUC's Decision Is Not Final, Action by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Is Premature. The CPUC's December 2010 decision 10-12-016 approving the Regional Project has been challenged by the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates which on January 3, 2011 filed an application for rehearing. The application for rehearing cites specific problems and errors in the CPUC's December 2010 decision. Because it has been challenged, the CPUC's decision is not final. The proposed resolution before the Board relies on the CPUC's December 2010 action see pp. 4-5 of the staff report, the 8th Whereas" and 9th Whereas" on p. 2 of the proposed Board resolution, and the last Whereas" and item #4 on p. 3 of the proposed resolution). The staff report fails to disclose that a petition for rehearing has been filed, or that the CPUC's December 2010 decision is not final. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency should not act on the Regional Project until there is a final CPUC decision. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??2^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 2 The CPUC Decision Does Not Resolve Critical Issues That Must be Resolved Before Any Regional Project Can Be Approved. Even if the CPUC decision were final, which is it not, the CPUC decision does not resolve significant and fundamental issues regarding the Regional Project. These issues have not been addressed. Ag Land Trust has raised these issues in a lawsuit filed in Monterey County Superior Court. Ag Land Trust's lawsuit points out fatal flaws in the EIR, the incorrect lead agency for the EIR, the lack of water rights, and the violation of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act due to the exportation of Salinas Valley groundwater by the Regional Project. Further Important Objections of Ag Land Trust. The Board of Supervisors should not take action to approve the Regional Project for the following reasons: 1. The County staff's newly proposed Attachments B-1 and B-2" to the Board findings are inconsistent with the EIR. 2. The Regional Project lacks the necessary water rights that would allow the Project to be constructed. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency cannot pump groundwater wells to supply the Project as proposed without rights to the groundwater. No valid water rights have been identified that could be used for the Project. 3. The environmental impact report EIR) for the Regional Project does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA). 4. Marina Coast Water District is the lead agency for the Regional Project, not the CPUC. 5. The Regional Project would violate the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act by exporting groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. 6. Ag Land Trust has challenged the project in a lawsuit. As of today, that litigation is pending in Monterey County Superior Court. In this letter, we address each contention in order. We specifically call the Board's attention to the contents of the documents we submit herewith as attachments BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??3^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 3 to this letter, as well as the documents we provided to the Board in April 2010. The documents provide further factual and legal support for the positions of the Ag Land Trust. Interest of Ag Land Trust. Ag Land Trust owns 396 acres in fee and holds 66 easements in Monterey, San Mateo, and San Benito counties. Its mission is to preserve the prime agricultural lands of the Salinas Valley. Ag Land Trust owns property located to the west of Highway One north of the city of Marina. Known as the West Armstrong Ranch, that property is under active agricultural use. Ag Land Trust property is directly implicated by the EIR maps of the intake well location. Ag Land Trust's West Armstrong Ranch property is the site of the proposed source water intake wells for the Regional Project, according to the maps in the EIR. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency would own and operate the six intake wells, which are proposed to be located along the coastal dunes west of Highway One. New Attachments B-1 and B-2 Are Inconsistent with the EIR and Were Not Evaluated in the EIR. In the staff report to the Board for the January 11, 2011 meeting, the County staff for the first time has presented some new documents called Attachments B-1 and B-2 to the proposed Board findings. It is unclear what these attachments say, and it is unclear for what purpose the attachments are intended. Although staff calls them B-1 and B-2, the documents are not labeled with B-1" or B-2." The two documents bear the identical legend: Monterey Regional Water Supply Program Intake Wells." The new attachments state on them, respectively: Source: Figure 4.4-2a and Figure 5-3 from the Coastal Water Project Final EIR" and Source: Figure 4.4-2b and Figure 5-3" from the EIR. EIR Figure 4.4-2a is a map called Vegetation Communities: Northern Project Region." EIR figure 4.4-2a does not contain well locations or pipeline information, and is at a scale of approximately 1 6,000 ft. EIR Figure 4.4-2b is a map called Vegetation Communities: Central Project Region." EIR figure 4.4-2b does not contain well locations or pipeline information, and is at a scale of approximately 1 5,000 ft. Revised EIR Figure 5-3 is at a scale of approximately to 1"=5,000 ft. Figure 5-3 shows general layouts of Co-located North Marina Desalination Facility & Surface Water Treatment plan." Figure 5-3 includes specific layouts for the proposed source water pipeline. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??4^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 4 In contrast, newly proposed Attachments B-1 and B-2 purport to show Intake Wells", even though none of the three source documents provide that information. To further compound the confusion, new Attachments B-1 and B-2 omit the Source Water Pipeline" shown in the EIR Figure 5-3, which is a key element of that EIR figure. Attachments B-1 and B-2 are at a different and much finer scale than the EIR figures claimed as sources. The new attachments contain internally inconsistent scales 3960 feet and 4000 feet), without explanation of the inconsistencies. Neither of the attachments' scales is consistent with the EIR figures cited as source" for the attachments. No explanation is provided for that inconsistency. No explanation is provided as the source for the purported increased detail provided on Attachments B-1 and B-2. The purported detail is of specific concern because a few days before the CPUC certified the EIR, the EIR preparer's project manager expressly denied the existence of any information about the project intake well location, other than what was in the EIR.1 While EIR Figure 5-3 identifies Potential Sea Water Well and Pipeline Locations" in blue, the new Attachments B-1 and B-2 label the blue swaths on them as Potential Intake Well Location." There is no explanation for the inconsistencies between the EIR documents and the Attachments B-1 and B-2, including the inconsistencies as to the legends, the different terminologies, the graphics, or the reduction from the plural locations") to the singular location"). There is no explanation why a vegetation map from the EIR was used as a source for these two attachments that purport to show intake wells." There is no explanation of solid yellow areas on the new Attachments B-1 and B- 2. There is no explanation of the reasons behind the shapes marked in yellow, or brown, or green. There is no explanation why the basic habitats" designation is missing from large areas of the figures, including the agricultural designation for the Ag Land Trust West Armstrong Ranch property, which should be shown in brown with diagonal lines, but is not designated as such. The agricultural land is visible on the graphic from its cultivated rows. Similarly, many other habitats are not marked on the Attachments B-1 and B-2, even though the legend purports to show basic habitats." For example, the sizeable dunes habitat is not marked, although it can be observed on Repeated efforts were made to obtain better maps, including GIS maps, of the proposed well locations. These efforts took place in November and December 2009, prior to the CPUC's purported certification of the EIR. In response to these efforts, Eric Zigas, the project manager for the EIR preparer, insisted repeatedly that there were no maps than those presented in the EIR, and refused to provide additional information, more detail, GIS data, or more legible maps. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??5^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 5 the graphic. Only select areas are indicated in color with a designation of basic habitats," and those selected areas appear to be existing roads. There is no explanation of why those roads and specific areas were selected to be yellow or green or brown, or of who owns those areas, or of who made the selection of those areas, or who decided that the majority of the areas on the map would not be designated with habitat information. The color-designated areas on Attachments B-1 and B-2 are a mystery. They are not pipelines or wells, according to the EIR figures. Attachments B-1 and B-2 are inconsistent with the EIR. The attachments do not show any proposed specific well locations or pipeline locations. Attachments B-1 and B-2 are meaningless from a CEQA perspective, because they were not evaluated in the EIR. They neither correct or change the CEQA analysis. They represent new information that is not identified as being new, and were largely hidden from public review. Attachments B-1 and B-2 were not announced openly, instead, they were silently added to the proposed Board findings. The proposed findings were released to the public only three days' prior to the Board meeting, without any notice to the public of the existence or significance if any) of the Attachments B-1 and B-2. The Attachments B-1 and B-2 on the Board Clerk's agenda website are essentially illegible. True and correct copies of those two attachments printed from the Board Clerk's website are attached to this letter. The authors of the new Attachments B-1 and B-2 are not identified. The attachments, and the information on the attachments, have not been reviewed in the CEQA process, were not adopted in the EIR, and are not consistent with the EIR. The data that is purported to be shown on the attachments is misleading, and alters information provided in the EIR. The attachments mislead the public and decisionmakers because they appear to imply that a pipeline route exists in the marked area, but the legend does not identify it as a pipeline route and no such pipeline route appears in the EIR. The attachments should not be included in the record of proceedings. The Staff report expressly asks the Board to include in the record The figures attached to these Findings" Staff report, p. 7, third bullet].) For all of the above reasons, Ag Land Trust challenges Attachments B-1 and B- 2, including their existence, their inclusion in the record, and their proposed attachment to the Board findings. The Board should reject Attachments B-1 and B-2. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??6^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 6 There Are No Valid Water Rights for the Regional Project. Water Rights Are Essential for the Regional Project. In order to pump groundwater for the Project, the County Water Resources Agency must hold valid water rights. However, no valid water rights for the project have been identified. The EIR failed to address the critical and controversial issue of water rights for the project. The FEIR responded inconsistently and superficially to the public's DEIR comments on water rights. None of the three Regional Project proponents has the water rights that allow the proponents to pump groundwater to supply the desalination plant: not Monterey County Water Resources Agency, not Marina Coast Water District, not Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. Nor does CalAm have the necessary water rights. Moreover, absent prescriptive actions by the proponents, there is no method by which they can acquire such rights in an overdrafted groundwater basin such as the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Monterey County Water Resources Agency General Manager Curtis Weeks has admitted that the County does not have the necessary water rights to pump groundwater for the Regional Project. In an over-drafted, percolated groundwater basin, California groundwater law holds that the Doctrine of Correlative Overlying Water Rights applies. Katz v. Walkinshaw 1903) 141 Cal. 116.) In an over-drafted basin, there is no surplus water available for new groundwater appropriators" except those prior appropriators that have acquired or gained senior appropriative groundwater rights through prior use, prescriptive use, or court order. This is the situation in the overdrafted Salinas Valley percolated groundwater basin. California groundwater law holds that waters that have left the bed and other waters of a stream to the extent that the waters have lost their character as part of the stream flow, and that no longer are part of any definite underground stream, are percolating waters. Vineland I.R. v. Azusa I.C. 1899) 126 Cal. 486.) MCWRA has failed to specifically identify and address the actual sources of the asserted appropriative rights and/or alleged entitlements claimed by MCWRA for the water that MCWRA proposes to pump from new wells that would provide intake water for the desalination plant. Pumping water from a well without legal authority or rights would be illegal conduct. We are not aware of any water rights, appropriative or prescriptive, that are held or previously claimed by MCWRA that could be used to pump groundwater from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. No such claims were evaluated in the EIR. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??7^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 7 River water from the Salinas Valley Water Project is not available to be extracted from the wells. The river water from the SVWP is released from the management and control" of the MCWRA at the rubber dam, when MCWRA allows the water to be used or to percolate into the non-adjudicated aquifers of the Salinas. At that point MCWRA gives up any appropriative water rights to the surface water from the SVWP. Once that water is used by farmers or percolated into the ground, it is abandoned" and, as percolated groundwater, is available to be pumped and used by the landowners whose lands overly the confined aquifers of the Salinas Valley. There are hundreds of intervening landowners with overlying groundwater rights in the unadjudicated over-drafted groundwater basin in the area of the Salinas River, Castroville, and North County. MCWRA has not released any legal analysis, based upon the established doctrines and tenets of California groundwater law, to explain whose water MCWRA proposes to pump into the proposed intake pipeline for the desalination plant. No public review or environmental review has been performed of any such claims or explanations. The proposed budget does not include a line item for money to purchase the necessary water rights. When this amount is added to the project costs, the costs will increase significantly. The affect on ratepayers will be significant. The proposed project will not benefit the North County area. The 1998 Montgomery-Watson report prepared for MCWRA) determined that there is no hydrologic connection between the Salinas River and the over-drafted Prunedale percolated groundwater aquifers. This is generally because water does not run uphill. The MCWRA has not proven any continuous control maintained by MCWRA over water used or percolated into Salinas Valley confined aquifers at the Salinas River. Loss of continuous management and control of appropriated surface water results in an abandonment and forfeiture of the right to use such water by the initial appropriator e.g., MCWRA) if it is allowed to percolate into the ground, absent an adjudication of the groundwater basin. The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated. CEQA Requires a Detailed Analysis of Water Rights. CEQA requires a detailed analysis of water rights issues, including ownership of those rights, when such rights reasonably affect the project's supply. Assumptions about supply are simply not enough. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova 2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 431; Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles 2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 721 SCOPE); Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 131-134, 143 EIR inadequate when it fails to discuss pertinent water rights claims and overdraft impacts].) The reasoning in those cases also applies to the proper analysis of the rights associated with the Regional Project's water supply. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??8^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 8 As the Supreme Court has held, the ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project." Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 434, italics in original.) The EIR must clearly and coherently explain" this issue, using material properly stated or incorporated in the EIR." Id., at p. 421.) In Vineyard Area Citizens, the proposed project did not have legal rights to the projected water supply id., at p. 424), which required analysis under CEQA. Id., at p. 428; Santiago County Water Dist v. County of Orange 1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830-831 inadequate EIR did not include information as to impacts of supplying water]; Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project V. County of Stanislaus 1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182 EIR must inform decision makers of what the impact will be of the source of water for the project, and if that impact is adverse how it will be addressed].) In an overdrafted, percolated groundwater basin, California groundwater law holds that the doctrine of correlative overlying water rights applies Katz v. Walkinshaw 1903) 141 Cal. 116), whereby no surplus water is available for new groundwater appropriators, except by prescription. Salinas Valley basin is an overdrafted groundwater basin. The EIR was required to address the issue fairly and fully. The EIR failed to do so. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Which Would Own and Operate the Intake Wells, Admitted It Did Not Have Water Rights for the Regional Project. Monterey County Water Resources Agency which is projected to own and operate the wells has admitted that it does not have water rights for the wells. MCWRA stated that it intends to acquire an easement, including rights to groundwater, from the necessary property owner(s) to install the desalination wells. These rights have not been perfected to date There is no evidence that the owners of the land where the wells are proposed have sufficient ground water rights for the Regional Project wells, nor is there an adequate analysis of the impacts the transfer of any rights might have on the overlying fertile agricultural land. Ag Land Trust has not approved the use of its water rights for the Project. To secure the amount of water demanded to serve the CalAm service area and the existing and future demands of the Marina district, Monterey County likely would have to initiate the groundwater adjudication of the entire Salinas Valley, affecting many owners and users. That issue was not addressed in the EIR. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??9^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 9 The Public Presented Substantial Evidence of Water Rights Impacts that Were Not Adequately Addressed in the EIR. Ag Land Trust repeatedly raised the issue of the impacts of water rights, including in its November 6, 2006 letter to the CPUC, April 15, 2009 letter to the CPUC, June 15, 2009 letter to Monterey County, November 2009 letter to Marina Coast, December 2009 letter to the CPUC, a letter prior to Marina Coast's March 16, 2010 decision, and a letter prior to Marina Coast's April 5, 2010 CEQA approvals of the Regional Project. These letters are all in the possession of Monterey County Water Resources Agency. In its 2006 letter, Ag Land Trust stated that CalAm, a water appropriator under California law, has no rights to appropriate groundwater from the overdrafted Salinas Groundwater Basin. FEIR, AgLTr-3.) In its response, the Final EIR admitted that CalAm claims no rights to groundwater in the Salinas Valley." FEIR, response to AgLTr-3.) Not addressing the question, and, at best, confusing the issue further, the FEIR added that no Salinas Valley groundwater will be exported from the Basin." FEIR, response to AgLTr-3.) Water rights address the right to take the water from the ground. Exportation of that water, once pumped, is a related but different issue. The FEIR attempted to bypass the central issue the EIR's failure to analyze legal water rights and who owns and holds those rights by avoiding it. CEQA does not allow an EIR to avoid analysis of significant issues. The issue of water rights needed to be analyzed in the EIR, where it can be seen, tested, and subjected to public review. Comments on the EIR and to the CPUC showed that the issues involving water rights for the Regional Project directly or indirectly foreseeably will or may lead to adverse physical changes in the environment. CEQA requires disclosure and sufficiently detailed EIR analysis of these resulting physical impacts. Friends of Davis v. City of Davis 2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1019; Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta 1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 445-446.) Subdivision e) of CEQA Guidelines section 15064 provides that when the economic or social effects of a project cause a physical change, this change is to be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. See, e.g., El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of Placerville 1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123, 131 potential of increased student enrollment in an already overcrowded school resulting from construction of the proposed apartment complex was an environmental effect that required treatment in an EIR because it could lead to the necessity of constructing at least one new high school].) Here, if water rights are obtained for the Regional Project and there is no evidence that any are available the resolution of the water rights issues will lead directly and indirectly to physical changes upon the Basin's future, the use of prime agricultural land, and the future development and use of land in North County. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??:^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 10 The FEIR also asserted that since CalAm has no rights to the Salinas Valley groundwater, it must enter into an agreement with MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency] for use of the water. This contractual agreement is assumed in the Draft EIR." However, there is no support for the EIR assumption that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency has any water rights that it could assign to CalAm, and Monterey County has admitted in writing that it does not have water rights for the Regional Project. The assumption is unreasonable. The EIR failed to disclose this key assumption. Other members of the public also raised concerns about water rights, and got evasive and confusing responses from the EIR preparer. The Salinas Valley Water Coalition is a not-for-profit organization comprised of agricultural landowners, farmers and businesses within the Salinas Valley. The Salinas Valley Water Coalition's primary purpose is to participate" in governmental processes in order to preserve the water rights of its members, to protest their water resources, and to effect water policy decisions in a manner that provides their protection while sustaining agricultural production and quality of like." The Salinas Valley Water Coalition asked this about the Regional Project: Under what water right, and whose, will groundwater be pumped and surface water diverted? On what basis? FEIR, SVWC-10.) The FEIR response, in key part, was this: Water rights are not considered an environmental issue. Groundwater extracted for the Coastal Water Project would be covered under the right held by the entity that owns and operates the wells.. Details of the water rights is sic] beyond the scope of CEQA because the acquisition of water rights does not determine the feasibility of this project. Response to SVWC-10, underlining added.) The EIR is wrong. Water rights are an environmental issue and must be addressed in the EIR. Further, the taking" of water from private land owners, the loss of agricultural lands and production capacity that would result, the changes in the productive uses of land and the effect upon farmworker jobs are all significant impacts that must be evaluated. They were not evaluated in the EIR. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??;^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 11 The Salinas Valley Water Coalition also expressed specific concerns about significant adverse impacts to the agricultural lands within the Salinas Valley because of potential impact to the existing water rights." FEIR, SWVC-9.) While the Coalition expressed this concern in the context of the then-project component of diversion of Salinas River water, the concern was clear: what are the impacts of the project on existing rights and existing land use? In response, the FEIR merely stated that the diversion component was no longer part of Phase 1 of the project, and provided no information as to potential impacts on agricultural lands resulting directly or indirectly from the Regional Project. Pajaro Sunny Mesa Community Services District also asked questions about water rights, but was turned away without information. In its April 15, 2009 comment letter on the Draft EIR, the District stated that the project proponents did not have the necessary groundwater rights. The FEIR response accused the District of misunderstanding the CPUC's jurisdiction and authority. It then launched into a discussion of Marina Coast's authority, and two pages of vague assertions about possible Marina Coast claims of prescriptive water rights in an amount which would be subject to proof." The FEIR also mentioned possible Monterey County Water Resources Agency claims for possible supplements to water supplies which are questions of facts and the amount of supplement is subject to proof" which might be used so long as no injury results to vested rights." These allusions to possible" unquantified water rights claims that might be asserted, and might not be proven at some unknown time in the future, are not sufficient in an EIR analysis of water rights for an actual project. The FEIR also failed to address how these uncertain claims would be applicable to the Regional Project, or the serious legal complexity and impact upon other properties resulting from the assertion of these claims. To another comment about the lack of valid water rights FEIR, PSMCSD-2), the Final EIR provided no response, instead taking the peculiar position that because the comment referred to concerns expressed prior to the release of the Draft EIR, the EIR preparer would not respond to the comments or the concerns. Even CalAm asked about water rights FEIR, CalAm-19) and was rebuffed with the FEIR response that all water rights would have to be obtained at the appropriate time." The Open Monterey Project commented directly on the DEIR's lack of analysis of water rights, and asked specific questions. FEIR, TOMP-4 and TOMP-6.) To a question about all rights claimed by Monterey County, the Final EIR responded only as to surface water rights, and ignored groundwater. FEIR, response to TOMP-4.) To a full page of detailed comments seeking the specific water rights for the project and each of its alternatives," specifically the groundwater rights, and describing the law as to the overdrafted Salinas basin FEIR, TOMP-6), the Final EIR referred to two other BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??<^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 12 responses which did not address the important issues raised FEIR, response to TOMP-6). As shown by the examples provided, the EIR response to comments was not a good faith, reasoned analysis in response" as required by CEQA CEQA Guidelines, 15088, subd. c); SCOPE, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 722-732). In sum, the EIR never comprehensively or adequately examined the important issue of water rights. Instead, the EIR avoided responding and took various unsupported and inconsistent positions, including: Water rights do not have environmental impacts. CalAm does not have rights. CalAm would acquire rights from Monterey County. Monterey County has no rights. Marina Coast or Monterey County might have uncertain and unasserted rights in an unknown amount. The EIR does not include the key admission by Monterey County Water Resources Agency that it does not have water rights that would support the Monterey County's pumping of ground water by wells for the Regional Project. What the EIR Did Not Do. The EIR did not evaluate the existence or nonexistence of water rights for the Regional Project. The EIR failed to investigate water rights and the legal owners thereof, perhaps because the CPUC or its EIR preparers do not have the necessary expertise, or is not familiar with the on-the-ground conditions in Monterey County. We have repeatedly been told that the CPUC has not before prepared an EIR for a water supply project, and, for that reason, for the Regional Project environmental review the water division had to borrow staff from its energy division who had some familiarity with CEQA. Monterey County Water Resources Agency has no statutory authority over water rights or public water agencies and has no authority to grant or approve such rights. The CPUC has no statutory authority over water rights or public water agencies and has no authority to grant or approve such rights. At the very least, before making any decisions on the Regional Project, the EIR, Marina Coast and the CPUC were required to have the various claims and issues evaluated under CEQA, test them analytically, subject them to public scrutiny, and provide the decision makers and the public with the analysis. Without the reasoned good faith analysis, the EIR fails as an informational document. SCOPE, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 722.) It is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts. In particular, water is too important to receive such cursory treatment. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??=^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 13 The issue of the Regional Project's extraction of groundwater from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is an additional and related) material issue inadequately handled by the EIR, Marina Coast, the CPUC, and Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Groundwater extraction would be an illegal appropriation of water from private property owners because no applicable water rights have been established. In essence, the effect of designing the Regional Project to rely on illegal extraction and wrongful appropriation of groundwater from the basin needs to be fully developed in an EIR. The EIR did not analyze the significant impact of an illegal taking of groundwater from overlying landowners or in regard to the feasibility of the plan itself. Instead, the FEIR accepted as unquestionably true and certain the legally and factually flawed rationale that a purported return of a portion of the water to the basin somehow allows the illegal extraction of groundwater from the overdrafted basin.2 The EIR's result- oriented analysis missed the fact that the extraction of the groundwater for use would be an illegal appropriation. This significant deficiency in the EIR must be addressed, and the EIR should identify detailed mitigations for all of the adverse impacts and proposed illegal actions and takings. The EIR also defaulted on the mandatory discussion of the specific abilities and limitations in regard to any augmented or developed water proposed for the Regional Project. Instead of addressing the controversial issues of water rights applicable here, the FEIR deferred entirely to Lloyd Lowrey, the lawyer for Marina Coast Water District, for an untested legal argument. Mr. Lowrey's argument then was presented as the FEIR's discussion. The EIR contains no independent review or investigation of the project proponent's legal argument and no substantiating facts. Both steps are required by CEQA. California law on the ability of an agency to claim the right to salvage any or all of any developed water in the circumstances here, and any limits on that claim, has not yet been defined by the Courts. The Salinas Valley is not an adjudicated groundwater basin. The EIR overstates the situation. The EIR does not point to any California case where the analysis argued in the EIR has been endorsed or decided by the Courts. The two cases relied upon Marina Coast's lawyer and therefore the FEIR) are cited in a footnote: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein 2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1370 Amrhein) and Lanai Company, Inc. v. Land Use Commission S. Ct. Ha. 2004) 97 P.2d 372, 376. The EIR failed to investigate the cases cited by Mr. 2 That flawed approach appears to be an attempt to comply with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act Water Code appendix, Ch. 52), which prohibits exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater basin. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??>^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 14 Lowrey, including the outcome in Amrhein in favor of Pajaro Sunny Mesa's claims. The citations in both cases are to portions of the introductory factual recitations in the cases, and not to Court holdings or legal analysis, and thus are not fairly considered precedents or statements of settled law. For all the above reasons, MCWRA should not act on the Regional Project unless these key questions about water rights have been publicly addressed and resolved. The EIR Does Not Comply with the Mandates of CEQA. The EIR is deeply flawed. The EIR's analysis of the Regional Project does not comply with CEQA. The EIR should not be relied upon by any public agency to approve the Regional Project. Ag Land Trust asserts that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency is a responsible agency, and acts at its peril in reliance on the challenged EIR. In the alternative, if the Court decides that the CPUC is the lead agency for the Regional Project, then Ag Land Trust asserts that the CPUC's approval of any project based upon that EIR is contrary to law and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion under CEQA, and that any reliance on the challenged EIR by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency is at the Agency's peril. The Ag Land Trust's CEQA petition alleges very serious issues with E!R. The EIR contains serious factual and analytical omissions. Those flaws go to the very heart of the EIR. CEQA's goal is informed decision making. The EIR's informational flaws and analytical gaps do not comply with CEQA. The Regional Project is proposed primarily by three public agencies: Marina Coast Water District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, and Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency. Marina Coast Water District would construct and own: the desalination plant; a 1.9-mile, 42-inch pipeline for source water; a 0.5-mile, 35-inch brine return pipeline; a 7-mile, 36-inch pipeline for desalinated water; an administration and operations building; laboratory facilities; chemical buildings; parking lot; access roads; and an electrical building. Marina Coast's customers would receive some of the desalinated water. Marina Coast would purchase capacity in outfall facilities for disposal of brine. 2. Monterey County Water Resources Agency would construct and own the source water intake wells and a 1.9-mile 42-inch pipeline from the wells to Marina Coast's pipeline. The Agency would utilize its existing inland monitoring well network. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E???^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 15 3. Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency would construct and own a brine receiving facility. The Agency would sell capacity in its outfall facilities to Marina Coast for brine from Marina Coast's desalination plant. Because they are all public agencies, none of the three primary project proponents is subject to CPUC authority. The only project participant who is subject to CPUC authority is CalAm, which has a relatively small part of the Regional Project facilities. CalAm would construct and own a distribution system that would take Marina Coast's desalinated water from a delivery point" at Marina Coast's southern boundary. CalAm then would deliver the water to its customers on the Monterey Peninsula. The EIR admits that the CPUC does not have authority over the Regional Project's major components. We draw your attention to the specific citations to the EIR and related legal argument in the Ag Land Trust's opening brief and reply brief on CEQA petition in Monterey County Superior Court, attached as exhibits to this letter. The facts and analysis contained therein are incorporated in this letter. Under CEQA, Marina Coast Is the Lead Agency Not the CPUC. CEQA Statute and Guidelines. Public Resources Code section 21067 defines lead agency" in terms of the agency which has principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." CEQA Guidelines, principally section 15051, subdivisions a) through d), amplify and implement section 21067. Section 15051 does so by first recognizing that in some cases, two or more public agencies will be involved with a project" 15051, first paragraph). Recognizing that being involved" with a project can take on different roles, section 15051 separates these types of projects into two groups: those carried out by a public agency subdivision a)) and those carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity subdivisions b) and c)). Subdivision d) provides for agreements as to lead agency. Lead agency determinations may be challenged by other agencies, by the applicant, or by the public. The entire text of section 15051 of the CEQA Guidelines is as follows: Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, the determination of which agency will be the lead agency shall be governed by the following criteria: a) If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even if the project would BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??@^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 16 be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency. b) If the project is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the lead agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. 1) The lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose such as an air pollution control district or a district which will provide a public service or public utility to the project. 2) Where a city prezones an area, the city will be the appropriate lead agency for any subsequent annexation of the area and should prepare the appropriate environmental document at the time of the prezoning. The local agency formation commission shall act as a responsible agency. c) Where more than one public agency equally meet the criteria in subdivision b), the agency which will act first on the project in question shall be the lead agency. d) Where the provisions of subdivisions a), b), and c) leave two or more public agencies with a substantial claim to be the lead agency, the public agencies may by agreement designate an agency as the lead agency. An agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by two or more agencies by contract, joint exercise of powers, or similar devices. Subdivision a) of Section 15051. CEQA Guidelines, section 15051, subdivision a) mandates as follows: If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even if the project would be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency. Under section 15051, because the Regional Project will be carried out by" three public agencies, one of those public agencies must be lead agency. The CPUC is not BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??A^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 17 the proper lead agency for the Regional Project. Because Marina Coast Water District was the first public agency to act to approve the Regional Project under'CEQA, it is the lead agency under CEQA and is required to defend the adequacy of thel EIR. Citizens Task Force on Sohio v. Board of Harbor Commissioners 1979) 23 Cal. 8d 812 Sohio).) Sohio is the leading Supreme Court decision on lead agency under CEQA. In that case, the EIR was for an interstate project proposed by a CPUC-re ulated entity see current CEQA Guidelines, 15051, subd. b), which applies to proj cts proposed by nongovernmental entities). Even though the CPUC had jointly prepa ed the EIR and had statewide authority, the Port of Long Beach acted first to approve thle project. The Supreme Court held that where a local public agency was the first to act'I to approve a project, it became the lead agency for purposes of CEQA and hence was required to defend the adequacy of the entire EIR." Sohio, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 814.) The superior court therefore had jurisdiction over the CEQA petition that challenged the CEQA action by the Port, the local public agency. Sohio shows that a local agency is the lead agency responsible for defending the entire EIR in this situation, even where the project is proposed by a CPUC-regulated public utility, and even where the CPUC has jointly participated in the preparation of an EIR, which is a lead agency task CEQA Guidelines, 15050). Subdivision b) of Section 15051. Back in 2003, when the CPUC decided that it would be lead agency, that conclusion predated the 2008 proposal of the Regional Project. The CPUC's 2003 decision was predicated on the two Cal Am proposals the Coastal Water Project and the North Marina alternative) and Cal Am's being subject to CPUC jurisdliction. In 2003, the CPUC based its decision on subdivision b) of section 15051, which applies only to private, non-governmental project: If the project is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the lead agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. Subdivision b) does not apply to public agencies' projects. However, after the public agencies' Regional Project was proposed, the CPUC did not reconsider its 2003 decision that it would be lead agency, and the CPUC did not reissue its 2006 Notice of Preparation of an EIR, even though the public agencies' Regional Project was in a different location than either of CalAm's private projects, would be carried out by governmental entities not subject to CPUC control instead of a nongovernmental entity, and would have different environmental effects. See CEQA Guidelines, 15082.) BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??B^?1 Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 18 Subdivision b) applies only to projects carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity.." Because the Regional Project is a public agency project, subdivision b) does not apply. For this reason, the Board should not rely on the language in the proposed decision and proposed alternate decision that relies on CEQA, Guidelines Section 15051(b) for the CPUC's status as lead agency. The CPUC has no jurisdiction, authority, or supervision over Marina Coast or the two other principal public agencies. The CPUC has no power to carry opt the substantive requirement of CEQA to impose and enforce mitigation measures in order to reduce environmental impacts, because the CPUC has no jurisdiction over the public agencies. This lack of authority is crucial. Major environmental impacts) are related to the desalination plant, its construction and operation, and the commitment by Marina Coast to provide water for much of the population of the Monterey Peninsula. The CPUC cannot supervise" or approve" any action or construction or physical change in the environment by Marina Coast or any of the other public agencies. Subdivision b) does not apply. The CPUC is not the lead agency under CEQA. Subdivision c) of Section 15051. Subdivision c) similarly applies only when the project is carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity. It applies w]here more than one public agency equally meet the criteria" of subdivision b) for the nongovernmental project. In that situation, the agency which will act first on the project in question shall be the lead agency" under subdivision c). Subdivision c) on its own terms is applicable only if subdivision applies, which means that the project must be one that is carried out by a nongovernmental entity. Even if one assumes for purposes of argument that'CalAm is carrying out the Marina Coast project, Marina Coast was the public agency to act first o the project" when Marina Coast approved the project in April 2010. Under Sohio, supra, 23 Cal.3d 812, 814, there can be no doubt that Marina Coast then became the lead agency if subdivision c) applies. As the lead agency, Marina Coast is required to defend the EIR upon which it took action. Ibid.) Sohio is instructive here. In Sohio, the EIR was for an interstate project proposed by a CPUC-regulated entity see current CEQA Guidelines, 15051, subd. b), which applies to projects proposed by nongovernmental entities). Even though the CPUC had jointly prepared the EIR and had statewide authority, the Port of Long Beach acted first to approve the project. The Supreme Court held that where al local public agency was the first to act to approve a project, it became the lead agency for purposes of CEQA and hence was required to defend the adequacy of the entire EIR." Sohio, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 814.) The superior court therefore had jurisdiction over the BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??C^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 19 CEQA petition that challenged the CEQA action by the Port, the local public agency. Sohio shows that a local agency is the lead agency responsible for defending the entire EIR in this situation, even where the project is proposed by a CPUC-regplated private entity public utility"), and even where the CPUC has jointly participated! in the preparation of an EIR, which is a lead agency task CEQA Guidelines, I 15050). The CPUC has not been carrying out the Regional Project. Marina Coast has been carrying out and approving the Regional Project. See Guideli es, 15051, subd. a).) The CPUC has not been supervising or approving the proje t as a whole." Guidelines, 15051, subd. b).) Marina Coast has. The CPUC does not have jurisdiction over the three public agency proponents of the Regional Project. And the CPUC was not the first public agency to approve the Regional Project. Guidelines, 15051, subd. c).) Subdivision d) of Section 15051. Subdivision d) states that where two or more agencies have a substantial claim to be lead agency under subdivisions a), b) and c), the public agencies may by agreement designate an agency as the lead agency." There is no such agreement for the Regional Project. The CPUC cannot be lead agency in any event because it is not a proper lead agency for the Regional Project, as discussed above, and pan agreement under subdivision d) may not be used to anoint an improper lead agency. The Coastal Water Project EIR Is Deeply Flawed and Does Not Comply with CEQA as Applied to the Regional Project The 2009 Environmental Impact Report. On January 30, 2009, the CPUC released a draft environmental impact report EIR) for the two CalAm projects, as well as for the recently added Regional Project. On August 10, 2009, at the request of Marina Coast, the CPUC agreed to bifurcate the certification of the EIR from any CPUC action on a project.' That Marina Coast request set into motion the chain of events which enabled Marina Coast to approve the project first, before any final CEQA action by the CPUC. In November 2009, the CPUC released a Final EIR. In response to public comments expressing confusion over the Draft EIR discussion of lead agency for the Regional Project, the Final EIR stated: BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??D^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 20 F]or the Regional Project, the CPUC would have jurisdiction over CalAm's portion, but not MCWD's Marina Coast's portion]. If the Regional Project is selected, the M[arina] C[oast]I W[ater] D[istrict], as owner and operator of the desalination plant, would approve the plant itself and any associated facilities that it would own) and would apply the EIR to that', decision For the Regional Project, the Final EIR stated that Marina Coast would own and operate desalination facilities," have primary responsibilities related to water supply, project implementation, and agency coordination," and would initiate contact with" and be responsible for coordinating" with other local agencies, including Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Seaside Basin Watermaster, City of Marina, City of Seaside, Transportation Agency of Monterey County, State Parks, Caltrans and the Army. The Final EIR also stated that: T]he CPUC will neither consider adoption of the Regional Project in its entirety nor consider adoption of all projects composing the Regional Project. In short, the EIR acknowledged that the CPUC does not have a role in supervising and approving the actions of the local public agencies on th Regional Project, because the CPUC does not regulate or supervise the public agencies. The EIR expressly contemplated that the CPUC would act first. The EIR's Master Response Local Agencies' Authority and Roles" stated that If the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC) approves a project, local agencies would then begin the process of local permitting and approvals." That is not what happened. Before the CPUC approved any project, the local agencies, headed by Marina Coa t, approved the Regional Project. On December 17, 2009, the CPUC certified the Final EIR for theCoastal Water Project." The CPUC stated that its action was necessary before determining whether to approve Cal Am's request for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity]." The CPUC did not act at that time to approve or recommend any project based on the Coastal Water Project EIR. The 2009 CPUC decision expressly contemplated that the CPUC would act first to use the EIR to make a decision on the project, and that other public agencies would BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??E^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 21 act after the CPUC to make subsequent approvals for the project, or for portions thereof" underlining added for emphasis). Marina Coast Water District Then Acted First to Approve the Public Agehcies' Regional Project under CEQA. Marina Coast will own and construct the desalination plant plus essential related facilities, all on Marina Coast's land. The EIR acknowledges that Marin Coast will approve all Marina Coast's facilities, and that the CPUC cannot and will of approve Marina Coast's facilities. Because it is the public agency with the princi al responsibility for carrying out or approving" the Regional Project, Marina Coast is the lead agency under CEQA. Pub. Resources Code, 21067 definition f lead agency]; CEQA Guidelines, 15051, subd. a) If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency"].) On March 16, 2010 and April 5, 2010, Marina Coast was the first ublic agency to approve the Regional Project under CEQA. On April 5, the Marina Coast Board of Directors approved and adopted CEQA findings, a CEQA mitigation monitoring chart, and a CEQA statement of overriding considerations for the Regional Project. Marina Coast's CEQA approvals of the project were unconditional. The EIR for the Regional Project Violates CEQA. Ag Land Trust challenged the compliance with CEQA as applied o the proposed approvals of the Regional Project. Ag Land Trust seeks an EIR that complies with CEQA. Ag Land Trust has specified and documented several significan failures in the EIR in regard to information gathering, investigation and consideration o unanalyzed or underanalyzed significant impacts. Several of those failures are docum nted in Ag Land Trust's opening brief and reply brief in the CEQA matter pending i Monterey County Superior Court. Those briefs are attached to this letter. The EIR Failed to Consider the Mandato Contingency Plan and Made No Environmental Analysis of Impacts of a Contingency Pla Large Desalination Plants Are Unreliable. Desalination plants are notoriously unreliable. No other plants of comparable size or complexity are operating in California. Despite this fact, there is no discussion in the EIR of the reliability of desalination plants, which is a critical omissiobecause the entire project depends on desalination. The EIR fails to identify any plarpt anywhere in California that supplies the primary potable water supply for tens of thousands of residents and businesses, as the Regional Project is intended to do. The only BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??F^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 22 discussion about reliability is from the public, questioning the reliability of desalination plants. In fact, similar-sized desalination plants lack long term reliability, and fail to operate at full capacity for reliable periods of time. There are very poor track records of the two comparable plants in the United States. The Yuma, Arizona plat has never operated outside of short test periods. The Tampa Bay plant has never operated commercially or reliably. The mothballed Santa Barbara plant had the same problem. Large desalination plants of the size proposed by Marina Coast have proved to be unreliable and have been non-operable for long periods of time. None as ever operated at full installed" or projected") capacity. The only active California Coast desalination plants are a tiny fra tion of the size proposed for the Regional Project ranging in maximum capacity from 002 million gallons per day MGD) capacity to 0.4 MGD. The Regional Project is proposed to have a capacity of 10 MGD. Critically, none of the active desalination plants involve municipal or domestic uses, such as proposed for the Regional Project. There is no evidence of any municipality in the United States using a large-scale de alination plant for a reliable potable water supply. The California Coastal Commission recently analyzed a small mixed use project in Monterey that intended to rely on a desalination plant as its water supply. The Coastal Commission found that the risk was too high that the proposed desalination component may fail and thereby cause the project to place demands on the illegal and environmentally harmful CalAm water supply system. For a Monterey County pilot plant, the Coastal Commission approved a permit on a 4-3 vote because 1) it was a temporary, experimental plant and 2) product water from the pilot plant would not be distributed for human consumption. A 2004 California Coastal Commission report stated that reverse osmosis plants, like the proposed Regional Project, are subject to frequent full or partial shutdowns due to sensitivity to water quality, frequent cleaning and maintenance, and frequent replacement of essential parts. Yet the EIR failed to adequately investigate, analyze or mitigate the impacts of the lack of reliability of the proposed desalination, plant. When questioned on the issue of reliability, MCWRA General Ma ager Curtis Weeks has made vague references to desalination plants in Alameda C unty and Orange County. However, in response to public records requests madelby this Office seeking the records that Mr. Weeks relied on for his references, Mr. Weeks did not have any documentation that supported any claims of reliability by plants in Alameda or Orange County, or in any other County. Further, those plants are not comparable to the BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??G^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 23 proposed Regional Project. Further, Marina Coast Water District does r1 data or documentation as to reliability of desalination plants in general o got have any r in particular. The Regional Project Does Not Include a Contingency Plan. The EIR Foiled To Identify the Requirement for a Contingency Plan. The environmental documents fail to disclose the significance of he County requirement that each desalination plant include a contingency plan M nterey County Code, Ch. 10.72). The EIR mentioned the County Code, but failed to di close its key requirements. The County Code requires that a permit be obtained for all desalination facilities 10.72.010), and specifically requires that the permit application shall include: A] contingency plan for alternative water supply which provides a reliable source of water assuming normal operations, and emergency shut down operations. Said contingency plan shall also set forth a cross connection control program. County Code, 10.72.020.) The purpose of the County's requirement is because the desalin fail, shut down for any reason, or not provide the full amount of projecte that happens, human health and safety would be at risk unless a reliabl supply is in place. As proposed, much of the population of the City of M former Fort Ord and the Monterey Peninsula population would rely on th Project for their primary domestic and business water supply. If the Re supply fails, either for a short term or for a long term, those customers s have a water supply. The Regional Project does not include a conting alternative water supply" or a cross connection control program," as the requires. ition plant may 1 water. When back-up arina, the e Regional ional Project mply would not ncy plan for County The environmental documents failed to identify the County requirements cited above for a contingency plan or a cross connection control program. In response to public comment that the project should include an operations plan, the IR merely responded comment noted." E.g., comment SVWC-12 and response hereto.) These were not the good-faith reasoned responses required by CEQA. CEQ Guidelines, 15088, subd. c).) By failing to identify this County requirement and by failing to incl de consideration of the required contingency plan for an alternative water sspply, the EIR BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??H^?T Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 24 is fatally flawed, because such a plan for a reliable alternative supply is required, both by ordinance and by the agency's substantive obligation under CEQA t mitigate impacts. The Project Proponents Know that a Contingency Plan Is Required. Marina Coast Water District, the primary proponent of the Regional Project, knows of the County permit requirement. In November 2009, Marina Coast submitted draft application materials to Monterey County seeking permits to construct and operate a desalination plant. Those materials do not mention a contingency plan. In February 2010, project proponents distributed a document which purported to reb it the public's assertion that the Regional Project did not include a contingency plan. hat document claimed there was an application to Monterey County Health Departme it in Process" and listed emergency backup" supplies. That claim was false, as show by Ag Land Trust's public records request to Monterey County Health Department i March 2010. The draft application materials did not identify any contingency or back- p plans. The records produced by the County Health Department are exhibits to this I tter.) The only emergency backup" plan proposed by the Regional Project proponents has been to take water from the Carmel River and the Seaside Basin he very overpumped, illegal, and unsustainable water supplies that triggered thE need for a new, legal water supply. Both the Carmel River and the Seaside Basin ire governed by legal rulings that severely limit Cal Am's legal right to take water from th m. The EIR failed to make the required effort to identify the certain environmental h rm caused by use of these backup" sources, or the water rights it would rely on to pump from these sources. In addition to describing the contingency plan, the EIR was required to identify, analyze and assess the impacts attributable to the plan. If the back-up water supply is to be the Seaside Basin and the Carmel River, the extra burden placed upon those water sources would severely exacerbate already environmentally critical situations. Given the known impacts on the Carmel River and Seaside Aquifer fro the current pumping, and the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, it is likely that any required alternative source of supply would have significant environmen al impacts. None of these impacts is identified or discussed in Marina Coast's environmental analysis of the Project. The impacts of pumping Carmel River Water an Seaside Basin water should have been analyzed in the EIR. That analysis was of part of the EIR done here. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey 2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99 EIR inadequate for failing to address off-site impacts of project]; San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus 1994) 2 Cal.App.4th 713, 734 same].) BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??I^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 25 Under CEQA, the EIR Is Fatally Flawed Because the Project Descri do Omitted the Contingency Plan and the Analysis Failed to Address Potentially Environmental Impacts. The failure to include the mandatory contingency plan in the proj+ and the environmental review is a serious informational and analytical fl must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansic action if: 1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial pr( future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change tl nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. A complete des project must address not only the immediate environmental consequeni forward with the project, but also all reasonably foreseeable consequen project. ct description3 aw. An EIR n or other ject; and 2) the e scope or ription of a es of going es of the initial CEQA forbids piecemeal review of the significant environmental i pacts of a project. CEQA mandates that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have disastrous consequ CEQA Guidelines define project" broadly as the whole of an action, w potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environm( reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment Guidelines, 15378, subd. a).) nces. The ich has a nt, or a CEQA The Courts emphasize that an EIR must disclose uncertainty regarding project elements or impacts, and, where uncertainty exists, the impacts of back up plans must be investigated and discussed, because it is likely they will be implemerted. No such uncertainty about the desalination plant's reliability was disclosed here, and no impacts of the mandated back-up or contingency plan was discussed in the Reg EIR. Generalities, without details or estimates concerning the amount o contingency programs might make available, are not a proper substitute discussion which allows those who did not participate in the EIR's prepa understand and meaningfully consider the issue at hand. With regard t Project, no EIR analysis was provided of the adequacy of the water sup uncertainty flowing from the lack of reliability of desalination plants in ge Regional Project in particular. This absence of discussion and analysis informational function of the EIR for the project. onal Project f water the for a ration to the Regional ly in light of the feral or of the undermines the 3 The principal source for the EIR's project description of the Regional Project is a document prepared by RMC Water and Environment. RMC is Marina C ast's lead technical consultant for the Regional Project. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??J^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 26 There is strong CEQA case law recognition of the CEQA requires significant uncertainties exist around water supply, and where, in light o uncertainties, back-up or contingency plans are proposed, the plans ML in the project description and disclosed, investigated and discussed in t Here, the Regional Project is intended to provide a primary water suppl, thousands of residents and businesses. Significant uncertainties exist project's ability to succeed on an uninterrupted basis. It is reasonably fl a back-up potable water supply will be used, at least to some extent an An EIR analysis of the impacts of using that back-up supply is required. description failed to mention the possibility of desalination plant failure permanent or the possibility production of potable water production be projected. These are all reasonably foreseeable consequences of the vent that where those st be included ie EIR analysis. to tens of bout the reseeable that at some times. The project temporary or ing less than egional Project. |10
13| The EIR's Assumption of Constant Pumping is Unreasonaole. All Modeling Scenarios Unrealistically Assumed the Intake Wells Would Be Pumped Constantly, Without Support for the Assumption. The EIR's conclusions with regard to the Regional Project Impac modeling scenarios that were prepared and submitted by the project pr Regional Project Scenario 4f, prepared for Marina Coast Water District Project Scenarios, prepared for RMC Water and Environment, consulta Coast.) The EIR failed to scrutinize and test these project-proponent-s It is not disputed that computer models are based on assumptions, and assumptions made for a model or for a specific model run a scenario) outcomes. Here, all of the modeling scenarios assumed constant pum vertical intake wells. The claimed benefits of the project with regard to intrusion rely on the assumption of continuous pumping. The project pr claims are that constant pumping along the coast would form a trough" arrest the advance of seawater intrusion." Scenario 4f, the favored sce six wells that would pump groundwater continuously" for 56 years. To s are based on iponents. Regional it to Marina bmitted claims. the an control the ing of the six eawater ponent's that would ario, included ake matters even less transparent, the EIR does not identify all of the assumptions used by the project proponents for their modeling. Continuous pumping was not a part of the Regional Project desc ition under CEQA.4 Most significantly, continuous pumping is not required as a co dition or a 4 The EIR calls it the proposed" pumping, but constant pumping was not part of the project description under CEQA Guidelines section 15082. Constant pu ping was first proposed by the consultants to Marina Coast in a document that was pr vided for the first time to the public as Appendix Q to the Final EIR, after the public c mment period BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??K^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 27 mitigation, so there is no requirement that it occur even though the EIR pumping will occur without interruption for 56 years. The EIR preparer's duty is to critically review all information prov project proponent, especially where it is questioned. Save Our Penins Cal.App.4th 99, 122.) p There was no EIR peer review of the constant pumping" assum Regional Project modeling scenarios. The EIR did not contain any mod scenarios with assumptions other than constant pumping. Such other s have shed light on the different kind and magnitude of impacts. Similarl to discuss the impacts of noncontinuous pumping where pumping wot interrupted or cease altogether and such interruptions are reasonably assumes that ded by the ila, supra, 87 tion or of the eling for any cenarios might y, the EIR failed ild be foreseeable. It is reasonably foreseeable or likely that one or more of the proposed wells will not pump continuously for 56 years. The record evidence shows that the operations of desalination plants are uncertain and unreliable, and there is no contrar+ the record. If the desalination plant becomes partially or fully inoperable the Regional Project's six wells could not pump constantly at the project necessary to create a trough" because there is no place to put the wate extracted from the ground. It is foreseeable that one or more of the six down for repairs at various times. It is foreseeable that pumping will ce. of the project's lifetime. By relying on scenarios presented by the Regional Project propor all unrealistically predicated on constant pumping, the EIR essentially a: constant pumping would always be done. That assumption is not reaso several reasons. The EIR failed to investigate or disclose any informati c reliability of desalination plants, or what would happen if the proposed p operable for long periods of time or even for short periods), or if it never capacity. The EIR had the duty to investigate these critical issues generally specifically as it related to the EIR assumption of constant pumping. Th have investigated whether the wells pump water continuously if the desc, inoperable, or if any of the pumps needed maintenance, or any other rep also should have investigated the environmental impacts of any cessatic constant pumping assumed by project proponents. Given the new natui desalination technology, and the uncertain and unproven nature of the ti evidence in for any period, d rate r after it is ells will be se at the end gent that were sumed that cable for in on the ant is non- operates at full and EIR should lination plant is son. The EIR n in the of chnology as had closed. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??L^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 28 applied to such a large and important project, the EIR should have incl ded an investigation and discussion of these issues in its analysis. Impacts During the Life of the Project. In addition to failing to adequately investigate and identify the poi environmental impacts of non-continuous pumping throughout the life o EIR also failed to investigate the potential environmental impacts that rr pumping terminates at the end of the plant's useable life, which the EIR be approximately 50 to 56 years. Groundwater has several unknowns. Unknown variables lead to being made in each analysis. The unknowns and assumptions reasons reduced through testing the groundwater system through pumping and i wells. This was not done here to the level that would provide usable da conclusions. The testing that was done for the EIR was minimal and be insufficient number of wells and locations. For that reason, the EIR con reliable or adequate information. Even after test wells are used to valid; assumptions, there remains the unaddressed variable of time, as well a caused by climate changes, other events, and other uses. The EIR did not present any information of the results of a non-c scenario. Given the coastal location of the wells, seawater is a far greal the aquifer than groundwater. Cessation of pumping is reasonably liken potentially serious exacerbation of seawater intrusion, causing or increa permanent changes to the physical environment. ential the project, the ay occur when anticipates to assumptions bly can be monitoring la for reliable sed on an clusions are not te 3changes nstant pumping er influence on f to lead to a ing the The Contradicted Assumption that Pumping Causes a Trough that Would Stop" Sea Water Intrusion. The EIR claimed that the scenarios of pumping of the intake well; creation of an underground trough" in the water level due to the volume pumped. The project proponents' model scenario claimed that continuo the six wells will maintain a barrier that would prevent future seawater it the Board of Directors of the Marina Coast Water District, Marina Coast' Manager described the physics of the Regional Project well field as folio Cause we're gonna put wells, and wells do like that. They cause a, what's called a cone of depression and they're going to suck from the circle around there and the water is going to fall in. It's primo technology, it's used all over the place to stop sea water intrusion is to put wells along your showed the of water being isly operating trusion." To General s: BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??M^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 29 beach. It causes a trough where the ocean can't get by, cause the wells are picking it up as it falls into that trough. That's what's going to stop the sea water intrusion," General Manager Heitzman stated. There are several CEQA problems with this approach. The EIR claim of a trough" that would halt seawater intrusion is inconsistent with the theory behind the Monterey County's past efforts, as pointed out in omments in the EIR. E.g., Ag Land Trust comments, Land Watch comment 11.) Forth Salinas Valley Water Project SVWP) and Castroville Seawater Intrusion Program CSIP), Monterey County's stated goal is to reduce pumping by coastal agricultural users ecause coastal pumping removes the groundwater that provides a barrier to seawater. Pumping the groundwater causes the adjacent seawater to flow in to replace it. The heory behind the Salinas Valley Water Project and Castroville Seawater Intrusion Pro ram is that by eliminating coastal pumping, seawater intrusion will be slowed or halted The earlier EIRs are opposite and repugnant to the one proposed in the Regional roject EIR, which is that significant increased, continuous pumping at the coast will halt seawater intrusion. Both theories cannot be correct, and the EIR fails to address the inconsistencies. The CPUC has made no effort to clear up the inconsistencies despite p blic testimony and questions on it. If Monterey County's assumption applicable to S linas Valley Water Project and Castroville Seawater Intrusion Program is correct, t en the pumping for the Regional Project will make seawater intrusion worse, n t alleviate it. Pumping from coastal wells cannot both reduce and increase seawater ntrusion. The dramatic and permanent harms of increasing seawater intrusion are too important to risk without an adequate investigation and more complete analysis. In any event, the claims that the pumping will stop seawater intrusion are not supported by the Final EIR conclusion that, under the Regional Project, he rate of seawater intrusion is similar to baseline conditions. In fact, the area in T e vicinity of the intake wells and the area south of Salinas River would mouth remain in, uded with seawater even longer under Regional Project conditions than under bas line conditions. In other words, there is no environmental benefit to the pure rted trough, and the changes to the immediate environment are reasonably likely to orsen the impacts and increase the degree of physical change. Environmental ha m would result, because the groundwater under fertile agricultural land would be more c ntaminated with more seawater for a longer period, which would harm the overlying roundwater rights and cause adverse environmental impacts. And if the modeling w re done for scenarios of non-constant pumping, further potential environmental imp cts would be disclosed. The EIR failed to provide the essential information and inves igation, and the BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??N^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 30 environmental review, if used to approve the Regional Project, is preju icially inadequate under CEQA. The Project Would Export Groundwater from the Salinas Valley Grou dwater Basin, Which Is Prohibited by Law. California law prohibits groundwater exportation due to concern balance between extraction and recharge" within the Salinas Valley Gr Basin. Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, 52-21.) The documents for the Regional Project do not dispute that the Salinas Vall Basin is in overdraft and has been increasingly in overdraft for six deca by the steady inland progression of seawater intrusion. The Regional F pump groundwater directly from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Ground is subject to the Agency Act. ibout the undwater environmental y Groundwater es, as shown roject would eater Basin and The MCWRA Act does not distinguish between production" or umping" with regard to the export ban. Neither word is mentioned. The fact is that the export would remove useful groundwater from the basin. There is no dispute that the Regional Project would export Salinas Valley Groundwater to the Monterey Peninsula, outside of the Salinas Valley roundwater basin. The project's intake wells would pump brackish water, which is groundwater combined with seawater. The groundwater would be pumped at unsp cified volumes", then desalinated. The desalination process would result in brine and pr duct potable) water. Therefore, the product water would have its origin in both groun water and seawater. Most of the product water is intended to be exported to the P ninsula in an average year, 8,800 AFY, which is 84% of the 10,700 AFY of product w ter, would be exported). The EIR asserts that on an annual average basis, the projec would deliver product water to the Marina Coast Water District service area in an amount equal to the amount of groundwater pumped. The Draft EIR did not address the specific proportions of ground seawater that would be pumped by the intake wells, even though this is,,, the issue of compliance with the Agency Act. In an effort to address thi: other omissions related to the impacts of the project operations, the Fin, new technical appendix that contained revisions to the Regional Project: Appendix Q was prepared by the Regional Project proponents. Append significant new information, and the EIR should have been recirculated, required. Pub. Resources Code, 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines, 1508 eater and ue is critical to omission and it EIR added a Appendix Q. x Q provided as CEQA 5.) Appendix Q made claims for the first time about the proportion of groundwater in the project's intake water. Appendix Q estimated" that the intake water will be BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??O^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 31 approximately 85% ocean water and 15% groundwater. Those estimat were calculated only for the first 10 years. In fact, there is no reliable fa that the estimated" 85%/15% proportions would apply at the well field estimate" came from groundwater samples from a well located at the k Water District office in Marina, not from the proposed well field for the F located north of Marina. Appendix Q admitted that on a local scale the variations in ground water levels and chloride concentrations between other words, at the proposed well field, the proportion of groundwater rr significantly larger than 15%. There was no peer review of Appendix Q's claims. The Final El the predicted" average percentages were only for the first 10 years of simulation." The FEIR discussion did not address what happened after years of the model simulation, which is a glaring omission, particularly ii significance of this issue, and the project life span of 56 years. In fact, Appendix Q predicted groundwater percentages of up to source water throughout the 56-year simulation period.5 Using the data water engineer Roger Dolan calculated that the Regional Project would Agency Act most of the time." Mr. Dolan expressed his serious concer reasonably foreseeable violation because he supported the project, anc that the calculations simply did not support the EIR's conclusions. His c calculations exposed the inadequacy of the discussion to date, and sho illegal export of groundwater will occur when the fraction of groundwatE water for the desalination plant exceeds 16.2%." Mr. Dolan provided his calculations, which showed that balancin desalinating more brackish well water is virtually impossible under" Scei model scenario proposed by the Regional Project proponents. He emp producing enough product water from seawater that is surplus to the d balance the exported flows is not covered in the EIR." He pointed the intake water included 40% groundwater, the project would be requir amount within the Salinas Valley Basin, and would deliver only 2,550 Al which is far below the 8,800 AFY in the project description. He then cal d proportions ctual support ite, because the larina Coast regional Project re were cenarios." In ight be admitted that he model the first ten i light of the 10% in the in the FEIR, violate the is with that he pointed out xpert Ned that the r in the well j export by ario 4f, the iasized that mands to ut that when d to keep that Y to CalAm, ulated that with 5 In the intake water also called source water and feedwater), the Total Solids TDS) concentrations are projected to range between 21,300 to milligrams per liter mg/L) throughout the 56 year period. Seawater has 35,000 mg/L. 21,300 divided by 35,000 is 60%. In other words, 21,300 the typical concentration of seawater. The remaining 40% would be cor groundwater, which is fresh water. Dissolved 4,500 a TDS of mg/L is 60% of sidered BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??P^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 32 a 40% groundwater proportion, using the desalination plant's full capac ty, the maximum amount that the Regional Project could deliver to CalAm would be 6,300 AFY, which is still significantly below the 8,800 AFY in the EIR project description. In other words, the project would deliver far less potable water than CalA replace its illegal pumping under Order 95-10 and the Seaside Basin a would force CalAm to find yet another water supply source. Also, in thi product water in the amount of 4,200 AFY would have to be retained b Water District in order to keep it in the Salinas Groundwater Basin and with the Agency Act. Because the EIR project description describes M Water District as accepting delivery of 1,700 AFY of desalinated water, greater than 1,700 AFY delivered to Marina Coast Water District potenti unanalyzed impacts, including growth-inducing impacts. These reason, scenarios were not discussed in the EIR, and their potential impacts we i needs to judication. This latter scenario, Marina Coast hereby comply rina Coast any amount ally would have ably foreseeable re not analyzed. Other members of the public also challenged the FEIR's assumpl percentage of groundwater. These other challenges came from, for ex LandWatch, directors of Monterey Peninsula Water Management Distric Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Carmel Valley Association, and Ag La EIR did not calculate groundwater exportation under any scenario other selected and estimated" proportion of 85% seawater/15% groundwater significance of the information is very important. The EIR's failure to an information in a manner that complies with CEQA's procedural mandate If the Regional Project pumps 24,867 AFY of source water, as the 3,730 AFY 15%) must be returned to the Salinas Valley Groundwater B form or another. Because Marina Coast Water District proposes to use means 2,030 must be returned some way or another to the Basin. Brin count because it would be discharged to the ocean. The EIR indicates 1 source water would be returned to the Basin. Brackish water is a blend of the limited fresh groundwater supply unlimited, underlying, intruded seawater. The water in the aquifer is a fr that lies on top of a salt water layer with a transition zone separating the layered model, water from the two layers and the transition zone blend the well and thus the well that produces brackish water is actually drawir groundwater and seawater. The Basin is intruded and the saltwater intrusion is ongoing. The groundwater is not flowing out to sea. It is retreating inland. The Salina Project SVWP) will not cause the groundwater elevation in the basin to level. rion about the mple, t, CPUC's nd Trust. The than its The alyze the s is a fatal flaw. EIR states, asin in one 1,700 AFY, that a does not hat 15% of all and the ash water layer two. In the is they flow into ig fresh efore, the Valley Water exceed sea BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??Q^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 33 The SVWP documents, including the SVWP EIR, do not referen reversal of saltwater intrusion. The project seeks to attempt to halt intr reverse intrusion. The principal benefits to the predicted build-up of gr in the Marina area seem more likely to result from the prohibition of con of wells in the coastal area. Those water demands will be met by surfa the SVWP and recycled water. The net new water anticipated by the S 30,000 AFY in Nacimiento Reservoir. Given the magnitude of the wate Salinas Valley, it is beyond the ability of that small an increment to reve the intrusion. In any event, the point is irrelevant as the export issue is the question of whether there is a net flow of groundwater out to sea, o e any potential sion not undwater levels inued pumping e water from P is only budget for the se or even halt of affected by not. The Geoscience Support Services groundwater modeling report one for CalAm 25 July 2008) shows the projected salinity of the well water for the North Marina and Regional Project wells over time. The report shows imputed fluctuation ranging from a low of about 22,000 TDS to a high of about 30,000 TDS averages about 25,000 TDS and begins at about 24,000 TDS quickly ri 27,000 TDS 77% seawater) and ending 56 years later at about 23,500 seawater). There was no clear reason given for the ups and downs, bu shows that the 22,000 TDS figure will be reached about 32 years after of pumping and corresponds to 62% seawater assuming groundwater s The EIR is full of references to a 15% groundwater figure but the openi 24,000 TDS from this document would correspond to about 32% groun The EIR's groundwater modeling in the North Marina Groundwat Evaluation of Regional Project Scenario 4f, Geoscience, 2/26/09 at p. average TDS concentrations of 29,300 mg/L for the feedwater during t years." This is approximately 84 to 86 percent of the concentration of s to 35,000 mg/L). This estimate is an average. The EIR failed to investi in the salinity The water ing to around TDS 67% the report ommencement linity of 500. g estimate of water. r Model 24) predicts e first 10 awater 34,000 ate or discuss Peninsula ndwater Basin the impacts of how the Regional Project will consistently meet Monterey water requirements given that groundwater from the Salinas Valley Gro must be retained within the Basin. The 2009 Geosciences report also finds that TDS concentrations about 21,300 mg/L to 34,500 mg/L through a 56 year period." This is a to 98 percent of the concentration of seawater. Thus, under certain con percent of the water would be available for export to the Monterey Penir area requires 85% of the desalinated water. Due to the changes in groi seawater fractions in the desalination plant intake water, over the life of there will be significant changes in the amount of water that must be ker and the amount that may be exported, and the amount of pumping that in order to meet the product water to be delivered to CalAm for export. range from proximately 60 litions, only 60 sula when the ndwater / he project t in the basin, nust take place Ehe EIR failed BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??R^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 34 to investigate the difference between produced water and the amount be exported out of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The Regional Project will either violate the export ban or fail to demand at a groundwater fraction that is below the 40% figure. 40% o 3520 afy that would be exported from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Seaside basin and the Monterey Peninsula. That is much more than C make from seawater and use in the Basin. The source well water is on seawater. This would require the production and retention of about 59 wants 8800 afy from the desalination plant the total production would h 14,700. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency Curtis Week that the Salinas Valley Water Project will drive the higher groundwater f saltwater intrusion, and cause the groundwater to reverse direction and sea. If the Agency's hypothesis if correct, that would increase the fresh percentage of the source water wells for the desalination plant. And th increase the percentage and amount of water that is pumped that Salinas Valley groundwater basin. The Coastal Water Project EIR faile investigate or disclose this issue and impacts of the Regional Project, d known information, the public comments, and the conclusions of the M Water Resources Agency and the SVWP EIR. water that will eet the CalAm 8800 afy is asin into the IAm could y 60% 0 afy. If CalAm ve to be has stated actions, reverse flow back to the dater t would ust stay in the to adequately spite the nterey County Cumulative Impacts of Brine on Outfall Pipeline Capacity. The Regional Project proposes to use the existing wastewater o tfall pipeline owned by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. Stud es show that capacity in the Water Pollution Control Agency outfall pipeline may not I: all outfall flow conditions. If that happens, either existing or planned use impacted, or additional capacity would have to be constructed. Either p cause significant substantial or potentially substantial adverse environm CEQA Guidelines, 15382) which have not been addressed to date. Construction of additional sewer capacity is directly analogous to additional water delivery facilities. Both are crucial elements without wh projects cannot go forward. Both have or potentially have significant ad' the environment. San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife Rescue Center v. Count supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 732.) Failure to include discussion of additk capacity in the EIR renders it inadequate, because the EIR ignores the e effects of the excluded construction, thereby frustrating a core goal of C e available for rs will be ssibility would ntal impacts construction of ch proposed terse effects on / of Stanislaus, nal sewer environmental EQA. Ibid.) The February 2008 study by the Monterey Peninsula Water Man gement District concluded that brine discharge from a desalination plant would exceed utfall capacity during high-flow periods. The same study identified as concerns the capacity of outfall BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??S^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 35 to accommodate increased brine flow" and potential sacrifice of outfall allocated for future development in favor of allocating unused capa is reasonably foreseeable that brine discharge would exceed outfall cal high-flow periods. Despite these concerns, the EIR failed to investigate whether the outfall could or would accommodate all operating parametli Regional Project is built with its present characteristics. capacity ity for brine." It acity during and determine ors if the The EIR failed to investigate and adequately address important i the capacity of the existing outfall to accommodate increased brine flo potential sacrifice of outfall capacity allocated for future development in favor of allocating unused capacity for brine. The EIR also did not anal availability of wastewater from the Water Pollution Control Agency for t other projects. It is reasonably foreseeable that because wastewater w dilute brine before it is dispersed through the outfall pipeline, that com cause significant impacts on the availability of wastewater to run three the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Program which uses recycled Water Pollution Control Agency); the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Pro, also uses recycled water from the Agency); and the Ground Water Repl project that uses treated wastewater and is an essential part of the Reg! The EIR failed to disclose or investigate these issues or their pot( impacts. The EIR also failed to adequately describe or investigate the f desalination-facility cleaning chemicals and other project waste streams has been openly and publicly discussed since at least early 2008. sues including and the the area in rze the e demands of II be used to itment could xisting projects: water from the gram which enishment onal Project. ntial significant to of This issue Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey Regional Water P a Agency acknowledged that the CPUC's EIR did not adequately address On August 20, 2009, the Agency Chair discussed brine outfall and the I with that." Keith Israel, the Agency's general manager, stated there woL study of how much brine the outfall can handle, which would be comple EIR review that would be completed by consultant Denise Duffy & Assoi Duffy was handling the Regional Project analysis for Marina Coast, as w October 26, 2009, Duffy informed the Agency Board that the CPUC's Fii be completed soon, at which point Duffy would complete its work and s the environmental analysis of the Agency outfall. On November 17, 200 principal engineer reported that the Final EIR had been distributed, and immediately begin review of the additional environmental work needed f disposal. The Duffy analysis was planned, pursuant to CEQA, for usinc desalination brine disposal," and performed at Marina Coast's cost. MR was preparing a technical analysis at Marina Coast's cost, to analyze th using the outfall for brine discharge. A preliminary report showed that ai environmental studies, estimated to cost $300,000, were required. Ilution Control brine disposal. IR that goes Id be 1) a x," and 2) an iates Duffy). ell. On ial EIR would ope regarding 9, the Agency's Duffy would Dr brine I the outfall for NPCA also feasibility of iditional BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??T^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 36 In February 2010, Marina Coast Water District approved a resol tion that stated that the Water Pollution Control Agency will perform any necessary en ironmental review" for the Brine Receiving Facility to handle brine from the Marina oast desalination plant the plant that is the centerpiece of the Regional Proj ct). Marina Coast stated that the Water Pollution Control Agency would be Lead ency for analyzing" the environmental impacts of the Brine Receiving Facility for the Regional Project. Marina Coast committed to paying all of the costs of the furthe environmental review. These issues should have been included in the EIR. This fractu ed approach to environmental review of Regional Project components is piecemealing r segmenting, which is prohibited by CEQA. Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 3 6; CEQA Guidelines, 15358, subd. a) reasonably foreseeable indirect or seco dary effects or impacts].) The EIR should have investigated and disclosed the conditions under which the Water Pollution Control Agency outfall pipe could be used for brine outf ll. It was publicly acknowledged that there are problems and potential limitations ith the use of the existing outfall pipe. There are serious concerns as to the outfall pie's existing capacity to accommodate the increased flow that would be caused byte Regional Project's brine discharge. There are serious questions as to the potenti I sacrifice of existing outfall capacity that was intended for, or has been allocated to ture development in the area, which would mean that as-yet-unused capacit would be allocated for brine instead. There are serious questions about the impa is of brine discharge on the existing stormwater capacity in the outfall, and what m tigations would be possible for such reduction in stormwater capacity. There is insuffici nt information regarding whether storage or operational modifications can be made to ccommodate all outfall operating parameters. It is foreseeable that brine discharge w uld exceed outfall capacity during high-flow periods, and that the discharge would r quire additional outfall facilities. The unconfirmed 85% seawater/15% groundwater ratio has signi- implications for outfall capacity, as well. Depending on the actual ratio,' brine discharge may be significantly larger than that analyzed in the EIR not disclose the current and maximum capacity of the outfall. The EIR c investigate the requirements for amending the Water Pollution Control A existing permit. Large volumes of brine may not be added to the outfall existing permit issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination provision of the Clean Water Act that controls discharge of pollutants int United States. Iicant he amount of The EIR did id not gency's ender the i System, a b waters of the BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??U^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 37 The existing outfall capacity exists for essential public health ana the outfall pipeline disposes of sewage. There is no analysis in the EIR new flows of brine disposal to the outfall could affect the ability of the VControl Agency to continue to perform its existing public health and saf( its member agencies. There is no analysis of what would happen durin operations or peak operations. Inadequate Investigation and Disclosure of Impacts to Overlying and Adjacent Properties. safety reasons: of how adding ater Pollution qty obligations to g ordinary The EIR did not adequately investigate or discuss the Regional P roject's impacts on overlying or adjacent properties. The EIR predicts that the project's ix intake wells will cause up to a 30-foot drawdown and increased saltwater intrusion under the well field. The well field is proposed to be located on private property. Tho e properties would be harmed by the increased salinity of their groundwater, which ould render it unfit for use, or require more treatment than currently required in order o be usable. The EIR fails to clearly identify where the project facilities would which is a serious flaw in the inadequate project description. There is n information as to where the wells or the pipelines would be located. Re is the EIR's best depiction of the well and pipeline locations for the prop intake. Figure 5-3 is a blurry drawing lacking the necessary detail. The identify the difference between the blue swath and the brown swath. T identify the parcels that would be affected. The EIR inappropriately def investigation of specific sites to a future date, and does not contemplat review of that information. This deferred analysis is inappropriate unde to adequately address and identify the potential environmental impacts properties. Despite its queries over the years, Ag Land Trust did not rec response other than the cursory, inadequate ones in the FEIR response Violations of Anti-Degradation Policy and Basin Plan. e located, reliable ised Figure 5-3 sed seawater figure fails to e EIR does not rs the further CEQA CEQA. It fails n the eive any Cto comments. The EIR also failed to adequately investigate and disclose the exi proposed project's violation of the State Water Resources Control Boarc Degradation Policy. The deliberate increase in salinity caused by the pri to longstanding state policy. This policy, formally known as the Stateme Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California SWRCB Reso 68-16), restricts degradation of surface and ground waters. ent of the I's Anti- ject is contrary nt of Policy with lution No. Under the Anti-Degradation Policy, any actions that can adverse) affect water quality in surface and ground waters must 1) be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, 2) not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??V^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 38 use of the water, and 3) not result in water quality less than that presci quality plans and policies. Any actions that can adversely affect surfac subject to the Federal Anti-Degradation Policy 40 C.F.R., section 131. under the Clean Water Act. The Central Regional Water Quality Contr Plan implements the Anti-Degradation Policy. The EIR says that the pc apply," which is not a sufficient analysis of this potential constraint on tt ibed in water e waters are also 2) developed I Board's Basin licy could e Project itself. The Statement of Overriding Considerations Is Not Supported. Because the EIR found that the Regional Project had unavoidabl impacts on the environment, Marina Coast Water District on April 5, 20' statement of overriding considerations before approving the Regional P Guidelines, 15093.) The CPUC also adopted a statement of overridir considerations in its action on December 2010, which is not a final actic County Water Resources Agency proposes to make a similar statemen considerations. The proposed statement asserts various benefits" in support of overriding considerations. To the extent that any of the benefits has an support in the record, it is only because the EIR truncated or avoided ar discussion of the factors, evidence, and information that would display t claims of benefits, all in violation of CEQA. The MCWRA's proposed statement of overriding considerations balancing of benefits, and its cursory statements are dependent on assLI MCWRA has not taken into account all of the areas where the EIR is de information is missing, and where the EIR or the CPUC failed to comply statutory dictates of CEQA, and failed to fairly discover, investigate, and discuss the central project hurdles, burdens, and impacts. The first claim is based upon a claim of the reliable" water supply reliability was never demonstrated in the EIR or otherwise, and the omis discussion of back-up plans, contingencies, water rights, legality, and thl important aspects of the Project demonstrate that the evidence in the re legally establish a reliable" or drought-proof" water supply. e significant 10 made a roject. CEQA g n. Monterey of overriding i statement of indication of y good faith ie flaws in the rovides no real mptions. The ficient, where with the even-handedly However, ions of all other ord does not The second claim is about protecting the Seaside Basin for long-t which has the same infirmities of the first claim. As the record shows, bE Seaside Basin is proposed as the back-up water supply for the Regional likely that this benefit will never be realized. It is not a reasonable assert consider the uncertainty of the Regional Project. arm reliability, cause the Project, it is ion. It fails to BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??W^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 39 The third claim is about addressing Cal Am's obligations under 1 95-10. This claim is not reasonable because the Carmel River is propo up water supply for the Regional Project. Therefore, it is likely that this be realized, or to a significantly smaller extent, if any. The project prop use the Carmel River as a backup supply to the Regional Project. The disclose this known fact, based on public records, or the harm that suct River would cause. The fourth claim regarding protecting listed species River fails due to the same reasons. The fifth claim addresses protecting the local economy, but fails First, the claim assumes there will no longer be an uncertain" water su and the information reviewed by all the public agencies fail to provide a evidence that the Regional Project will provide a certain" water supply. local economy is substituting one uncertain supply for another. There i the public. The sixth claim is that water rate increases will be minimized. T WRCB Order sed as the back- benefit will not onents intend to EIR failed to i use of the in the Carmel or two reasons. ply, but the EIR iy reasonable Therefore, the no benefit to at claim makes add for many no sense in light of the very significant cost that the Regional Project will years to come to the bills Cal Am ratepayers, from small homeowners t large m commercial users. The issue is the size of the increases, not the numb The MCWRA is avoiding any mention the CPUC's claimed purported b of the CPUC's statement of overriding considerations that the Region r of increases. nefit in support I Project will maintain the hydrologic balance of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin by adhering to Agency Act. As discussed above, it is foreseeable that the project will v olate the Agency Act.) The Impacts to North County Have Been Inadequately Investigated Or Disclosed. Ag Land Trust raises the following additional and significant probl ms with the EIR analysis, and with the adequacy of the EIR under CEQA, as applie to the Regional Project. The EIR failed to analyze impacts to North Monterey County, as identified in letters by, among others, the Prunedale Preservation Alliance, Prune al Neighbors Group, and North County residents Eddie and Jan Mitchell. Those lette s are attached as exhibits to this letter. We incorporate the comments in those letters s if fully set forth herein as comments on the EIR. By pumping groundwater, the Regional Project would induce salt eater into the aquifers, and would violate the North Monterey County Local Coastal Pr gram Plan. The County has admitted that the Project would affect Northern Montere County rural and urban areas, including Castroville, Prunedale, Moss Landing, and P; ijaro. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??X^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 40 Neither the EIR nor the MCWRA has explained why the propose Project does not violate the mandate to prevent adverse cumulative imp coastal zone groundwater resources, as required by North County Lana specific policies 2.5.3.A.1, 2.5.3.A.2, and 2.5.3.A.3, each of which addr water resources in North Monterey County. Those policies are provide references attached hereto. i Regional acts upon Use Plan sses the limited in the Reasonable and Less Harmful Alternatives to the Proie t Were Not Adequately Considered. The EIR failed to analyze reasonable known alternatives to the Regional Project. We include information in the exhibits that discuss those known alterna ives. Those known alternatives include the following: The desalination plant proposed by the Monterey Peninsu~a Water Management District to meet SWRCB Order No. 95-10. The desalination plant proposed by Pajaro Sunny Mesa C}~mmunity Services District. The hybrid project proposed by LandWatch Monterey County and the League of Women Voters that did not involve the use of a desalination plant. Proposed Notice of Determination Is Inconsistent with the I IR. The Notice of Determination is not consistent with the EIR. The 11 roposed Notice claims that the project location includes a far greater area than the area identified in the EIR. The proposed Notice claims as follows: The project location is defined as the California American Water Company CAW) service area, including the Montei Peninsula cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside, and the unincorporated areas of Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley, any Monterey; the Highway 1 Corridor; the Marina Coast Wate District MCWD) service area including the former Fort Or( and Marina; the City of Salinas; and the Northern Montere, County rural and urban areas, including Castroville, Prunedale, Moss Landing, and Pajaro. y BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??Y^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 41 As one example, there is no proposal for this phase of the Regional Project to include the City of Salinas or North Monterey County areas. The EIR Has Been Challenged in Litigation Pending in Monterey County Superior Court. Ag Land Trust's position is that Marina Coast Water District is the under CEQA. In April 2010, Marina Coast Water District was the first pi approve the Regional Project. As lead agency, Marina Coast Water Di: required to comply with CEQA prior to approving the Regional Project u The Ag Land Trust sued Marina Coast Water District over MarinE approvals of the Regional Project. The First Amended Petition and Con submitted as an attachment to this letter. It contains one cause of actio of CEQA and two declaratory relief causes of action arising out of the R Project's lack of water rights and the Project's violation of the Monterey Resources Agency Act's prohibition on groundwater exportation. lead agency iblic agency to trict was ider CEQA. i Coast's iplaint is n for violations gional County Water The Ag Land Trust litigation is case no. M105109 in Monterey C Court. In September 2010, the Superior Court overruled Marina Coast' Land Trust's petition and complaint. As of October 29, 2010, the CEQ was fully briefed before the Superior Court. The CEQA cause of action oral argument. Summary. For all of the above reasons, the Monterey County Water Resour should not approve the Regional Project. Very truly yours, unty Superior demurrer to Ag cause of action is awaiting an ces Agency OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Michael W. Stamp Molly Erickson Attorneys for Ag Land Trust Attachments: see Exhibit Table BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??Z^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 42 Table of Exhibits Exhibit Description A Maps of Ag Land Trust properties Printout from Ag Land Trust website Ag Land Trust Information Sheet dated November 19 2010 B California Public Utilities Commission Information an Criteria List Frequently Asked Questions About the California Publ ic Utilities Commission's Environmental Quality Act Process C Proponent's Environmental Assessment for the Coas al Water Project, Proceeding A.04-09-019. Prepared by Califo nia American Water and RBF Consulting. 2005. excerpts) D March 16, 2010 Letter from the Law Offices of Micha I W. Stamp to Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors with a achments R through BB Note: Attachments A through Q were submitted to th e Public Utilities Commission with a letter from this Office date December 16, 2009. Only attachments R through BB are includ d with this copy of the March 16, 2010 letter that we are attachin as an exhibit.) E April 5, 2010 Letter from the Law Offices of Michael Stamp to Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors with a achments A through Z F April 19, 2010 Letter from the Law Offices of Michael Stamp to Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors with at achments A through E G Pleadings filed by Ag Land Trust in Monterey County uperior Court, Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District, Case N M105019: 2. First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed April 6, 2010 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??[^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 43 3. Opening Brief of Ag Land Trust on CEQA Petit on filed August 27, 2010 4. Reply Brief of Ag Land Trust on CEQA Petition filed October 29, 2010 5. Order Overruling Demurrer to Petition and Com plaint filed October 20, 2010 H Transcript of March 16, 2010 Marina Coast Water Di rict Board of Directors hearing Transcript of April 5, 2010 Marina Coast Water Distri Board of Directors hearing I April 13, 2010 Letter from LandWatch Monterey Cour ty to Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors February 24, 2010 Letter from LandWatch Monterey ounty to Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors J April 13, 2010 Letter from Prunedale Preservation Alli nce to Marina Coast Water District April 10, 2010 Letter from Eddie Mitchell and JoAnna Mitchell to the California Public Utilities Commission January 28, 2010 Letter from the Prunedale Neighbor Group to the Department of Environmental & Natural Resources K February 4, 2010 Letter from Roger J. Dolan, P.E. to urtis Weeks, General Manager, Monterey County Water Resource Agency Issue Paper. Does the Regional Plan described in the FEIR for the CalAm CWP conform to the Monterey County regulati ns on export of water from the Salinas Valley? Roger J. Dolan, P. to Curtis Weeks, General Manager, Monterey County Water R sources Agency. February 4, 2010. February 23, 2010 Letter from Roger J. Dolan, P.E. to Curtis Weeks, General Manager, Monterey County Water Resource Agency BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??\^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 44 Revised Issue Paper: Does the Regional Plan descri for the CalAm CWP conform to the Monterey County r export of water from the Salinas Valley? Roger J. Do Curtis Weeks, General Manager, Monterey County W Resources Agency. February 23, 2010. Curriculum Vitae for Roger J. Dolan, P.E. ed in the FEIR egulations on an, P.E. to ater L Letter from the League of Women Voters of the Mont rey Peninsula to The Honorable Angela K. Minkin, Administrative La Judge, California Public Utilities Commission, regarding State ment on Water Supply Alternatives for July 13 and 14 Hearing on the Coastal Water Project with attachment July 13, 2009 Letter from LandWatch Monterey Coun y to The Honorable Angela K. Minkin, California Public Utilities Commission Exhibit MPWMD-AB1 Testimony of Andrew M. Bell Di trict Engineer and Manager of Planning and Engineering Monterey P eninsula Water Management District. State Water Resources Control Board Matter to Determine Whether to Adopt a Draft Cease and Desist Order against California American Water Regarding it Diversion of Water from the Carmel River in Monterey County and r Order WR 95-10. Hearing Date: July 23-25, 2008. Exhibit MPWMD-AB3 Monterey Peninsula Water Man agement District. State Water Resources Control Board Matte to Determine Whether to Adopt a Draft Cease and Desist Order ag inst California American Water Regarding its Diversion of Water fro the Carmel River in Monterey County under Order WR 95-10. He ring Date: July 23-25, 2008. FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects Proposed for the Monterey Peninsula. Submitted to onterey Peninsula Water Management District. Prepared by EI/Bookman Edmonston, Separation Processes, Inc., Malcolm-Pir ie Inc. February 20, 2008. Final Municipal Services Review for the North County Area of Monterey County. Prepared for LAFCO of Monterey C ounty. Prepared by Cypress Environmental and Land Use Pl anning in BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??]^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 45 consultation with Ifland Engineers, Inc. February 200 California Ocean Desal Proponents: Private and Publ c. Desal Response Group. Printed from http://www.desalresponsegroup.org/proponents.html n November 17, 2010. Staff Report for Monterey Peninsula Water Managem nt District November 15, 2010 Board Meeting Item 15, Receive Staff Review of August 2008 MPWMD 95-10 Project Constraints and Analysis Report M Marina Coast Water District Resolution No. 2010-20 w ith attached CEQA Findings 78 pages) and attached CEQA Mitiga tion Monitoring and Reporting Program 27 pages) N November 6, 2006 Letter from Monterey County Agri ultural and Historical Land Conservancy to the California Public tilities Commission 0 November 2, 2009 Letter from the Law Office of Mich el W. Stamp to Marina Coast Water District Notice of Determination fo the Acquisition of 224-acre +/-) of Armstrong Ranch Land and Appurtenant Easements f iled March 17, 2010 Marina Coast Water District March 16, 2010 Board of irectors Hearing minutes P St. Petersburg Times article, More problems for Tamp Bay Water desalination plant. March 16, 2009. Cleantech Group LLC article, Tampa Bay desalination plant rises again. January 28, 2008. Arizona Daily Star article, Yuma desalination plant to tart flowing. May 1, 2010. Q Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency m eting minutes and related documents R Salinas Californian article, 280M+ desalination plant, 0-mile BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT?T??"?|E??^^?Jane Parker, Chair, and Members of the Board of Supervisors Monterey County Water Resources Agency January 10, 2011 Page 46 pipeline agreed on for Monterey Peninsula. March 31 2010. S January 11, 2011 Monterey County Board of Supervi ors Staff Report for Item S-6, Attachments B-1 and B-2 as take n from the Monterey County Clerk to the Board website. T Figures 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b and 5-3 from the CalAm Coast 3l Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report. U Application of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates for Rehearing of Decision 10-12-016, filed January 3, 2011 in the matt r of California Public Utilities Commission Application 04-09-019. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98139-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??EXHIBI BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Ag Land Trust Monterey County Agricultural and Historic Land Co properties in Yellow; Big Sur Land Trust property in Bright Blue. Sea water wells and pipeline locations in Pale Blue and Brown overlays, as extracted from Coastal Water Project FEIR Revised Figure 5-3. NOTE: EIR Revised Figure 5-3 provides only a generalized representation of th areas with no references to properties included within their boundaries. Precise spatial data was not provided by the applicant or available from the EIR preparer. This document was professionally prepared by a GIS Professional, using spatial imagery, known physical features and property lines to provide a reliable repr Conservancy properties as they relate to the proposed sea well areas. Lack of spatial data, if any, used in Revised Figure 5-3, has required some locational in which was performed using professional best practices. y accurate sentation of the ccess to the erpretation, BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Yellow- Ag Land Trust Monterey County Agricultural and Historic Conservancy) properties. Pale Blue and Brown potential sea water wells and pipeline locati extracted from Coastal Water Project FEIR Revised Figure 5-3. NOTE: EIR Revised Figure 5-3 provides only a generalized representation of thel sea water well areas with no references to properties included within their boundaries. Preci was not provided by the applicant or available from the EIR preparer. This document was professionally prepared by a GIS Professional, using spatiall imagery, known physical features and property lines to provide a reliable repre Conservancy properties as they relate to the proposed sea well areas. Lack of spatial data, if any, used in Revised Figure 5-3, has required some locational int which was performed using professional best practices. accurate entation of the ccess to the rpretation, BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Ag Land Trust The Ag Land Trust... Protecting the agricultural heritage of the Salinas Valley for future generations. County. agricultural lands of the Salinas Valley, we will so consider easement projects located outside of onterey Although our mission is to preserve the prime The Ag Land Trust holds over 60 easements in Monterey, San Mateo, and San Benito counties used according to their wishes into the future. Property owners who put their land under ease ent are interested in protecting the land for future generations, protecting their families' agricultural businesse and protecting habitat. They want to rest assured that someone will monitor their properties to see th t they are There are other benefits including Federal Inco e Tax deductions, reduced Estate Tax liability, or, in some cases, property tax advantages. These benefits can help families pass down lands to heirs in situations here they might otherwise have to be sold to pay estate taxes. The Ag Land Trust has collaborated on easement projects with other non-profits, corporations, city and county governments, as well as individual property over several thousand acres. Protected properties range in size from a few acres to owners. I of 1 11/16/2010 3:09 PNi BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??CEQA info & Criteria http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PPC/energy/Envirom-nent/infocrit.htrn detailed study impacts which are not significant. Effort and attention shall be devoted to important issues r ther than verbose descriptions of the project itself or the environmental setting. The Environmental Impact Assessment Summary form, copy of which is attached, shall be employed to more accurately define the required scope and detail of PEAs for particular projects. 4. SIGNIFICANCE There is no strict criteria for determining the significance of an impact. The determination ultimately requires the xercise of reasoned judgment taking into account the nature of the project and environmental setting. Opinions may differ, but where there is, o can be anticipated to be, a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the impact to be significant and discussed in detail in a cord with Section V, 13. In evaluating significance both primary or direct and secondary or indirect effects shall be considered. Primary effects are those immediately related to the project. Secondary effects are consequences associated more closely with the primary effects than to the project itself. New suburban growth may be a primary effect of an electric transmission line extension for example, whereas possible effects, such as traffic congestion and consequent air pollution, would be secondary effects. Impacts of a project may be both adverse and beneficial. All significant adverse effects shall be discussed in etail in accord with Section V, 13, even though the proponent may be of the opinion that on balance the beneficial effects outweigh the adverse impacts. Temporary effects are not necessarily insignificant, although the duration of the effect is relevant to the issue o significance. A project must be considered to entail a significant effect on the environment if: a) The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) The project has the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term en ronmental goals. c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when ewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct) or indirectly. 5. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. The PEA may incorporate material by reference when to do so would reduce bulk without impeding agency or p blic review. Any such incorporation shall, however, include a summary of the matter to which reference is made and an explanation o its relevance to the project. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available, or is made reasonably available for inspection by the Commission and potentially interested members of the public. All or any part of any Environmental Impact Statement EIS) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA), or any EIR or Master Environmental Assessment prepared pursuant to CEQA, may be submitted in lieu of all or any part of the PEA required by this rule, provided the requirements of all applicable sections of these Information and Criteria Lists are fully satisfied. The PEA on a project for which the Commission is a Responsible Agency under CEQA shall, whenever possible, incorporate by reference the Lead Agency's Initial Study and Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. 6. FILING REQUIREMENTS. The PEA shall be filed as a separate exhibit accompanying the application or pleading. It need not be physicaljy attached thereto. The proponent shall file an original, six conformed copies, and such additional copies as may be required by the C mmission to process the application. 7.FORMAT. The following standard format for a PEA should be followed for all projects for which it cannot be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment: a) Cover sheet b) Table of Contents c) PEA Summary d) Project Purpose and Need e) Project Description f) Environmental Setting g) Environmental Impact Assessment Summary h) Detailed Discussion of Significant Impacts i) Appendices if any) 8.COVER SHEET. The cover sheet shall consist of a single sheet containing the title Proponent's Environmental Assessment," tl caption of the proceeding for which the PEA has been prepared, the docket number of the proceeding, and the name, address, and telepho e number of the project proponent. 9.PEA SUMMARY. Each PEA shall contain a summmary which shall briefly state the major conclusions, areas of controversy, and ajor issues which must be resolved including the choice among reasonably feasible alternatives and mitigation measures, if any). The s mmary should normally be two to ten pages in length, but may be shorter or longer depending upon the complexity of the project and the num er and significance of the project's impacts. 10. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED. 3 of 5 11/12/2010 3:51 PM BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??CEQA. info & Criteria http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/P All PEAs shall contain an explanation of the objective or objectives of the project. This shall be accompanied by attainment of these objectives is necessary or desirable. The analysis should normally not exceed a page or tw significant or potentially significant project impacts have been identified in the Environmental Impact Assessmer Section V, 13. Where such impacts have been identified, the analysis of project purpose and need must be sui Commission to independently evaluate the project need and benefits in order to accurately consider them in ligt costs. This requirement may be satisfied by reference to specific portions of the project application which addr 11.PROJECT DESCRIPTION. C/energy/Environment/infocrit. htm an analysis of the reason why in length except where it Summary required by ficiently detailed to permit the t of the potential environmental ass this issue. The description of the project shall contain the following information, but should not supply extensive detail bey nd that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. a) The precise location and boundaries of the project shall be shown on a detailed map, preferably topographic. The location shall also be shown on a regional map. b) A general description of the projects technical, economic, and environmental characteristics considering the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. The requirements of this section may be satisfied by reference to specific portions of the project application which address these issues and include this information. 12.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. The PEA must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project and within the potential rang of impact as it exists before commencement of the project. Both local site-specific) and regional perspectives must be provided. The des ription should include some discussion of the topography, land use patterns, and general biological environment. Detailed descriptions sho Id be limited to those elements of the environment which may be subject to a potentially significant impact. The setting must, however, be sufficiently described to permit an independent evaluation by the Commission of elements which could be impacted by the project. All elements of the environmental setting necessary to fully understand impacts identified as significant or potentially significant in the Environmental Impact Assessment Summary required by Section V, 13 shall be described in detail. 13.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY. Every PEA shall contain an Environmental Impact Assessment Summary in the form attached. This summary sh II be employed as an aid in determining the scope and detail of the environmental setting and impact analyses. All impacts identified as significant or potentially significant must be explained in detail in accord with the criteria stated in Section V, 14. All elements of the environmental setting necessary to fully understand such impacts shall be described in detail in accord with Section V, 12. All other answers provi ed on the form should be briefly explained in the space provided or on additional sheets attached to the Summary as necessary. These brief explanations should contain no detailed studies, research, or analysis. Each enumerated question shall be answered yes," no,""potential," or unknown" in column 1 labelled IMPACT" to indicate whether the project involved will result either directly or indirectly in any impact of the type identified. If it is felt that there will or may be an impact of the type listed, an attempt to quantify the impact must be made by the proponent and indicated in column 2 labelled SIGNIFICANCE." If it can be seen with certainty that the impact or potential impact will be significant the answer significant" shall be given. I the impact or potential impact is difficult to quantify but a substantial body of opinion can be expected to consider the impact to be significant, the answer potentially significant" shall be given. If despite good faith efforts the proponent is unable to provide any reasonable esti ate of the significance of the impact the answer unquantified" shall be given. If it can be seen with certainty that the impact or potential impa t under consideration will not be significant the answer insignificant" shall be given. 14.DETAILED DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. The PEA shall include a detailed discussion of all project impacts and potential impacts of significance. The c mulative effect of the project's impacts shall also be discussed in detail where such cumulative effect is significant. Impacts should be discus ed in the order of importance or significance. Any data and analyses shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less imp rtant material summarized, consolidated, or incorporated by reference in accord with Section V, 5. Distinctions between factual findings an assumptions or subjective judgments should be made clear. In addition to the analyses of individual project impacts, the PEA for all projects which may have a significant eff ct on the environment shall address the following: a) Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects. Describe significant, avoidable, adverse mpacts, including inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy, and measures to minimize these impacts. The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other meas ires that are not included but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts. This discussion shall include an identification of the acceptable levels to which such impacts will be reduced, and the basis upon which such levels were identified. Where several measures re available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Energ conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant. b) Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Describe all reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location o the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and why they are rejected in favor of the ultimate choice. The specific alternative of no project" must also always be evaluated, along with the impact. The discussion of alternatives shall include alte atives capable of substantially reducing or eliminating any significant environmental effects, even if these alternatives substantially impede the attainment of the project objectives, and are more costly. c) The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action. Discuss the ways in which the proposed project coul foster economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included are projects which would remove bstacles to population growth a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may further tax existing community service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environm nt, either individually or 4of5 11/12/20103:51 PM BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??CEQA. info & Criteria http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PIJC/energy/Environment/infocrit.httn cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little sigInificance to the environment. d) Organizations and Persons Consulted. The PEA shall include a list of persons, and their qualifica- tions, res detailed information for each area of environmental concern, and a discussion of the methods used to produce 15. AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS. Where the Commission is the Lead Agency under CEQA, the names and mailing addresses of all owners of Ian project, or any part of the project, may be located, and owners of land adjacent thereto, shall be listed in an app Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy I CA Home Copyright 2007 State of California RECOVERY, onsible for compiling the such information. over, under or on which the ndix to the PEA. Last Modified: 7/30/2008 5 of 5 I 11/12/2010 3:51 PM BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS 1. What is CEQA? CEQA stands for the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Cl law that requires state and local agencies to consider potential environmi approving new activities and to avoid or mitigate significant impacts wh The basic purpose of the law is to: 1) inform decision makers and the pi possible environmental effects of proposed projects; 2) identify ways th damage can be avoided or reduced; 3) require changes in projects throu damaging alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and 4) wh, approving a project despite remaining significant environmental effects, to explain why. QA is a California ntal effects prior to enever feasible. zblic about the at environmental gh the use of less re the agency is require the agency 2. 3. When does CEQA apply? State and local agencies must comply with the requirements of CEQA w consider approving any proposed action defined by CEQA as a project' activity that requires the discretionary approval of a government agency a construction permit, which may cause either a direct physical change i a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. How does CEQA affect the CPUC's work? The basic mission of the CPUC is to regulate investor-owned telecomm natural gas, and water utilities operating in the State of California. This includes big investor-owned utilities IOUs) that you may be familiar w Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San 1 Electric Company and AT&T. It also includes many smaller utilities, si and Sierra Pacific. The CPUC does not regulate municipally-owned uti Sacramento Municipal Utility District or the Los Angeles Department o The CPUC oversees almost all large utility construction projects. It als of other types of utility activity that might have a significant impact on 1 Most of the CPUC's CEQA obligations arise in the context of the CPU construction permit requests, where the CPUC is usually the lead agen review purposes.' When a utility wants to construct something, such a: it must generally apply for a permit from the CPUC, called a Certifical Convenience and Necessity" or CPCN."2 Before the CPUC can rule o 1 Note that where an investor-owned utility coordinates with a local governmer owned utility, the CPUC may not be the lead agency for CEQA purposes. Insti be a responsible agency that may coordinate in the development of the envirom 2 Depending upon the scale of the project, the utility may apply instead for a I or PTC." For simplicity, this document refers to both CPCNs and PTCs toget heneverthey A project is an such as the grant of n the environment or mications, electric, group of utilities th, such as Pacific iego Gas & ch as PacifiCorp ities such as the Water and Power. considers approval he environment. s review of utility y" for CEQA a transmission line, e of Public n a utility's t or municipally- ad, the CPUC may nental documents. ermit to Construct" ier as a CPCN. December 2006 Page 1 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3 ??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS application for a CPCN, the CPUC must comply with CEQA by analyzi environmental impacts of the proposed project. M g the 4. How does the CEQA process work within the CPUC's CPCN process? Whenever the CPUC considers whether or not to grant a CPCN applicati project, the CPUC must 1) inform the public about the possible enviro n proposed project; 2) identify ways that environmental damage that may proposed project can be avoided or reduced; 3) require changes in the p] through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; an( the CPUC will approve a project despite remaining significant environm explain why. When a utility files a CPCN application, the application must include a' Environmental Assessment" PEA) that describes the utility's view of tl impacts of the proposed project. Energy Division staff within the CPUC consultants to determine whether to issue a negative declaration, a mitig declaration MND) or an environmental impact report EIR). Consisten requirements of CEQA, there are many opportunities for public particip: during the development of the CEQA strategy, alternatives to the projec studied, and the development and issuance of the draft and final environ A simple step-by-step explanation of this CEQA process, described witl CPCN proceeding, is available at: on or any other nental effects of the be caused by the oposed project 1(4) explain why ental effects, Proponent's e environmental work with ated negative with the tion and comment that may be nental documents. in the context of a http://www.epuc.ca. gov/static/energy/environment/cpcnprocess.4oc. A timeline that shows the relationship between the CEQA and CPCN prcesses is available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/environment/document.pdf As the step-by-step explanation and the timeline demonstrate, the CPUC occurs in parallel with the CPCN process and a CPCN cannot be issued process is completed.3 After the CEQA process and a final environmen completed, the Administrative Law Judge ALJ) overseeing the CPCN I decision based on the CEQA documentation and testimony from parties It is important to recognize that the final CEQA analysis is an informati document only. It does not make a recommendation regarding the appr CPCN application, and it does not establish the route or location for the where relevant). The purpose of the final environmental document is t s-CEQA proceiss- until the CEQA tal analysis are vrites a draft to the proceeding. 01 nal environmental val or denial of the proposed project inform both the m ID 3 Please note that where the CPUC is not the lead agency for CEQA purposes, t~e CEQA process may be completed by another agency prior to the utility filing its application fo a CPCN. December 2006 Page 2 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3 ??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS public and the decision makers of the environmental impacts of the prop sed project and alternatives, and to identify, from a purely environmental perspective, a referred route or location where relevant). In making a final determination on the applic tion, the Commission will consider many other non-environmental factors such a community values, historical values, the existence of recreational and park areas, whether th utility has demonstrated that the project is needed and whether the estimated cost o the proposed project is reasonable. The ALJ and the Commission consider the final e vironmental documents, along with all these other issues, during the preparation of t e decision on the CPCN application. Environmental concerns do not bind the Commissio and the Commission has the authority to issue a Statement of Overriding Consid ration allowing other factors to take precedence over environmental concerns. The Commissioners vote on the ALJ's draft or a commissioner's alterna ive decision at a Commission meeting. If the Commission approves a decision, the utili is either issued or denied a CPCN. When it receives a CPCN, the utility can proceed with he project, pending necessary approvals from other agencies. 5. What affect does CEQA have on proposed utility projects? CEQA requires the CPUC to identify the significant environmental imp cts of a proposed project, and if the project is going to be approved, to develop measures, here feasible, to avoid or reduce those impacts. At a minimum, CEQA requires an initial review of the project and its environmental effects to be identified and addressed. De ending on this initial analysis, a further and more substantial review may be required th ough either a mitigated negative declaration MND) or an environmental impact repo EIR). Under CEQA, a proposed project may not be approved as submitted if feasible Iternatives or mitigation measures are able to reduce the significant environmental eff cts of the proposed project. Thus, the environmental review of the proposed project must b completed prior to the agency's decision, in order to influence the proposed project's plans Or design. 6. Which types of utility projects need to go through the CEQA proces$? The CPUC regulates investor-owned telecommunications, electric, natural gas, and water utilities operating or wishing to operate in California. The CPUC must mply with the requirements of CEQA when it approves any requested utility action tha may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable in irect change in the environment. See the answer to FAQ No. 3, above, for further discussio on this issue. 7. What role can the public play in determining how a utility's propos reviewed during the CEQA process, and whether or not a CPCN is project is ego ranted? The CPUC's CEQA and CPCN processes are two distinct processes that run in parallel to each other during the CPUC's consideration of the CPCN application. December 2006 I Page 3 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALI ORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS The CEQA process was established based on the belief that citizens hol a privileged position in the public agency planning process and can make important ontributions to environmental protection. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, t ere are many opportunities for public participation and comment during the CEQA process, including public participation in the development of the CPUC's CEQA strategy a d alternatives to the project that may be studied this is the CEQA scoping" process), an the development and issuance of the final environmental documents public comments, both written and oral, are taken during the development of the draft and final environmental dc cuments). A simple step-by-step explanation of this CEQA process, described within the context of a CPCN proceeding, is available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/env ironment/cpcnprocess.doc. As set forth in the step-by-step guide described above, the CPCN proces is separate from the CEQA process. Participation in the CPUC's CPCN process requires formal intervention in the proceeding, and may involve the filing of expert witness testimony. Intervenor compensation is available to parties who wish to participate in the CPC portion of the CPUC's decision-making process, provided they make a significant contribution to the proceeding that does not duplicate the work of other parties. Additional information about this process and the availability of intervenor compensation is available hrough the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office and at the following link: htt p://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/aboutcpue/divisions/csid/public+W visor/ ublic artici pation.htm See also the answer to FAQ No. 8, below regarding the assistance provided by the Public Advisor's Office. 8. Can I get assistance with determining the steps I need to take to have my voice heard through the CPUC's CEQA or CPCN processes? The CPUC Public Advisor's Office provides procedural information an advice to groups and individuals who want to comment or advocate positions in the CPU s formal proceedings. The Public Advisor's staff helps answer questions, locate nformation, or refer callers to the appropriate staff person. The Public Advisor's staff also a tends community functions and assists the public in participating in CPUC proceedings, and town hall meetings, etc. You may contact the Public Advisor's Office at: CPUC Public Advisor, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103, San Francisco, CA 94102; or call 866) 849-8390 or 415) 703-2074; or e-mail pub] ic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. Additional information regarding the CPUC's Public Advisor is available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/aboutcpuc/divisions/csid/public+4dvisor/ December 2006 Page 4 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS 9. Who is responsible for CEQA compliance and enforcement? It is each government agency's obligation to ensure compliance with CE agency fails to comply with CEQA, the public may enforce compliance the courts. Attorney fees and costs may be available to those who are su enforcing CEQA through the courts. 10. What is a Negative Declaration? How does that compare with a Mit Declaration MND)? How are those different from an Environment, Em)? The CEQA analysis of a project will result in either an Environmental 11 a Mitigated Negative Declaration MND), or a Negative Declaration N An Environmental Impact Report EIR) is prepared when the public ager evidence that supports a fair argument that the project may have a signify environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration MND) is prepared for a project when identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: 1) revi: plans or proposals would avoid the effects to a point where clearly no sig the environment would occur; and 2) there is no substantial evidence th, revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is prepared when an agency finds that there is n( evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment. 11. What is a lead agency"? or Who prepares the environmental analy Under CEQA, the lead agency is the California government agency that responsibility for carrying out or approving a project; the lead agency is responsible for preparing the environmental study. The lead agency dec Negative Declaration, MND, or EIR will be prepared, and determines th of that document. Where the CPUC is the lead agency on a project, the environmental consultants to assist in the preparation of the environmen 12. What is a significant effect on the environment? A. Where the ith CEQA through cessfulin gated Negative t Impact Report pact Report EIR), cy finds substantial ant effect on the the initial study ions in the project nificant effect on Lt the project, as substantial is? las the principal he agency des whether a scope and content PUC hires al studies. The CEQA Guidelines 14 California Code of Regulations) 15382 def ne a significant effect on the environment' as: a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. December 2006 Page 5 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3 ??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALIF RNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a ignificant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. Please see the answer to FAQ No. 13 for additional information on the i~sue of significant impacts. 13. If there is a significant environmental impact does that mean that th built? No. When an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse environment, the agency must respond to the information by one or morf methods: 1) changing the proposed project; 2) imposing conditions on project; 3) adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of prc adverse changes; 4) choosing an alternative way of meeting the same n( disapproving the project; or 6) finding that changing or altering the proj and that the need for the project overrides the unavoidable significant en it will cause. 14. What role do the Department of Fish and Game and other state ages knowledge and jurisdiction) have in the CEQA process? or What is Trustee Agency? In addition to the Lead Agency that prepares the environmental documel Responsible and Trustee Agencies. A Responsible Agency includes any other than the Lead Agency, which has discretionary approval power ov CEQA Guidelines 15381. A Trustee Agency is a state agency having j over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for th of California. See CEQA Guidelines 15386. Trustee agencies include Department of Fish and Game, the State Lands Commission; the State I; and Recreation; and the University of California. The Lead Agency mu Responsible and Trustee Agencies in the development of the environme: can include pre-application consultation, and must include sending the f Project and draft EIRs to these agencies so that they can provide comme content of the environmental document. 15. Does the CPUC ever share the lead with another agency to do a CE Under CEQA, any agency other than the Lead Agency that has responsi out or approving a project is known as a Responsible Agency". A resp should actively participate in the Lead Agency's CEQA process, review CEQA document, and use the Lead Agency's CEQA document when m; the project. project can't be hanges in the of the following the approval of the jects to avoid the ed; 5) ect is not feasible vironmental damage cies with relevant a Responsible or t, there are public agency, r the project. See urisdiction by law e people of the State the California epartment of Parks t include atal document. This rmal Notice of nts on the scope and A analysis? ility for carrying onsible agency the Lead Agency's king a decision on December 2006 Page 6 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALI ORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS 16. Are electric and magnetic fields EMFs) considered in the CPUC's CJEQA process? The Commission first established EMF policies in D.93-11-013. In its r cent review of EMF issues, the Commission stated in D.06-01-042 that, at this time w are unable to determine whether there is a significant scientifically verifiable relations ip between EMF exposure and negative health consequences." It affirmed in D.06-01-04 that the Commission's EMF policy is one of prudent avoidance, with applicatio of low-cost/no-cost mitigation measures to reduce EMF exposure for new and upgraded utili transmission and substation projects. The Commission has adopted a benchmark of 4% o total project cost for low-cost EMF mitigation measures, with flexibility to allow expendi res above the 4% benchmark if justified by a project's unique circumstances. In D.06-01- 42, the Commission stated that, as a guideline, low-cost EMF mitigation measu es should reduce EMF levels by at least 15% at the utility right of way. As a general rule, an EIR will provide information regarding EMF assoc ated with a proposed project. However, it does not consider magnetic fields4 in the ontext of CEQA and determination of environmental impact because there is no agreement among scientists that EMF creates a potential health risk, and there are no defined or ado ted CEQA standards for defining health risk from EMF. Under the Commission's rules, the utility must include, in its application, a description of the measures taken or proposed by the utility to reduce the potential exposure to EMFs generated by the proposed facilities General Order 131-D, Section X.). In D.06-01-042 the Commission directed the utilities to hold a worksho to develop standard approaches for EMF Design Guidelines that meet the Commis ion's low-cost/no- cost policies. This workshop was held in the spring of 2006 and the E F Design Guidelines are a result of that workshop. The guidelines describe the routine magn tic field reduction measures that all regulated California electric utilities will consider for new and upgraded transmission line and transmission substation projects. The EMF Desig Guidelines are available at: htt //www.c uc.ca. ov/static/ener /environment/electroma tic+fields/index.htm Decision No. 06-01-042 is available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/documents/index.htm 4 Because electric fields are shielded effectively by materials such as trees and walls, the emphasis in our consideration of EMF is on exposure to magnetic fields. December 2006 1 Page 7 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S CALI ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS 17. How can I learn more about CEQA? Additional information about CEQA, including the text of the law and t Guidelines is available at: http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/ RNIA text of the CEQA December 2006 1 Page 8 of 8 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??California Public Utilities Commission The Certificate of Public Convenience and Ne Application Process for Utility Construction P A Step-By-Step Guide essity ojects Utility files CPCN application A utility files an application with the CP C for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CPCN) to construct a ansmission line, substation, gas storage facility or a water facility. The CPCN applic tion will include a proponent's or applicant's) Environmental Assessment PEA) The need for the project may be based on economic, reliability, or renewable goals, or any combination of the three. Parties respond or protest Parties generally respond to or protest an application within 30 days of the filing of the application, or as set by the assigned Administrative Law Judge ALJ). CPUC staff review application CPUC staff review the CPCN application, and the PEA, for completeness and notify the utility-applicant of whether the application is complete, or identify any deficiencies with the application within 30 day of the filing date. Application deemed complete Once deficiencies have been corrected, PUC staff sends a letter to the applicant deeming the application complete." ALJ holds a prehearing conference At any time after the filing of the PCN application, the ALJ may schedule a pre-hearing conference to discuss issues such as the proper scope of the proceeding, discovery rules, the service list, and he schedule for the proceeding. Notices of Intent to Seek Compensation Qualified groups or individual planning to seek intervenor compensation must file and serve a notice within 30 day of the prehearing conference. Discovery- Parties may engage in discovery; written data requests are the most common method of discovery in CPUC proceedings. Often, the ALJ, A signed Commissioner, or the full Commission will set limits on the time for dis overy. Scoping Memo Some time after the prehearing conference, the Assigned Commissioner issues a written ruling defining the issues the Commissio will consider in the proceeding, and setting the schedule. Initial environmental study When it is not clear whether the Commission must issue either an environmental impact report or a negative declaration under C QA, CPUC staff will first prepare an initial study. When it is clear that the Commission must issue an environmental impact report, the staff can skip this step. If the roposed project involves federal land, the CPUC may develop a joint CEQA/NE A environmental document with the relevant federal agency. Public environmental review process begins CPUC environmental review staff and their consultants conduct public scoping meetings to help identify the rage of actions, alternatives, environmental effects, methods of assessment, and mitigation measures that the Commission will evaluate in its environmental revie process. Page 1 of 3 0 tober 2006 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3?? Draft EIR issues CPUC environmental staff issues a draft environmental impact report EIR) for at least 45 days of public comment. The CPUC usually sponsor public meetings in the area of the project during the comment period. Testimony served Parties serve expert witness testimony on parties to the proceeding to address the issues within the scope of the proceeding, including the need for the project and alternatives to the project. Evidentiary hearings If there are disputed facts, the AU holds evidentia hearings where parties may cross examine the experts who filed testimony. Briefs filed At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearings, parties file briefs and, often, reply briefs) regarding the conclusions the CPUC should reach in t e proceeding. In opening briefs, parties offer arguments to support their positions, citing applicable facts that have been offered in evidence and received b the Commission, as well as citing applicable law, and referring to prior Commission decisions that may be informative. In reply briefs, parties are limited to p inting out errors of law or fact in the opening briefs provided by other parties. Final EIR issues CPUC environmental review staff issues a final EIR, addressing the public comments made on the draft EIR. Proposed decision mailed The AU writes the proposed decision based o the record in the proceeding and the Commission distributes it to parties. Individual Commissioners have the option of preparing proposed decisions of their wn, called alternate decisions. If the Assigned Commissioner wishes to sponsor an alternate, he or she must mail it at the same time as the proposed decision. Parties have an opportunity to file comments on the proposed and alternate decision(s). Commission vote The AU may amend the proposed decision in response to comments received. Similarly, a commissioner offering an alternate may amend it. No sooner than 30 days after the CPUC mails the proposed decision to ta parties, the CPUC commissioners may vote on the decision. The Commission may r ject or accept a proposed or alternate decision in its entirety, or change it in any way consistent with the law and evidentiary record. Private or ex parte" communications in CPCN proceedings The ALJ wi 1 not entertain any communication involving substantive issues in the proceed ng that is not made either in a properly-noticed public hearing or in the form of sanctioned written pleadings that are simultaneously provided to all parties. As a general rule, if the CPCN proceeding is categorized as rate setting," as most are) a pa seeking an ex parte communication with a commissioner must first receive the Commissioner's consent, and then serve a notice of the meeting on all parties several day in advance. The party must also file and serve a written report of the communication within three working days. All other parties then have the right to a follow-up meetin of equal length to discuss the same issues. A Commissioner's advisor can receive an ex parte communication, and if within three working days, the party sends a notice to all parties describing the discussion. For additional information regarding the CPUC's rules regarding ex parte communications with decisionmakers, please re er to the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 7 and 7.1, available at www.epuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/RULES PRAC PROC/46095.htm. Page 2 of 3 October 2006 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Recommended Resources California Statutes available at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html o Statutes related to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessi CPCN) California Public Utilities Code Sections 1001-1005.5 o California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. See also: http://ceres.ca. og v/cega/ o Permit Streamlining Act California Government Code Sections 6 920- 65963.1 o CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Cha ter 3 Recent CPUC Transmission Line decisions Specific CPUC decisions ay be located by decision number on the CPUC's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/documents/index.htm o Jefferson-Martin, D. 04-08-046 o Valley-Rainbow, D. 02-12-066 o EMF issues, D. 06-01-042 o Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS) need determination, D.04-06 010 CPUC General Order 131-D Rules Relating to the Planning and Construction of Electric Generation, Transmission/Power/Distribution Line Facilities an Substations Located in California" available at www.cpuc.ca. gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/5 89.PDF CPUC General Order 159-A Rules Relating to the Construction of C mmercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities in California" available at httD://www.cDuc.ca.Rov/Published/GraDhics/61 I.Ddf CPUC CEQA requirements Information and Criteria List" availabl at www.epuc.ca.gov/static/energy/enviromnent/infocrit.htm CPUC Guide to Public Participation" available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/REPORT/46182.htm CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure available at www.cpue.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/RULES PRAC PROC/46095.htm CPUC Executive Director's Statement Establishing Transmission Pr ject Review Streamlining Directives available at http://www.epuc.ca.gov/static/energy/environment/index.htm Questions? Contact the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov or 415) 703-2074 or toll free at 866) 849 8390; TTY 415) 703-5282 or TTY toll free at 866) 836-7825. Page 3 of 3 C ctober 2006 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??California Public Utilities Commission The Certificate of Public Convenience and Ne essity Application Process for Utility Construction Transmission Projects A Step-By-Step Guide OVERVIEW: The California Public Utilities Commission's CPUC) review of transmissi~ n line applications takes place under two concurrent and parallel processes: 1) environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Qt ality Act CEQA), and 2) review of project need and costs pursuant to Public Utilities Code ections 1001 et seq. and General Order G.O.) 131-D. The environmental review process is administered by CPUC staff, and invites broad public participation through scoping meeting(s) and written comment per ods. The review of project need and costs is administered by an Administrative La Judge ALJ) and is subject to compliance with the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Participation in the review of the project need and costs is limited to offic al parties. For this reason, we sometimes refer to this part of the proceeding as the for al" part of the proceeding. These two review processes converge at the conclusion of the environm ntal review when the CPUC staff submits its final environmental report into the form I proceeding. Depending upon the impacts of the proposed project, the final environmental document may be either an Environmental Impact Report EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration MND) or a Negative Declaration ND). Based on the information gener ted during both the environmental review process and the formal process of determining need and costs, the CPUC may approve the utility's proposed project, an alternate project, or no project. This step-by-step-guide describes how the CPUC reviews a transmissio line application when it decides to prepare an environmental impact report. Page 1 of 7 1 August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Any person may participate in the environmental review of a proposed pr ject. This participation can include attending a project scoping meeting and providing oral comment at all public meetings and providing written comments on the d aft environmental documents as described in the table below. However, in order to participate in the formal part of the proceeding administered by an ALJ), a person must become a party" under Rule 1.4 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure'. Any person not a party to the proceeding may also provide oral comment at public participation hearings held as part of the formal proceeding. STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE: Application Filed with the CPUC: The utility files an application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CPCN) for facilities 200 kilovolts kV) and above or a Permit to Construct PTC), for facilities between 50 kV to 200 kV The application will include the utility's Proponent's Environmental Assess ment PEA) focusing on the proposed project's environmental impacts along with pplicant proposed mitigation measures and alternatives to the project. The a plication identifies the utility's preferred project alternative; however, the CPU may approve the proposed project, an alternative to the proposed project, or no pro ject. The filing of the Application triggers the start the two review processe s. SUMMARY OF REVIEW PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NEEDICOST RE VIEW Completeness Review CPUC staff Protests/Responses fil d Pursuant to review the filed application and the PEA, G. O. 131-D, XII protest to the for completeness. Within 30 days of the application are due withir 30 days after filing date, staff either deem the the notice was mailed or ublished. application complete or notify the utility of any deficiencies. Once deficiencies are Prehearing conference PHC) If it is corrected, CPUC staff sends a letter to preliminarily determined hat an the applicant deeming the application evidentiary hearing is ne ded, or if complete. protests are filed, the Ad iinistrative Law Judge ALJ) will conduct PHC to Initial Study When it is not clear identify the issues to be ddressed in the whether CEQA requires an EIR or a proceeding, determine w ether MND, an Initial Study is prepared to evidentiary hearings are eeded, and to determine which is appropriate. discuss the schedule for he proceeding Unless otherwise specified, all references to CPUC Rules are to the CPUC's Rules Procedure available on the CPUC's website at: http://docs.cpue.ca.gov/published/RULES-PRAC-PROCr7O731.htm 2 The public comment period may be longer if the document is a joint environmental d under both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA). Page 2 of 7 Practice and cument prepared August 2008 m BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Public Workshops CPUC transmission and environmental permitting staff may meet with the public to explain the CPUC and CEQA processes, the purpose of these processes, and how they are interrelated. This would normally occur before the Notice of Preparation is mailed out. Notice of Preparation NOP) and Comment on the NOP If it is determined that an EIR is required, CPUC staff will issue a NOP to request agency and public comment on the scope and content of the EIR and to notice the time and location of scoping meetings for public participation. Agency Consultations and Public Scoping Meetings CPUC transmission and environmental permitting staff meet with other agencies and the public to get their input into the proposed project route and/or facility sites as well as any alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, input is sought on project issues, impacts, and mitigation measures for the project. Public scoping meetings are typically held within 30 days of the issuance of the NOP. Scoping comments are due 30 days after issuance of the NOP. Draft EIR CPUC staff issues the Draft EIR which assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives, identifies mitigation measures for each significant impact, and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. The public comment period on the Draft EIR is usually 45 days2. Public Meetings on Draft EIR During and other procedural matters. Scoping Memo After th PHC, the Assigned Commissioner i sues a scoping memo determinin the issues, schedule and other proce ural matters for the proceeding. Hearings and Briefs Pi written testimony, cross-e: witnesses at evidentiary h written briefs, and appeal decision. rties file amine arings, file my final Evidentiary hearings wil generally be limited to matters other th in the environmental issues add essed in the CEQA process and will b held no sooner than after the Dra EIR issues. If evidentiary hearings are et, the schedule will generally provide for prepared testimony to be sled by the parties, with the evidentia hearings limited to cross-examinati n of witnesses sponsoring the written to timony. Whether or not evidentiary hearings are set, the schedule will gen rally provide for the filing of briefs byte parties. The AU may hold one or more public participation hearing(s) in the communities affected by he project to allow for comments from embers of the public who are not partie in the proceeding. Transcripts rom these hearings are available to he five Commissioners, and Commissioners may attend these public articipation hearings. Page 3 of 7 1 August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??the public comment period, public meetings are held to discuss the results of the Draft EIR and how to comment on the Draft EIR. Comments on Draft EIR Interested persons may submit written comments on the Draft EIR within the specified public comment period. Final EIR The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the public's comments on the Draft EIR, is prepared and submitted into the formal record of the proceeding. Proposed and Alternate Decisions Once the two review processe s, as described above, have concluded, the ALJ prepares a proposed deci sion PD) which includes information from the Final EIR regarding the proposed proje t, project alternatives, impacts, and mitigations. The assigned Commissioner may concurrently prepare and issue an alternate decision to the PD. Onc the PD and any Assigned Commissioner alternate have been issued, other Com missioners may subsequently issue alternate decisions. All CPUC decisions, whethe r a PD or an alternate, must be based upon the evidentiary record, which include the Final EIR and the testimony of the parties from the filed testimony and evidenti ry hearings. Comment on Proposed and Alternate Decisions Most PDs and Iternate decisions are subject to 30 days of public review and comment befor e the CPUC may vote on them. CPUC Vote The CPUC votes on the PD and any alternate decision s) at a public business meeting after the period for public review and comment has passed. Page 4 of 7 August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Recommended Resources California Statutes available at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html o Statutes related to Certificates of Public Convenience and Nece$sity CPCN) California Public Utilities Code Sections 1001-1005.5 o California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) California Public esources Code Sections 21000, et seq. See also: htt://ceres.ca_ ov/ce a/ o Permit Streamlining Act California Government Code Sections 65920- 65963.1 o CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chopter 3 Recent CPUC Transmission Line decisions Specific CPUC decisions may be located by decision number on the CPUC's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/documents/index.htm o Jefferson-Martin, D. 04-08-046 o Valley-Rainbow, D. 02-12-066 o EMF issues, D. 06-01-042 o Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS) need determination, D.04- CPUC General Order 131-D Rules Relating to the Planning and Construction of Electric Generation, Transmission/Power/Distribution Line Facilities a 0d Substations Located in California" available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/589.PDF CPUC General Order 159-A Rules Relating to the Construction of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities in California" available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/Graphics/611.pdf CPUC CEQA requirements Information and Criteria List" available a www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/environmentlinfocrit.htm CPUC Guide to Public Participation" available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/REPORT/46182.htm CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/RULES PRAC PROC/46095.htm CPUC Executive Director's Statement Establishing Transmission Project Review Streamlining Directives available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/environment/index.htm Page 5 of 7 1 August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3?? Questions? Contact the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at public. advisora-cpuc.ca.gov or 415) 703-2074 or toll free at 866) 849-8390; TTY 415) 703-5282 or TTY toll free at 866) 836-7825. Recommended Resources California Statutes available at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html o Statutes related to Certificates of Public Convenience and Nece sity CPCN) California Public Utilities Code Sections 1001-1005.5 o California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. See also: http://ceres.ca.gov/ce a/ o Permit Streamlining Act California Government Code Sections 65920- 65963.1 o CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Ch pter 3 Recent CPUC Transmission Line decisions Specific CPUC decisio is may be located by decision number on the CPUC's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/documents/index.htm o Jefferson-Martin, D. 04-08-046 o Valley-Rainbow, D. 02-12-066 o EMF issues, D. 06-01-042 o Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS) need determination, D.04- 6-010 CPUC General Order 131-D Rules Relating to the Planning and Construction of Electric Generation, Transmission/Power/Distribution Line Facilities and Substations Located in California" available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/589.PDF CPUC General Order 159-A Rules Relating to the Construction of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities in California" available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/Graphics/611.pdf CPUC CEQA requirements Information and Criteria List" availabl at www.cipuc.ca.gov/static/energy/environment/infocrit.htm CPUC Guide to Public Participation" available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/REPORT/46182.htm CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/RULES PRAC PROC/46095.htm CPUC Executive Director's Statement Establishing Transmission Project Review Streamlining Directives available at hftp://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/environment/index.htm Page 6 of 7 August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3?? Questions? Contact the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at public. advisor(aD-cpuc.ca.gov or 415) 703-2074 or toll free at 866) 8 415) 703-5282 or TTY toll free at 866) 836-7825. 9-8390; TTY Page 7 of 7 August 2008 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??EXHIBIT C BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??PROPONENT'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE COASTAL WATER PROJECT PROCEEDING A.04-09-019 Cal #ornia Pubfic iJ#tl ties Commission 505 V'et'; Nes enue Coniact: Andrew Ba rlsdale fi 41,.3;322. t California American Water Californ Am ric n Water 5 1 agsdaie Drive; i fe f 0#? Mon erey, A 93 40 Contact: Steve Leonard, General lanaer 837 646 3214 max R nsu1#rnr, f var t PE, ro e t ljl~ alter 8' f 884.242 Q05 Califorrii Ametican eater, BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Coastal Water Project 1-Executive Summary Proponent's Environmental Assessment 1.1.4 Purpose and Need The primary purpose of the Project is to replace 10,730 AFY that CAW historically pumped from the Carmel Valley Aquifer to comply with Order 95-10. In addition, the Project would replace water presently pumped by CAW from the Seaside Basin Basin) by 1,000 AFY and thereby reduce the overpumping in the Basin. Other purposes to be met by the Project include: Reduce the weather dependence of the Monterey Peninsula potable water supply from 100% today to less than 20% when the Project is completed. The Monterey Peninsula's coastal location makes it both highly vulnerable to frequent low rainfall and drought conditions. Complete the investment in a balanced water portfolio for CAW's service territory on the Monterey Peninsula, which already includes surface water supplies, groundwater supplies, recycling, conservation, and reclamation of water resources. A diverse portfolio will enable CAW to draw upon each element of the portfolio as necessary to meet the service requirements of its customers at the lowest overall cost. Reduce groundwater pumping from the Seaside Basin as part of an overall effort to achieve a sustainable level of water production from the Basin by all of the pumpers extracting water from the Basin. Reduce pumping from the Carmel Valley Aquifer, which will contribute to the environmental restoration of the Carmel River watershed. Locate, design, construct, and operate a desalination project in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental effects at all phases in the project's life cycle. Protect the local economy from adverse effects of an uncertain water supply, such as building moratoria and water rationing. Minimize rate increases for CAN s customers. 1.1.5 Summary of Alternatives Five alternatives to the Proposed Project were analyzed in detail as part of preparation of this PEA: Alternative 1 Regional Alternative). The Regional Alternative would supply up to 20,272 AFY of water for both CAW and the neighboring communities: The exact ownership, governance, and size of the Regional Alternative would be determined by the participants. However, the Regional Alternative could satisfy Order 95-10, the Proposed Project's stated purpose and need, and also meet the water supply needs of some of the northern Monterey County communities. The roles and responsibilities of public and private entities in the financing, design, construction, and operation of the Regional Alternative have not yet been defined, but could entail CAW partnering with Monterey County or other participating public agencies. As discussed further below, the Proposed Project and Regional Alternative require essentially the same facilities, with slightly larger sizes and capacities for the Regional Alternative, depending on its ultimate configuration. The primary differences between potential impacts of the Regional California American Water 1.0-4 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Coastal Water Project 1-Executive Summary Proponent's Environmental Assessment Alternative, and the Proposed Project relate to brine disposal and an increased water supply. Refer to Section 3.4 Regional CWP Option) for additional discussion. Alternative 2 Over-sized Pipeline Alternative). This Alternative would have all of the same features as the Proposed Project, except that the raw source water, product water, and brine return pipelines are slightly larger. Instead of a 30-inch transmission pipe from the Moss Landing desalination facility to the CAW service territory on the Monterey Peninsula, this Alternative would have a 36-inch transmission pipe. In addition, the source water pipeline from MLPP would be increased from 54 inches to 72 inches. Refer to Section 3.5 Alternative 2 Oversized Pipeline Alternative]) for additional discussion. Alternative 3 MLPP HDD Intake Alternative). This Alternative would utilize Horizontal Directional Drilling HDD") intake wells as feedwater supply for the desalination project located at Moss Landing. The HDD wells themselves would be located south of Moss Landing Harbor at the Salinas River State Beach parking lot facilities and the seawater would be transported to the Moss Landing desalination facility via a pipeline. Refer to Section 3.6 Alternative 3 MLPP HDD Intake Alternative]) for additional discussion. Alternative 4 North Marina Site Alternative). The North Marina Site Alternative consists of locating the proposed seawater desalination facility in the City of Marina Sphere of Influence at Armstrong Ranch. This alternative could provide the necessary water supply to meet either the Proposed Project or the Regional Alternative water demands. The PEA includes a detailed evaluation of the North Marina Alternative Site, which includes HOD wells for source water intake and a brine disposal line to the MLPP outfall for brine discharge. This alternative also includes four power supply alternatives: the existing power grid, gas-fueled reciprocating engine generators, gas-fired turbine generators, and gas-fueled direct engine drives. Refer to Section 3.7 Alternative 4 North Marina Site Alternative]) for additional discussion. Alternative 5 No Proiect Alternative). This PEA evaluates the potential effects, beneficial and adverse, associated with not implementing the Project, including effects on water supply, coastal communities, and the environment. The No Project Alternative comprises continuing to implement existing programs to conserve and recycle water. The No Project Alternative does not meet CAW's basic project objective of satisfying the requirements of SWRCB Order 95-10, as it fails to provide a reliable drought-proof water supply for CAW customers. Refer to Section 3.8 Alternative 5 No Project Alternative]) for additional discussion. 1.1.6 Project Phasing The Project would be built in a coordinated construction cycle that would simultaneously move the project forward in a timely manner and minimize any adverse impacts on the physical environment associated with the seasons of the year. In addition, some aspects of the Project e.g., the ASR components) would be built at an accelerated rate because those components are easier to build and can achieve some of the Project benefits sooner. Since the ASR component of the Project could be implemented ahead of the desalination facility, the ASR could begin storage and recovery of water supplies before building the desalination facility and associated conveyance facilities. California American Water 1.0-5 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Coastal Water Project 1-Executive Summary Proponent's Environmental Assessment 1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Section 5 Detailed Environmental Analysis) includes a detailed discussion of environmental impacts associated with the Project. Issues associated with the Proposed Project and its alternatives will be the subject of public hearings and public testimony before the CPUC. CAW has held numerous public meetings since 2004 to provide information on the Project and to begin to identify issues that may be raised during the formal CPUC public comment process. Several areas of controversy may arise during the CPUC public comment process, including: Water rate increases due to the cost of the Project; and Impingement and entrainment impacts of the currently permitted once-through cooling water system of MLPP. It is possible that, through the permitting and political process, Alternative 1 Regional Alternative) could be selected in place of the Proposed Project. The Regional Alternative may have. additional areas of controversy that do not apply to the Proposed Project, such as growth inducement. 1.4 MAJOR ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The selection of specific pipeline alignments and facility locations are issues to be resolved. This PEA has evaluated several pipeline alignment alternatives and or facility location study areas in sufficient detail to allow implementation of any of the identified alternatives. As part of the typical refined analyses that occur in final design, variations to these alternatives may be developed. California American Water 1.0-51 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The California American Water CAW) is proposing to implement the Coastal Water Project Proposed Project), which includes the construction and operation of a seawater desalination plant near the Duke Energy Moss Landing Power Plant MLPP), and related appurtenances i.e., water transmission facilities, aquifer storage and recovery facilities, storage reservoirs, and booster pump stations) ASR). The Project facilities would generally be located in coastal Monterey County, as shown on Figure 3-1 Regional Vicinity Map) and Figure 3-2 Project Location Index Map), and as described further in Section 3.2 Project Location). CAW has prepared this Proponent's Environmental Assessment PEA) for the Project, as part of its application to the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CPCN), in accordance with CPUC regulations as described in Section 2.3.1 CPUC CEQA Compliance]). The CPUC project application A.04-09-019), Concept Design Report, and related materials have been submitted to the CPUC under separate cover. Additional project information can be found at the project website: www.coastalwaterproiect.com. The Project PEA evaluates the Project and alternatives as summarized below, and describes the alternatives screening and selection process. Section 9 Alternatives Considered but not Advanced) discusses additional alternatives considered but rejected from detailed evaluation in this PEA. 3.1.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING AND SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT" As discussed further in Section 9 the fundamental concept of the Proposed Project resulted from an extensive screening analysis of long-term water supply components as part of the CPUC's Plan B" process, which resulted in carrying forward a seawater desalination plant at Moss Landing and ASR facilities. Section 9 also describes the various design alternatives that were rejected from further consideration. The following alternatives were selected for detailed evaluation in this PEA primarily in Section 5 Detailed Environmental Analysis]) for the reasons noted below. Proposed Project: The Proposed Project would be implemented by CAW to provide 11,730 acre-feet per year AFY) of water for CAW to replace a portion of its Carmel Valley Aquifer withdrawals and 1,000 AFY of what CAW presently withdraws from the over drafted Seaside Basin. The project would respond directly to the directive of the State Water Resources Control Board SWRCB) Order 95-10 that CAW secure a water supply to replace 10,730 acre-feet per year of withdrawals from the Carmel Valley Aquifer, and is consistent with the CPUC's previous Plan B alternative long-term water supply studies. Refer to the preceding Section 2 Introduction) and to the following Section 3.3 Description of the Proposed Project) for additional discussion. The Proposed Project is considered a refinement of and preferable to the Plan B concept, as described further in Section 9.3 Background). California American Water 3.0-1 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3 ??Coastal Water Project 3.0 Project Description Proponent's Environmental Assessment Alternative I Regional Alternative): The Regional Alternative would supply up to 20,272 AFY of water to both CAW and the neighboring communities. The exact ownership, governance, and size of the Regional Alternative would be determined by the participants. However, the Regional Alternative would satisfy Order 95-10 and the Project's stated purpose and need, and would also help to meet the water supply needs of some Northern Monterey County communities. The roles and responsibilities of public and private entities in the financing, design, construction, and operation of the Regional Alternative could entail CAW partnering with Monterey County or other participating public agencies. As discussed further below, the Proposed Project and Regional Alternative require essentially the same facilities, with slightly larger sizes and capacities for the Regional Alternative, depending on its ultimate configuration. The primary differences between potential impacts of the Regional Alternative and those of the Proposed Project, which are addressed in this PEA, relate to brine disposal and an increased water supply. Refer to Section 3.4 Alternative I Regional Alternative]) for additional discussion. Alternative 2 Oversized Pipeline Alternative): This alternative is essentially the same as the Proposed Project, providing for 11,730 AFY of replacement water, except that the raw source water, product water, and brine return pipelines are slightly larger than for the Proposed Project. Alternative 2 would allow the Proposed Project to proceed as described above, with a 10MGD desalination plant, while providing slightly larger pipelines to accommodate potential future needs. Under Alternative 2, the desalination plant source water pipeline would be increased in diameter from 54 inches to 72 inches, and the Desalinated Water Conveyance System DWCS) product water pipeline would be increased in diameter from 30 inches to 36 inches. The primary pump station would not need as much horsepower due to the larger pipelines. Refer to Section 3.5 Alternative 2 Oversized Pipeline Alternative]) for additional discussion. Similar to Alternative 1, this is not part of the Proposed Project, as it is not a necessary element to achieve Project objectives; also the additional pipeline capacity may create public and/or agency concerns relative to growth, as well as require increased capital investment with currently undefined local agency participation. Alternative 3 MLPP HDD Intake Alternative): This alternative would be similar in many respects to the Proposed Project, except that the desalination plant source water would come from two clusters of horizontal-directionally drilled HDD) wells a type of beach well") located near the coast south of Moss Landing Harbor. The HDD wells draw seawater through the sandy ocean floor and pump the water to the desalination plant. This alternative would not require MLPP intake system access, but would still require access to the MLPP outfall pipe for brine disposal. Refer to Section 3.6 Alternative 3 MLPP HDD Intake Alternative]) for additional discussion. This Alternative is not proposed as the Project due primarily to engineering feasibility uncertainties for HDD systems of this size and application, as well as additional concerns regarding proximity of HDD wells to the coastal dunes and State parks. California American Water 3.0-2 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3!??Coastal Water Project 3.0 Project Description Proponent's Environmental Assessment 3.3.6.3 Desalination Plant Operation and maintenance personnel at the site would continuously monitor the seawater desalination facility, and would be present at the location 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Their duties would include: Monitor chemical flows to the various processes, water flows into and out of the various processes, equipment operating parameters e.g., pressure, temperature, and flow rates), and various other continuous operations; Maintain, update and order chemicals and equipment to meet operational requirements; Prepare monthly records and reports to comply with requirements of local, State, and Federal agencies; Routinely maintain daily, monthly, and yearly) equipment in accordance with manufacturers' requirements, and provide equipment maintenance for emergency situations and/or breakdowns. 3.4 ALTERNATIVE I REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE) The Regional Alternative would supply water for CAW's customers and some of the neighboring coastal communities. The potential ownership, governance, and size of the Regional Alternative would be determined by the participants. The governance of the Regional Alternative could entail a private-public partnership of CAW, Monterey County and/or other public agencies. 3.4.1 COMPONENTS The Regional Alternative includes Components 1 and 2 of the Proposed Project and Regional Components 3, 4, and 5; refer to Table 3-4 Regional Alternative Water Supply). The purpose of the Regional Alternative is to help to meet the water needs of the Monterey Peninsula and neighboring coastal communities. Moss Landing and North Monterey County NMC) demands 1.3 mgd) would be supplied directly from the desalination plant. For the Castroville Water District CWD) and Marina Coast Water District MCWD), supply flows would be conveyed by the DWCS Pipeline. Capacities of the Regional Alternative as presented in Table 3-4) are in addition to capacities required for the Proposed Project also shown in Table 3-4). As discussed further below, the actual physical facilities would be very similar to the Proposed Project, although the Regional Alternative facilities would be slightly larger to accommodate increased flows. Component 3 includes water to help address the future water needs of the cities and the unincorporated parts of the County that are within CAWs service area in the Monterey Peninsula. The water demand of this component was estimated by Monterey County Water Resource Agency MCWRA) through a survey conducted by MPWMD. Component 4, the Marina Coast Water District MCWD) water needs is based on a preliminary survey conducted by MCWRA, per discussions with MCWD. California American Water 3.0-56 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3"??Coastal Water Project Proponent's Environmental Assessment 3.0 Project Description Component5, water needs of Moss Landing, North County, and Castroville is based on a preliminary survey conducted by MCWRA. Table 3-4 REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY Component Description Supply AFY) 1 Carmel River Replacement CAW 10,730 2 Seaside Aquifer Replacement CAW 1,000 Subtotal 11,730 3 Additional Elements from MPWMD within CAW service area) City of Monterey 766 City of Seaside 406 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea 405 City of Sand City 300 City of Pacific Grove 531 City of Del Rey Oaks 197 Unincorporated Areas of County 893 Monterey Peninsula Airport District 74 Subtotal 3,572 4 Marina Coast Water District 2,400 5 Moss Landing, North County and Castroville Moss Landing 70 North County 1,500 Castroville Water District 1,000 Subtotal 4,970 Total Project Capacity 20,2722 CAW California American Water; AFY acre-feet per year. 2 The Regional Alternative water demand figures indicated above were developed by local agencies with the exception of Components 1 and 2), and have been utilized by CAW in Regional Alternative analysis and discussions with various stakeholders. These water demand estimates are preliminary, are presently under review for updating by MPWMD and MCWRA, and may change, depending on which agencies may participate in the Regional Alternative. Refer to Section 8 Indirect Effects) for a detailed discussion regarding assumptions and implications of Regional Alternative demand Components 3-5. As shown in the following sections, the Regional Alternative involves essentially the same facilities as the Proposed Project, but with larger sizes and capacities, with the difference depending on its ultimate configuration. 3.4.2 FACILITIES The Regional Alternative would use existing and proposed facilities. The types of facilities for the Proposed Project and the Regional Alternative would be the same, but the size and capacity California American Water 3.0-57 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3#??Coastal Water Project Proponent's Environmental Assessment 3.0 Project Description of the facilities would generally be larger. The major elements of the Regional Alternative are the desalination plant at Moss Landing, desalinated water conveyance facilities, and ASR facilities. Table 3-5 regional Alternative Facilities Summary) summarizes the size and characteristics of proposed facilities for the Regional Alternative. Other than differences in size and characteristics, the descriptions of the facilities would be the same as those described for the Proposed Project in Section 3.3 Description of the Proposed Project). Table 3-5 REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES SUMMARY Facility Quantity Size / Characteristics Desalination Plant: Source Water Pipeline 7,000 LF 72-inch diameter Return Flow Pipeline 8,000 LF 30-inch diameter Equalization Basin 1 8.4 MG Plant Inlet Pump Station 1 42 mgd, TBD installed) Pretreatment System 1 42 mgd, membrane filtration Reverse Osmosis System 1 18 mgd, membranes Post-Treatment System 1 Lime and carbon dioxide Desalinated Water Conveyance: Clear Well 2 2 MG each) Desalinated Water Pump Station 1 12,500 gpm 2,250 HP installed) Desalinated Water Pipeline 96,000 LF 36-inch diameter Terminal Reservoir 2 5 MG each) Tarpy Flats Pump Station 1 12,200 gpm, 1,250 HP installed) ASR Systems: ASR Pipeline 10,000 LF 30-inch diameter ASR Pump 1 150 HP installed), 4,400 gpm ASR Wells 3 800-ft. depth; 2.1-mgd injection; 4.3-mgd recovery Segunda Standby Pump 1 2,300 gpm, 200 HP Segunda Pipeline 28,000 LF 30-inch diameter LF linear feet; MG million gallons; mgd million gallons per day; HP horsepower; gpm gallons per minute. 3.4.3 CONSTRUCTION METHODS Project construction activities associated with the Regional Alternative would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project in Section 3.3.5 Construction Methods). California American Water 3.0-58 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3$??Coastal Water Project 5.3-Filter Backwash Solids Disposal Proponent's Environmental Assessment solid waste disposed at the Marina Landfill of only 1.5 percent and other area solid waste facilities have the capacity to absorb additional solid waste, Project landfill impacts would be less than significant. 5.3.2.1.2 Alternative I Regional Alternative) For Alternative 1, the same processes as used in the Proposed Project would still be necessary, and most Project impacts would be similar to those of the Proposed Project and would have no significant impact. Landfill Under Alternative 1, approximately 73% more fresh water would be produced compared to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, approximately 73% more residual materials would be produced. Thus, approximately 8.6 tons per day of screenings would be produced by microfiltration; 1.72 tons per day of solid waste would be produced from the coagulation and/or flocculation process; 1.87 tons per day of solid waste would be produced from precoat filters; and approximately 73% more cleaning chemicals would be used. Project-generated wastes would be treated and disposed of as discussed in Section 5.3.2.1.1 for the Proposed Project. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the production of approximately 13.5 tons per day of solid waste 4,939.4 tons per year). Three permitted landfills are located within 50 miles of Moss Landing. The Marina landfill is the most likely disposal site for Project-generated solid waste, as it is only 8.5 miles from Moss Landing. According to the IWMB 3 SWIS, the Marina landfill has a permitted capacity of 1,200 tons per day. However, according to the Monterey County General Plan Update, January 2004 Draft, Appendix B Capital Improvement Program), the Marina Landfill receives only 528 tons/day. Thus, the Marina Landfill currently has an additional daily capacity of 672 tons/day. Additionally, the Marina Landfill has an estimated life of 87 years. According to the same sources, the Crazy Horse Landfill receives 900 tons/day although the IWMB SWIS does not provide permitted daily capacity data) and the Johnson Canyon Landfill receives 425 tons/day. Solid waste would likely be hauled off-site to the Marina landfill via trucks using SR-1 and SR- 156. The Project proposes a new rail spur that may also be used to transport solid waste to regional solid waste facilities. As the Project would generate an increase of solid waste disposed at the Marina Landfill of only 2.6 percent and other area solid waste facilities have the capacity to absorb additional solid waste, Project landfill impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than significant. 5.3.2.1.3 Alternative 2 Oversized Pipeline Alternative) For Alternative 2, the residuals stream would be the same as for the Proposed Project. Alternative 2 would not affect the amount of product water produced or the quality of the raw water used. Therefore, the residuals stream would be the same as that of the Proposed Project, and the resulting impacts would not be significant. 3 California Integrated Waste Management Board Solid Waste Information System Database, www.ciwmb.ca.gov, accessed May 5, 2005. California American Water 5.3-8 July 14, 2005 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3%??PROPOSED DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE SOURCEWATER PIPELINE RETURN FLOW PIPELINE ASR SYSTEM PIPE ALTERNATIVES DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE SOURCEWATER PIPELINE RETURN FLOW PIPELINE STATE HIGHWAY 1 ASR WELLS' MINAL R SERVOIR~ and A PUMP STAB IONp= MOSS LANDING SITE FI~JRE::6A WN TER ATIINN', ALTER TV0,7 1 SITE u. COASTAL WATER PROJECT FIGURE 3-25 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES INDEX MAP M!Y.WSt8\10103579GSlfqure 3-5.n d BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3&??WESTEFl,(,ALI0F4MENT, EAST,E N.A 1 SNMENT FP)L/:A::i-'? s T 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1" 2000' AARM'ITIE 4RTIPN Jun 15, 2005 OUTFALL EASEMENT OPTION,, D PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE pl SOURCEWATER PIPELINE SOURCEWATER PIPELINE RETURN FLOW PIPELINE RETURN FLOW PIPELINE ASR SYSTEM PIPE COASTAL WATER PROJECT FIGURE 3-26B PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES 3110111!11 MWI). 9~I1) IW COMB U LTINO u1 W601YY~~%Jl ua su s~z ul.uawn ner.w. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3'??A |1013| rqy G ITE OPTION Cry 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1 2000' 11 Jun 15, 2005 a PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES C DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE rn SOURCEWATER PIPELINE SOURCEWATER PIPELINE d J RETURN FLOW PIPELINE RETURN FLOW PIPELINE ASA SYSTEM PIPE Q COASTAL WATER PROJECT FIGURE 3-26C PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES no uuw wow.sunt a CONSULTING u, v] YNWN fiIIFdY]U]ai]] D1t]FAM U].O].9M]-wIMFa- BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3(??EXHIBIT D BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3)??LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Facsimile 479 Pacific Street, Suite 1 831) 373-0242 Monterey, California 93940 March 16, 2010 Hand Delivery Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board Marina Coast Water District 11 Reservation Road Marina, California Telephone 831) 373-1214 Subject March 16, 2010 Board Meeting Agenda; Proposed Action on Item 9-C Does Not Comply with CEQA; Coastal Water Project EIR Does Not Comply with CEQA; Illegal Piecemealing of Environmental Review; Potential Takings Claim Dear President Nishi and Members of the Board: This Office represents the Ag Land Trust, which owns property that would be affected by the proposed Regional Project. See attached figure A.) The Ag Land Trust was formerly known as the Monterey County Agricultural and Historic Land Conservancy. On the Board's March 16, 2010 agenda, item 9-C proposes that the Board take action to commit the Marina Coast Water District to the proposed Regional Project. That action purports to be based on the California Public Utilities Commission's Environmental Impact Report EIR) for the Coastal Water Project. The Ag Land Trust urges the Commission not to take the proposed action for many reasons. 1. The impacts to the Ag Land Trust property have not been adequately identified, disclosed or investigated. As the Ag Land Trust predicted would happen in the Ag Land Trust's December 16, 2009 letter to the CPUC, the Marina Coast Water District plans to use the CPUC-certified EIR to approve and commit to one of the project alternatives, thereby taking away the authority of the CPUC to select a project based on the EIR. The CPUC is not scheduled to select one of the three projects analyzed in the EIR in until May 2010 or later. Before the CPUC certified the EIR, the Public had inadequate time to review the El R, which is over 3,100 pages and is not available in hard copy anywhere in Monterey County. The Public was told that the EIR certification would be considered in January 2010. The certification was expedited to December 2009 with inadequate notice to the Public. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3*??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 2 The EIR is deeply flawed. The CPUC certified the Final EIR exactly as it was released, without correcting key flaws identified by the public. The Marina Coast Water District should not rely on the CPUC's flawed EIR. 5. The Marina Coast Water District, not the CPUC, is the lead agency on the Regional Project. Before the MCWD commits to purchasing the land for the Regional Project components, or takes other action to commit itself to the Regional Project, the MCWD must prepare and certify a legally adequate EIR. The Projects Evaluated in the EIR. The Regional Project is the third of the three projects analyzed in the EIR. The two projects included in the CPUC's Notice of Preparation, dated September 29, 2006 were the Cal Am Moss Landing Project and the Cal Am North Marina Project. The Regional Project was not included in the CPUC's Notice of Preparation. Later, the Regional Project was added to the EIR scope without a revised Notice of Preparation, in violation of CEQA. The Regional Project is significantly different from the two Cal Am projects in scope, location, impacts, project proponents, and other significant matters. CEQA imposes requirements regarding 1) the time at which a project is defined and 2) the breadth of the definition. Because the EIR is intended to inform an agency's decision regarding the project, CEQA requires that ajn accurate, stable and finite description" of the project be established early enough in the planning stages of the] project to enable environmental concerns to influence the project's program and design, yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment." Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 738].) To enhance protection of the environment, CEQA defines project" broadly to encompass the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." Guidelines, 15378, subds. a), c).) This definition precludes piecemeal review which results from chopping a large project into many little ones-each with a minimal potential impact on the environment which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.'" Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano 1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 370, quoting Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. 1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.) In this case, the late addition of the third project to the two Cal Am projects meant that the project description was not fixed, stable or finite. The actions proposed by the local agency proponents of the Regional Project are not fully disclosed or identified in the EIR. There is great certainty about the future activity proposed. The scope of the Regional Project is huge, and will have significant environmental effects. The CPUC-prepared EIR fails to adequately encompass the BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3+??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 3 known and reasonably foreseeable actions related to the proposed Regional Project. Numerous significant aspects of the Regional Project have not been included in the EIR scope. As the Ag Land Trust Predicted in December 2009, As Soon as the CPUC Certified the EiR, the Local Agencies Are Acting to Commit to the Regional Project. The Local Agencies Are Jumping Ahead of any CPUC Decision on the Cal Am Projects. The Ag Land Trust's December 2009 letter to the CPUC predicted that as soon as the CPUC certified the EIR, the local public agencies that are the proponents of the Regional Project would rely on the EIR to approve the Regional Project on an expedited basis. The local agencies did not advise the public or the CPUC of their intentions, but this approach was evident from the local agencies' documentation, including the MCWD's request to bifurcate the CPUC's EIR certification from any project approval by the CPUC. Before the CPUC certified the EIR, the Regional Project proponents had already determined that the EIR was inadequate as to specific known potential impacts, including land acquisition, annexation, and brine disposal. As an example, given one EIR omission, the Marina Coast Water District was planning its own environmental review of the purchase of land envisioned for the desalination plant, and annexation of that land into the MCWD boundaries. As another example, given another EIR omission, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency planned to issue a supplemental environmental document to address brine disposal. In other words, the local agencies intended to be under way with implementing the Regional Project, making meaningless the CPUC's future scheduled action to select a project. That is exactly what has happened. The local agencies are not subject to CPUC authority. The local agencies are seeking grant funding which would provide project financing, and also other public financing mechanisms. Once a local agency commits to or approves the Regional Project, the CPUC would not be able to rely on its certified EIR to select either of the two projects proposed by Cal Am. The reason is because for the CPUC to select either of the Cal Am projects would mean the CPUC would be allowing a second project to be built, in addition to the Regional Project. The EIR does not evaluate the environmental impacts of two projects being built. The EIR addresses the impacts of only one project being built. If a local agency commits to or approves the Regional Project first, as they plan to do, and as the MCWD intends to do tonight, then when the CPUC in May 2010 considers selecting a project, the CPUC would be unable to rely on its own EIR to select a project because the EIR does not envision two projects being built. A second project would have significant cumulative and growth-inducing impacts that have not been analyzed in the CPUC's EIR. For one or more local agencies such as the MCWRA to commit to or approve the Regional Project would render essentially moot BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3,??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 4 the expensive and time-consuming CPUC EIR process paid for by the Cal Am ratepayers. MCWD ratepayers are not Cal Am ratepayers. The Cal Am ratepayers are on the Monterey Peninsula. The Marina Coast Water District Is the Lead Agency for the Regional Project Under CEQA, lead agency" is defined as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." Pub. Resources Code, 21067, italics added.) The CPUC is not the appropriate lead agency for the Regional Project, because the CPUC cannot certify an EIR for a project over which the CPUC has no jurisdiction. Further, the CPUC would have no role in approving or carrying out the desalination plant, the source water wells and pipelines, or the brine disposal, which are the principal facilities of the Regional Project. The local public agencies would carry out and approve the Regional Project. Therefore, under CEQA, the lead agency should be a local agency. The lead agency for the Regional Project should not be the CPUC. Because MCWD is proposing to be the first agency to act to commit to the Regional Project, it is the lead agency. As lead agency and project proponent, MCWD bears responsibility for assessment of the project's environmental effects. The desalination plant would be owned and operated by the Marina Coast Water District MCWD), a local public agency. MCWD has the principal responsibility for approving and carrying out a project to acquire a water supply for its service area. The land on which the Regional Project desalination facility would be located would be owned by the MCWD. MCWD would own many of the Regional Project facilities, including the critical desalination plant and water transmission pipelines, the storage facilities, and appurtenant facilities. MCWD facilities at the Armstrong Ranch location would include the following: a pretreatment system, a reverse osmosis treatment system, a post-treatment system, a return flow pipeline to return brine and spent backwash water to the outfall line, chemical feed and storage facilities, and non- process facilities including an administration and operations building, laboratory facilities, chemical buildings, pump housing, parking lot, access roads, power generators, and an electrical building. MCWD alone would make the decision to proceed with the desalination plant and related facilities. Without the desalination plant, the entire Regional Project would fail. The Regional Project pipelines through which the desalinated water would flow would go from the MCWD-owned desalination plant to MCWD customers through the MCWD distribution system within the MCWD boundaries. MCWD alone would decide whether to accept that desalinated water. MCWD alone would decide whether to pass on the Regional Project costs to MCWD ratepayers. That desalinated water would be BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3-??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 5 added to the MCWD water supply that the MCWD currently pumps unsustainably from the deep aquifer below Marina. The desalinated water from the MCWD desalination plant would also go to new MCWD customers in the former Fort Ord. The Regional Project desalinated water that is intended to go to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District would flow through pipelines that run through the MCWD service area. Monterey County Water Resources Agency MCWRA) would own and operate the wells. The brine disposal would be through facilities owned by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency MRWPCA). The Regional Project would be funded using bonds, certificates of participation, grants, or another funding mechanism that is available only to public agencies like MCWD and MCWRA. These funding mechanisms are not necessarily available to private for-profit corporations like Cal Am. As the Court of Appeal has held in addressing the issue of the lead agency, Our threshold question here is which agency has the principal responsibility for the activity." Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Recreation and Park District 1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 419, 427.) The specific facts of a case determine who is lead agency. Id., at p. 428.) The Legislature enacted CEQA in 1970 as a means to force public agency decisionmakers to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. 21000, 21001; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors 1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 254-256, criticized on another ground in Kowis v. Howard 1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 896.) CEQA and its Guidelines Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15000 et seq.) constitute a comprehensive scheme to evaluate potential adverse environmental effects of discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. 21080, subd. a); Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta 1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 437.) The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.' Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California 1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390, quoting Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 259.) The issue here is which public agency] was the public agency required under the act to evaluate potential adverse environmental effects of this activity. Or, using the BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3.??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 6 applicable terms of art under CEQA, the issue is whether the District was the lead agency." Friends of Cuyamaca Valley v. Lake Cuyamaca Recreation and Park District, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th 419, 426, internal parallel citations omitted.) Under CEQA, a local agency must be lead agency for the Regional Project due to 1) the CPUC's lack of jurisdiction over the Regional Project's primary components, 2) the local agencies' ownership interests in the proposed desalination plant, source wells and pipeline, and brine disposal, and 3) the local agencies will be the first to act on the project approvals see FEIR Figure 5-6 and presentations attached to this letter for reference). The CPUC cannot act to approve the Regional Project. Further, the CPUC has not acted to select or reject any of the three projects. As of now, the Regional Project has not been approved by any agency. There is no approved project. Therefore, under CEQA, MCWD cannot be a responsible agency. If the Marina Coast Water District acts as proposed by staff, it would be acting as the lead agency on the Regional Project. MCWD is a proponent of and project applicant for the Regional Project. The MCWD would be the first local agency to act on the Regional Project, and is acting to approve a significant component of the project: the desalination plant, with planned use of land and facilities for appurtenant and integrated regional project uses. MCWD would also carry out the Regional Project, or a very significant and critical part of it: the desalination plant and integrated uses. In contrast, the CPUC has not proposed or applied for the Regional Project. The CPUC has not even approved it, nor can it approve it, because the CPUC does not have jurisdiction over MCWD or MCWRA or MRWPCA, all of which are local public agencies. In contrast, the CPUC has statutory authority over Cal Am Water, a private corporation that distributes water. The MCWD's approval of the proposed purchase agreement is a project in that it is an irrevocable step entailing the MCWD's entitlement for use. The theoretical possibility that the MCWD might decide not to proceed does not retroactively turn a project into a nonproject. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. 1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 278-279.) For these and other reasons, the Marina Coast Water District is the lead agency on the Regional Project. In approving tonight's proposed action, the MCWD would violate CEQA. The MCWD must first certify a legally adequate EIR on the Regional Project, as lead agency. For many reasons, the MCWD as lead agency cannot make the required findings to certify the CPUC-prepared EIR as MCWD's own EIR tonight. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3/??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 7 The EIR Discussion of Lead Agency" is Inconsistent and Misleading. The EIR does not clearly present this issue. Instead, the EIR discussion of agency roles under CEQA is inaccurate and fails to disclose the material facts or the issues. The EIR lacks the required comprehensive discussion of the issues to inform the public and decisionmakers. At best, the EIR creates a significant ambiguity, which is insufficient to satisfy CEQA's mandates. The EIR repeatedly describes the CPUC as the lead agency, and the local agencies such as the MCWD. MCWRA, and MRWPCA) as responsible agencies e.g., FEIR Master Response 13.3). The EIR does not directly address whether those roles would be different for any of the project alternatives. Instead, in discussing the Regional Project, the EIR merely alludes to the CPUC as not having direct authority or jurisdiction over the project proponents. The EIR never addresses a key CEQA issue: that the CPUC is not the lead agency for the Regional Project. The EIR never identifies which agency would be lead agency for the Regional Project. The EIR never carefully analyzes the key issues. Under CEQA, the lead agency plays a pivotal role in defining the scope of environmental review, lending its expertise in areas within its particular domain, and in ultimately recommending the most environmentally sound alternative. Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources 2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 904, quoting Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737.) In fact, the CPUC does not have the requisite expertise. The CPUC admitted it has never before done an EIR on a desalination water supply project. The CPUC's project planner, Andrew Barnsdale, is not in the CPUC's water division; he is on loan from the CPUC's Energy Division for the sole purpose of processing the Coastal Water Project EIR. Other key CPUC players, Jensen Uchida and Sean Gallagher, are also from the Energy Division. Under CEQA, when a project involves two or more public agencies, ordinarily only one agency can serve as the lead agency. Guidelines, 15050, 15051.) CEQA distinguishes lead agencies from responsible agencies: whereas the lead agency has principal responsibility" for the project, a responsible agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." Pub. Resources Code, 21067, 21069.) The CEQA guidelines provide that when a project involves two or more public agencies, the agency carr[ying] out" the project shall be the lead agency even if the project is] located within the jurisdiction of another public agency." Guidelines, 15051, subd. a).) Under these principles, courts have concluded that the public agency that shoulders primary responsibility for creating and implementing a project is the lead agency, even though other public agencies have a role in approving or realizing it. MCWD primarily will carry out the project, as will MCWRA. By acting first, the MCWD is the lead agency for the Regional Project. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?30??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 8 MCWD is better positioned than the CPUC to assess the environmental impact of the Regional; Project. Although the CPUC may have a role in the future, such as cooperating in the implementation of the Regional Project by giving Cal Am a Certificate of Public convenience and necessity CPCN) for the transmission pipelines to supply desalinated water to the Monterey Peninsula, MCWD is the project's prime mover. Moreover, because MCWD ratepayers within MCWD boundaries would receive the underlying water from the Regional Project, the project's principal impacts tend to fall within MCWD's service area. MCWD is the public agency with principal responsibility for carrying out the Regional Project. MCWD's preeminent role regarding the Regional Project renders it the logical choice for lead agency, in view of the Regional Project's scope. The wrong lead agency taints the entire EIR process, is inherently prejudicial, and compels a fresh start with an appropriate lead agency. The CPUC-prepared EIR is defective in this critical respect and its inadequate EIR cannot be relied upon on this basis alone, as well as for the other reasons identified in this letter. The CPUC is invested by law with the responsibility for regulating private water companies like Cal Am throughout the state. The CPUC has no regulatory authority over the Marina Coast Water District or the Monterey County Water Resources Agency or the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. The decision to make the CPUC the lead agency was made in 2003, when only the Cal Am desalination projects were proposed. See attached CPUC Decision 03-09-022, dated September 4, 2003.) The Regional Project did not come along until five years later, and was envisioned as an alternative to be considered and evaluated on that basis. After the introduction of the Regional Project, the lead agency determination was never revisited, and the Notice of Preparation was not revised and recirculated. The CPUC Decision Has Factual Inaccuracies. Perhaps as a result of the EIR's confusing discussion, the CPUC decision to certify the EIR contains important ambiguities and highlights its omissions. For example, the decision states that Phase 2 of the Regional Project is not subject to the CPUC's approval at this time. Decision, p. 19.) However, the decision fails to clarify that Phase 1 of the Regional Project is also not subject to the CPUC's approval either now or in the future because the project proponents are not subject to CPUC jurisdiction. The project proponents the local public agencies can and plan to approve and carry out the Regional Project without CPUC involvement. The CPUC decision includes findings that are not authorized by CEQA, and proposed an order for which the CPUC had no authority. The Order states that the EIR is certified for use by responsible agencies in considering subsequent approvals of the project, or for portions thereof." Decision, p. 24.) The CPUC did not have authority BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?31??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 9 to make that order, and no supporting reference is provided. If local agencies approve the project or project components first, before the CPUC does or can, then the first local agency to act becomes the lead agency under CEQA. See City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board 1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960; Citizens Task Force on Sohio v. Bd. of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach 1979) 23 Cal.3d 812.) The CPUC clearly envisioned that the public agency decisions would be subsequent" to the CPUC action to select one of the three projects. The MCWD action proposed tonight is prior to any such CPUC action, not subsequent to it. The decision adopted by the CPUC also asserts p. 20) without legal support that the lead agency must find that the document was or will be) presented to the decisionmaking body for review and consideration prior to project approval." There is nothing in CEQA that requires a finding that the document will be" at some unidentified future date presented to the decisionmaking body. Such a finding is both misleading and confusing. There is no evidence that the CPUC decisionmaking body actually reviewed and considered the EIR before certifying it. Further, with regard to the Regional Project, the CPUC has no authority over what documents will be presented to the decisionmaking bodies of local agencies who will act on Regional Project components. As another example, the finding of fact #1 critically omits the fact that the CPUC is not the lead agency for review of the Regional Project alternative. The CPUC has no authority over the local agencies who are the proponents of that project. The decision is also inaccurate in other key respects, including the claim that the FEIR states that the Monterey Peninsula has experienced seawater intrusion for decades. The Monterey Peninsula has no documented problems with seawater intrusion. Throughout this proceeding, the lack of familiarity with the on-the-ground conditions has been a significant problem. The Final EIR Is Deeply Flawed and Does Not Comply with CEQA. After the Notice of Preparation was released in 2006, the project description changed dramatically from to the Draft EIR to the Final EIR. This violates the basic CEQA tenet that an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 32nd Dist. Agric. Assn. 1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 938.) Here, the changes from the Notice of Preparation, to the Draft EIR, to the Final EIR have violated this basic principle. As one example, a project alternative the Regional Project) that was not proposed to be built by the project applicant Cal Am) and was not subject to the CPUC's jurisdiction was added after the E1R was under way. Under the circumstances, the EIR's inclusion of the Regional Project was highly unusual and not adequately explained in the EIR, either substantively or procedurally. Other examples of the significant EIR flaws are provided here. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?32??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 10 Lack of Compliance with Monterey County Code that Requires a Desalination Plant to Have a Contingency Plan for an Alternative Water Supply and a Cross Connection Control Program: The EIR fails to disclose Monterey County's requirement that each desalination plant include a contingency plan for an alternative source of water supply and a cross connection control program Monterey County Code, Ch. 10.72, attached for reference). The code requires that a permit be obtained for all desalination facilities 10.72.10), and states that the permit application shall include: A] contingency plan for alternative water supply which provides a reliable source of water assuming normal operations, and emergency shut down operations. Said contingency plan shall also set forth a cross connection control program. Monterey County Code, 10.72.020.F.) None of the three proposed projects includes a contingency plan for alternative water supply" or a cross connection control program." As proposed, the City of Marina and the majority of the Monterey Peninsula population would rely on the project for their water supply. If that supply fails, either for a short term or for a long term, the community will not have a water supply. The EIR does not analyze the projects' inconsistencies with the County requirement for a contingency plan for an alternative water supply which provides a reliable source of water assuming normal operations, and emergency shut down operations, and that sets forth a cross connection control program. In response to the comment that the project should include an operations plan and a contingency plan, the EIR merely states comment noted." FEIR, G-SVWC-13 and response thereto.) That is an inadequate response under CEQA The EIR omission is significant due to CEQA's requirement that in order to fulfill CEQA requirements, environmental review is mandated at the earliest possible stage." Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Corn., supra, 13 Cal.3d 263, 282.) By failing to identify this County requirement and by failing to include consideration of the required contingency plan for an alternative water supply in the project description, the EIR is piecemealing the environmental review, because such a plan for a reliable alternative supply is required. As the agency that would own and operate the Regional Project's desalination plant, Marina Coast Water District cannot commit to the project until it has analyzed this required contingency plan as part of the project. The proposed action tonight would commit the MCWD to the Regional Project. The EIR omission is also significant due to the magnitude of the health and safety risk to the community which the County Code intends to address. See attached BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?33??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 11 County documentation supporting the creation of Chapter 10.72.) Desalination plants have a very poor record of operations and maintenance. There is no record of any desalination plant of any significant size, such as proposed here, operating for any reliable period of time in the United States. The very few that have been constructed have had very serious design, construction, operation and maintenance issues. None has ever operated reliably at full capacity. For this reason, the success of each of the three proposed projects including the Regional Project is pure speculation. If, as proposed, the vast majority of the Monterey Peninsula population and all of Marina including residents, industry and businesses rely on the desalination plant for their water supply, and the supply stops, or is interrupted, there would be very significant impacts and risks to public health and safety. Further, there is no successful track record of any similar size plant in the United States. For all these reasons, this is a very significant issue that the EIR was required to address, but failed to do. Given the known impacts on the Carmel River and Seaside Aquifer from the current pumping, and the disclosed impacts of the proposed Cal Am projects and the Regional Project, it is likely that any required alternative source of supply would have significant environmental impacts. None of these impacts is identified or discussed in the EIR. Incorrect and Misleading Statements: The EIR contains incorrect and misleading material statements. The inaccuracies extend to basic information about the current environmental setting. For example, section 1.6, Project Setting pp. 1-7 and 1-8) contains significant misstatements of fact. No support is provided for these misstatements which include 1) the claim that the MCWRA is a primary custodian of water supplies in North Monterey County when in fact, MCWRA is not a water supplier and, critically, does not have appropriative rights), 2) the claim that the Salinas Valley Water Project will stop seawater intrusion and provide adequate water supplies to meet current and future 2030) needs" in fact, the MCWRA Curtis Weeks) and the SVWP EIR admit that the SVWP may not achieve those goals), and 3) the claim that the San Clemente Dam is the major point of surface water diversion from the Carmel] river when in fact the San Clemente Dam provides no water supply because it is fully silted up and is proposed to be removed). These three examples early in the EIR set the stage for the myriad errors and misrepresentations that permeate the EIR document. There are many other problems which the public has been unable to present because of the expedited schedule. As another material example, the EIR incorrectly identifies and discusses Zone 2C in a way that is misleading to the public and to decisionmakers. See, e.g., FOR, p. 6.2-16.) Zone 2C is not a groundwater scheme. It is not a geographical feature. Zone 2C is a zone created on paper solely for the purposes of tax assessments, and delineates the boundary of the area that would purportedly benefit from and therefore BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?34??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 12 be assessed for the Salinas Valley Water Project, which is a surface water project. The distinction is critical. Failure to Adequately Analyze Potential Environmental Impacts of Project: Failure to Adequately Describe or Analyze Environmental Setting: Failure to Adequately Describe or Analyze Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts: These failures take many forms. As one significant example, the FEIR fails to adequately disclose that the local agencies' hybrid Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project RUWAP) would produce up to 3,000 AFY, which is expected to be online between 2008 and 2015. The EIR describes the RUWAP as producing only 1,000 AFY. It fails to identify or investigate the additional 2,000 AFY of RUWAP supply that is currently under active implementation, and that would be provided to the MCWD and the Peninsula. As a result, the EIR fails to adequately analyze the potential growth-inducing environmental impacts of the proposed projects, fails to adequately describe or analyze environmental setting, and fails to adequately describe or analyze cumulative impacts. See attachments for further documentation of the hybrid RUWAP project currently under way by local agencies.) Failure to Adequately Investigate or Disclose Brine Disposal Impacts: The EIR fails to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed ocean outfall disposal of the brine that would be produced by the desalination plan. As one material example, the Regional Project proposes to use the treated water wastewater outfall owned by the MRWPCA. Studies indicate that MRWPCA's outfall capacity may not be available for all outfall flow conditions. It is unknown whether the outfall could accommodate all outfall operating parameters if the Regional Project is built. It is foreseeable that brine discharge would exceed outfall capacity during high-flow periods. There is no analysis of the availability of wastewater for the various demands of multiple projects. It is foreseeable that if all wastewater is used for disposal and brine dispersion, that commitment would cause significant impacts on the RUWAP which uses recycled water from the MRWPCA) and the Ground Water Replenishment project that is an essential part of the Regional Project. The EIR fails to disclose or investigate these issues or their potential significant impacts. The EIR fails to investigate important issues including: the capacity of the existing outfall to accommodate increased brine flow; the potential sacrifice of outfall capacity allocated for future development in the area in favor of allocating unused capacity for brine; minimization of stormwater capacity in the outfall and how this might be mitigated e.g., storage tanks, ASR well, if mitigation is even possible, etc.); or blended water quality in light of applicable water quality parameters, including NPDES discharge limits for TDS. Further, the EIR fails to adequately describe or investigate the fate of desalination-facility cleaning chemicals and other project waste streams. This is not new information. It has been openly and publicly discussed since at least early 2008. See February 20, 2008 report to MPWMD, attached.) BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?35??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 13 The local agencies have acknowledged that the CPUC's EIR does not adequately address brine disposal through their own actions to address the omission. Even before the comment period on the CPUC's Draft EIR closed, one agency had already begun to prepare a separate environmental review of brine issues that should have been included in the CPUC's EIR. This fractured approach to environmental review of project components is piecemealing, which is prohibited by CEQA. The local agency's work is intended to allow the local agencies to move ahead with the Regional Project without the active involvement of the CPUC, and even if the CPUC intends to select a different project of the three analyzed in the EIR. Piecemealing of Project Review: Another example of the EIR's inadequacy and piecemealing is the project description's failure to include the known cogeneration facility that is part of the project. That facility has been proposed at least since 2008, before the Draft EIR was released. See attached references, including March 2009 presentation by Curtis Weeks of Monterey County Water Resources Agency.) As a result of this failure, the EIR fails to analyze the potential environmental impacts of that facility. The very brief EIR discussion FEIR pp. 5-45 and 5-46) contemplates the new facility, but defers analysis to a future date. The new facility is foreseeable and would be built as part of the Regional Project, to enable the project. The environmental analysis should not have been deferred, and should have been included in the FEIR. Unanalyzed Impacts on Overdrafted North County Aquifers: The FEIR claims the modeling" indicates there will be no impacts of pumping 24,000+ AFY out of the 180-foot aquifer. However, a review of the well locations upon which the EIR modeling is based shows that none of them are located within any of North County's hydrological subareas.' For this reason, the wells could not show impacts to North County wells, because that information was not part of the model. The Salinas Valley Water Project was approved by the voters based on claims that it would improve the North County aquifers, which are uphill from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Several times, MCWRA general manager Curtis Weeks has publicly described that claim by likening the basin to a bathtub into which North County aquifers run, and when the water level of the bathtub increases, the aquifers do not run downhill to the same extent. Here, the EIR fails to analyze whether the pumping of 24,000+ AFY or 88,000 AFY, as is foreseeable on the North County hydrological subareas. EIR Relies on False Assumption: The EIR uses the modeling presented by the project proponents. According to the EIR, project proponent's Regional Project impact analysis relied on a modeling assumption that the SVWP Phase lI would be in place. This can be determined by reviewing the mapping of North County's subareas in relation to major roadways, and comparing that information to the figures showing well locations in the EIR appendices in relation to those same roadways. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?36??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 14 The SVIGSM modeling used to evaluate impacts of the Regional Project was based on a future baseline condition that assume complete implementation of Phase II of the SVWP. FEIR, p. 14.5-145.) However, it is unclear what the EIR means by the term Phase It of the Salinas Valley Water Project." It is not a term used by the SVWP EIR or the MCWRA, which is the proponent of the SVWP. A second SVWP phase is not proposed, approved, funded or built. The Salinas Valley Water Project EIR did not use the term Phase II," but it did envision an expanded distribution system to address the continuing water supply challenges in the Salinas Valley e.g., SVWP EIR, p. 2-294). Because the modeling of the SVWP indicated that the SVWP may not halt seawater intrusion, the MCWRA contemplated a future expanded distribution system. Presumably that future expanded system is what the CWP EIR means when it refers to Phase It of the SVWP." The SVWP EIR projected a cost of more than $40 million for this distribution system, which presumably voters would need to approve, just as voters were required to approve the initial SVWP phase currently under construction. Since then, every distribution scheme the MCWRA has discussed dwarfs the $40 million estimate found in the EIR. The CWP EIR describes what is calls Phase 11" of the SVWP as Increased diversion. Delivery could be directly to urban or could be expanded to CSIP with equivalent amount of pumped groundwater to urban." The CWP EIR also describes it as urban supply." FEIR, p. N-44.) The purported Phase II" is also addressed at page 6.2-18. It is unclear to which Regional Project phase the CWP EIR discussion applies. The EIR does not identify all of the assumptions used by the project proponents for their modeling, which is a significant concern. As a result, the public and the decision makers are not informed of the project proponents' assumptions, which can make a critical difference in the outcome of the modeling on which the EIR relied. The modeling and reliability is no better than the reliability of the underlying assumptions, and the assumptions are not adequately described. Inadequate Investigation and Disclosure of Impacts to Overlying and Adjacent Properties: The EIR does not adequately investigate or discuss the impacts on overlying or adjacent properties. For this reason, the EIR fails as an informational document under CEQA. The EIR even fails to clearly identify where the projects would be located, which is another aspect of the inadequate and changing project description. There is no reliable information as to where the wells or the pipelines would be located. Revised Figure 5-3 is the EIR's best depiction of the well and pipeline locations for the proposed seawater intake. The poster figure is a blurry generalized drawing. The figure fails to BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?37??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 15 identify the difference between the blue swath and the brown swath. The EIR does not identify property, parcels, or locations. The EIR inappropriately defers that crucial investigation to a future date, and does not contemplate further CEQA review of that information. That was verified by a member of the public on December 11, 2009, in email communications with the EIR preparer, Eric Zigas of ESA. This deferred analysis is inappropriate under CEQA for several reasons. As one example, it fails to adequately address and identify the potential environmental impacts on the properties or potential property rights or taking issues. The Ag Land Trust has identified potential impacts and issues several times in its communications with the CPUC, ESA, and local public agencies. It has not received any response other than a cursory and inadequate one in the EIR response to comments. The Ag Land Trust, which owns property underlying the blue swath on Figure 5-3, and possibly the brown swath as well, has important property interests at stake, but never even received notice from the CPUC, Cal Am, or the local agencies of the proposed certification of the EIR on December 17, 2009. The EIR claims that contacts were made with overlying landowners, but the Ag Land Trust was not contacted. See the attached figures to show the Ag Land Trust properties with respect to the proposed Regional Project.) In a related example, the EIR fails to adequately disclose or consider the projects' potential impacts on sensitive habitat. For example, the Martin Dunes property is included in the blue swath that identifies well locations and pipeline locations for the Regional Project see FEIR Revised Figure 5-3 and figures attached to this letter).' The Martin Dunes property contains one of California's most ancient and intact dune ecosystems. It is located south of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. At least six federally or state listed species are known to occur, at the site, including Western snowy plover, Smith's blue butterfly, Monterey spineflower, Monterey gilia, Menzies'. wallflower, and California legless lizard, as well as other special-status species. Maritime chaparral, which is also sensitive habitat, is also on the Martin Dunes site. The Martin Dunes are owned by the Big Sur Land Trust, which has made significant efforts to restore and protect the property and its resources. The North Monterey County Land Use Plan specifically addresses the site in several sections, including key policy 2.3.1, and specific policy 2.3.3.A.6, and recommended action 2.3.4.5, attached for reference. The EIR fails to identify or discuss these issues, which is a failure to adequate describe the environmental setting, as well as a failure to investigate potential 2 That figure is not specific as to parcels or properties. When mapping information was requested of the EIR preparer ESA, ESA responded was that there was no more specific information available for the project location other than as shown on Revised Figure 5-3. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?38??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 16 impacts. The EIR mitigations do not adequately mitigate for potential impacts. There are no mitigations to potential impacts on Western snowy plover, Monterey spineflower, Monterey gilia, Menzies' wallflower, and California legless lizard. Mitigation measure 4.4.1 a proposed for Smith's blue butterfly are inadequate, because it is permissive and not mandatory. Subsections 2) and 3) merely state that certain actions should" be made, without accountability by the project applicant or public agency if they do not happen, and without identifying the potential impacts if the actions are not taken. Further, FEIR Table 7-1 states that the expansion of the Salinas River Diversion Facility would be in Phase I of the Regional Project. Other parts of the FEIR show that the expansion is in Phase 2 of the Regional Project, FEIR Table 5-1 clearly shows the diversion facility in Phase 2. The internal inconsistencies in the EIR, like this one, make the EIR impossible to understand because the information cannot be reconciled. For this reason as well, the EIR fails as an informational document for the public and for decision makers. Separately, the EIR figures are inconsistent with project depictions presented prior to the CPUC's EIR certification to the local cities and agencies by Jim Heitzman, General Manager of MCWD and Curtis Weeks, General Manager of MCWRA. See attached December 9, 2009 powerpoint presentation.) These agencies are the ones who will be implementing the project. Because the EIR figures are inaccurate, that is another reason that the EIR fails as an informational document. The Regional Project Would Export Groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Which is Prohibited by Law. The MCWRA Act prohibits groundwater exportation due to concern about the balance between extraction and recharge" within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin MCWRA Act, 52-21; FEIR p. 4.2-28). The EIR does not dispute that the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is in overdraft and has been increasingly in overdraft for six decades, as shown by the steady inland progression of seawater intrusion. One of the three projects reviewed in the CWP EIR the Regional Project would pump groundwater directly from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Another of the projects the Cal Am North Marina project would pump groundwater indirectly. These two projects would violate the MCWRA Act because the project would extract groundwater and not recharge the basin. Instead, the groundwater would be put to use. The EIR claims that the amount of groundwater pumped would be returned in the same volume to the basin, either by providing the water for irrigation through CSIP the Cal Am North Marina project) or for consumptive use by MCWD customers the Regional Project). However, use of the returned" water for irrigation would allow only 50% of that amount to recharge the basin. The County uses a 50% return water factor for irrigation in its standard water calculations. Both of these two methods irrigation and consumption would violate the Act's requirement for a balance between BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?39??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 17 extraction and recharge" because any recharge of the basin would be much less than the amount extracted from the basin. Use of the pumped groundwater for MCWD connections would also violate the MCWRA Act, because such use results in far less than a 50% return to the basin, because much water is lost through irrigation and sewers. The EIR fails to adequately discuss these issues, impacts and inconsistencies. The proposed desalination project would export Salinas Valley groundwater to the Monterey Peninsula. The proposed way around the prohibition on groundwater exportation is to return" an annual average" to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin by placing it in the 80-AF CSIP pond for irrigation of Salinas Valley agricultural lands. There are multiple problems with the EIR's analysis. There is no question that Salinas Valley Groundwater would be exported to the Monterey Peninsula. Such groundwater would be pumped at unspecified- volumes" FEIR, pp. 4.2-50, 6.2-16), desalinated, and sent through the Cal Am pipes to the Peninsula. It is misleading for the EIR to claim that the groundwater would stay in the basin. The groundwater would be mixed with the seawater as it comes up the pumps, through the pipelines, and through the treatment plant. The groundwater molecules cannot be separated from the seawater molecules. The treated water would be a blend of both kinds of water, and that blended water would be exported to the Monterey Peninsula. The EIR does not describe how the annual average" will be calculated, or who will verify it. The proposed use of an average" means that in some years more water will be exported to the Peninsula than returned" to the Salinas Valley basin, which means that in those years the basin would be further imbalanced causing attendant harm) through the operation of the proposed project. The EIR fails to analyze this inconsistency with the MCWRA prohibition, and fails to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the scheme. The EIR analysis repeatedly uses the 85% seawater/15%o groundwater proportions. However, those proportions are projected only for the first 10 years FEIR, Appendix 0, p. 24). Further, there is no reliable factual source for the hypothetical 85%/15%a proportions, at any time, much less for the first 10 years. The EIR fails to adequately discuss or investigate whether the proposed actions are feasible or effective in future project years, when the proportions change significantly to 60% seawater and 40% groundwater, or what potential impacts those actions may have. For example, in the years when the 24,870-AFY of pumped water is 40% groundwater, that 40% would be 9,947 AFY of desalinated water that must be returned to the SVGB. The desalination plant is intended to produce 10,700 AFY, under full operating conditions. The Monterey Peninsula Cal Am system) will be depending on receiving 8,800 AFY of that amount during normal weather years. If 9,947 AF are returned to the SVGB, and Marina takes its 1,700 AF, that leaves only 553 AF for the Monterey Peninsula, far less BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3:??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 18 than it would be depending on. Even if Marina decides to pump from its unsustainable Deep Aquifer during that year, and thereby does not use its 1,700, that would leave only 2,253 AF for the Monterey Peninsula system, which is only a small fraction of Cal Am's needs under Order 95-10 and the Seaside Basin adjudication. This is a foreseeable scenario which the EIR fails to address. The EIR states that Salinas Valley groundwater extracted by the Cal Am North Marina project would be returned using the CSIP 80-AF pond FEIR p. 13.6-8). The EIR fails to investigate or explain whether the proposed return" method can be accommodated by the 80-AF pond in all years through the life of the project, for all volumes of foreseeable water, both in wet and dry years, and what the environmental impacts would be. The water returned" to the Salinas Valley would be surface water, and the recipients of that surface water may not have rights to that water. For the Regional Project, the EIR states that the pumped Salinas Valley groundwater would be delivered to the MCWD service area within the Salinas Valley basin FEIR p. 13.6-8). The EIR fails to discuss how the water in excess of the 1,700 AF required for use within the MCWD would be returned to the SVGB. In some years, the volume of the water to be returned would far exceed 1,700 AF. The EIR omits any analysis of whether adequate water rights are held by the proposed appropriator of the Salinas Valley groundwater for such actions. Under the predicted 60% seawater/40% groundwater scenario, in order to provide the 8,800 AF to the Monterey Peninsula Cal Am system), the intake wells would have to pump 88,000 AFY. Of that 88,000 AFY, the 40% to be returned to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin would be 35,200 AFY. Of that 88,000 AFY, the desalination plant would produce 44,000 AF of desalinated water. The proposed return" to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin would be 35,200 AF. Assuming the MCWD 1,700 AF is part of the amount returned to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, that would leave 8,800 AF for the Monterey Peninsula. The EIR fails to investigate this foreseeable scenario, or what the impacts would be of 88,000 AFY of pumping, or the fact that the desalination plant is not designed to process 88,000 AFY of untreated water or to produce 44,000 AF of desalinated water. And there is no discussion of whether returning 35,200 to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is feasible, or how it would be done. There is no question this foreseeable scenario would cause significant impacts, none of which has been addressed in the EIR. The EIR fails to analyze any potential impacts for the times when the EIR indicates that the proportions of the pumped water will be approximately 60% seawater and 40% groundwater. FEIR Appendix E and Appendix Q modeling shows TDS concentrations of from 21,300 mg/t_ to 34,500 mg/l- over a 56-year period].) The EIR fails to investigate whether the project would be able to pump or deliver sufficient water to provide 12,500 AFY to the Monterey Peninsula every year under the foreseeable BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3;??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 19 scenario requiring a return" of up to 40% of the pumped water to the CSIP or requiring the distribution of up to 40% to the MCWD service area within the Salinas Valley basin for years at a time. There is no evidence that there is current demand for 40% of the pumped water within that MCWD service area. Thus, at times, only 60% of the water would be available for export to the Monterey Peninsula, when that area requires and is planned to receive under the proposed project 85% of the desalinated water, assuming perfect and uninterrupted plant operations. The EIR fails to investigate or explain how the difference between the available desalinated water and the area's water demand will be met over the life of the project, and the potential impacts over time. The evidence is that the current MCWD demand within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is less than the 40% of the pumped water that would be delivered to that MCWD area. The EIR has failed to investigate or disclose the impacts of the forced delivery of that amount of water to that area. That forced delivery would foreseeably cause growth which has not been analyzed in the EIR. The Ag Land Trust raised these important issues in its December 16, 2009 comment letter to the CPUC. The CPUC has not responded to them. These significant impacts were not adequately identified or evaluated in the CPUC's EIR or in any environmental review since then. However, as shown by subsequent correspondence between engineer Roger Dolan and local water agencies, the EIR assumption of an 85%/15% ratio is unfounded, and even the 85%/15% ratio would cause significant unanalyzed impacts on Regional Project operations, groundwater, and on water rights. Mr. Dolan analyzed the export figures and concluded that substantially more water would be exported under the assumptions made for the Phase I wells than is planned to be offset by water used by MCWD within the Salinas Valley basin." Mr. Dolan further found that by the time Phase 2 comes along the predicted ratio of groundwater to seawater is so high that it will be virtually impossible to mitigate the export by more pumping and desalting." Some of the correspondence is attached' to this letter as an exhibit. Note that because the dates printed on two of the attachments Mr. Dolan's letter to Mr. Weeks and Mr. Dolan's revised issue paper updated automatically on the electronic versions of those public records, the printed dates do not reflect the dates Mr. Dolan actually authored the documents.) The MCWD plays a critical role in the evaluation, operation and management of the seawater/groundwater ratio, because all the supply water will come into and be treated at the MCWD's desalination plant. MCWD will be primarily responsible for treating the combined water and transmitting it to various users through MCWD pipelines. MCWD should not act on the Regional Project until these critical environmental issues and questions have been resolved in a publicly circulated environmental document. Another significant issue is the lack of accountability for the amount of groundwater pumped. As one example, for the North Marina project, the EIR assumes BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 22 It appears that the EIR uses only modeling runs presented by project proponents. For example, the July 25, 2008 model run was prepared by Geoscience, Cal Am's consultant. The June 5, 2009 and September 11, 2009 reports were prepared by RMC Water and Environment, which represents the Regional Project proponents. CEQA requires independent investigation and review of materials submitted by project proponents, to rest their validity and reliability. It appears that was not done here. The EIR Responses to Comments Are Inadequate. The responses to comments do not meet the requirements of CEQA for good faith, reasoned responses. There are many examples of this violation of CEQA mandates, some of which are addressed elsewhere in this letter or by other members of the public. As another example, the response to L-PSMCSD-2(b) fails to answer the issue and question clearly raised, and instead uses a semantic pretense about dates. As another example, the response to L-PSMCSD-2(a) merely regurgitates the testimony of an attorney for a project proponent for more than two pages, without a reasonable independent investigation or discussion of the issues. In that response, the claimed legal basis is highly suspect and has not been confirmed under California law. As another example, the responses to The Open Monterey Project TAMP) comments are nonresponsive. For example, a TOMP comment is that future expansion of project facilities would be easier. The FEIR response p. 14.5-201) states, Therefore, construction of the plant would not substantially alter the character of the areas and any future expansion would required additional permitting and review." This inadequate response fails to address the ease of expansion from a technical, environmental and financial perspective, and the related growth-inducing impacts. Desalination plants are very costly to construct. Once the initial expense is invested, the expansion of the plant to accommodate increased production is relatively much less costly. This also means that the Peninsula ratepayers would be subsidizing growth for other areas in Monterey County. The EIR Discussion of Water Rights is Inadequate under CEQA. On November 6, 2006, and again on April 15, 2009, the Ag Land Trust notified the Public Utilities Commission of certain key flaws in the Coastal Water Project EIR. Specifically, the first full paragraph on page two of the Trust's November 6, 2006 letter identified as G_AgLTr-3" in the FEIR) states that Cal-Am, a water appropriator under California law, has no groundwater rights to appropriate water from the overdrafted Salinas Groundwater Basin. In an overdrafted, percolated groundwater basin, California groundwater law clearly and definitely holds that the doctrine of correlative overlying water rights applies Katz v. Wa/kinshaw 1903) 141 Cal. 116), whereby no surplus water is available for new groundwater appropriators. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3???Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 23 The FEIR response claims that an analysis of water rights is not necessary because CalAm claims no rights to groundwater" and that no Salinas Valley groundwater will be exported from the Basin." The FEIR attempts to bypass a central issue the EIR's failure to analyze legal water rights by.claiming that the issue does not exist. On the contrary, the issue of legal water rights exists and should be analyzed. Because the extracted water would be composed of both saltwater and groundwater, Cal-Am under the North Marina project) or Monterey County under the Regional Project) would be extracting groundwater from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Those actions would represent an illegal appropriation of water. The EIR claims that water can be appropriated from under privately owned land in the overdrafted basin, so long as it promises to return the same amount of pumped groundwater to the basin. That claim is not enforceable, not subject to oversight and does not change the fact that the extraction of the water would be an illegal appropriation. In essence, the Cal Am North Marina desalination project and the Regional Project would rely on illegal extraction and appropriation of groundwater from the basin. The EIR does not analyze the significant impact of an illegal taking of groundwater from overlying landowners. Instead, the FEIR accepts as unquestionably true the flawed rationale that a purported return of a portion of the water somehow allows the illegal extraction of groundwater from the overdrafted basin. This deficiency in the EIR must be addressed, and the EIR should identify mitigations for the adverse impacts and proposed illegal actions and takings. The principle is established that the water supply in a source may be augmented by artificial means. See Pomona Land & Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co. 1908) 152 Cal. 618.) We do not question that general statement of law. However, when getting to the specifics of the abilities and limitations in regard to the augmented or developed water proposed for the Project, the EIR defaults on the necessary discussion. Instead of addressing the entire doctrine of water rights applicable here, the FEIR 14.1-94, n. 4) defers entirely to the MCWD's legal counsel for the discussion of the essential factors. From page 14.1-94 to 14.1-96, MCWD's legal argument is presented without critical analysis or further comment as the FEIR's discussion. There is no independent review or investigation of the legal argument, as required under CEQA. California law on the ability of an agency to claim the right to salvage any or all of any developed water in the circumstances here, and any limits on that claim, has not yet been defined by the Courts. The citations in the FEIR overstate the situation, and do not point to any California court case where the analysis presented in the FEIR has been upheld by the Court. The two cases relied upon by the MCWD's counsel and therefore the FEIR) are cited in footnote 10 of FEIR page 14.1-96: Pajaro Valley Water Mgt. Agency v. Amrhein 2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1370 and Lanai Company, Inc. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3@??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 24 v. Land Use Commission S. Ct. Ha. 2004) 97 P.2d 372, 376. The citations in both cases are to portions of the introductory factual recitations in the cases, and not to Court holdings or legal analysis, and thus are not fairly considered precedents or statements of settled law. Other FEIR citations are to legal claims asserted in a staff report by the head of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, who is not an attorney. Here, the CPUC's EIR defined the project too narrowly. The EIR never evaluated the existence or nonexistence of water rights on which the Regional Project would rely. At the very least, the FEIR was required to evaluate the claims of MCWD and MCWRA, test them analytically, and provide the decisionmakers and the public with the analysis. Without the reasoned good faith analysis, the EIR fails as an informational document. See, e.g., Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles 2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 722.) It is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts." In particular, water is too important to receive such cursory treatment." ld.) CEQA requires a detailed analysis of water rights issues when such rights reasonably affect the project's supply. Assumptions about supply are simply not enough. ld., at p. 721; Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey 2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 131- 134, 143 EIR inadequate when it fails to discuss pertinent water rights claims and overdraft impacts]; see also, Cadiz Land Co, v. Rail Cycle 2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 94-95 groundwater contamination issues].) The reasoning of the Court in Cadiz would also apply to the proper analysis of the rights associated with the overdraft here. At the very least, the determinations of safe yield, surplus, the rights of the MCWRA, and of persons with land in the zones of benefit for the projects" must be identified, discussed and analyzed. The analysis must be independent, and cannot simply be extracted" FEIR, p. 14.1-94, n. 4) from the argument of the attorney for the MCWD, a proponent of the Regional Project and potential owner of the desalination plant component of that project. Whether the project may take salvaged or developed water originating from onsite supplies depends on whether injury will result to existing lawful users or those who hold vested rights. The FEIR response to comments does not fairly consider or investigate the actual on-the-ground issues. Neither the MCWD nor the MCWRA has groundwater rights that would support the drilling of the proposed intake wells for the Regional Project. On March 3, 2010, this Office made a California Public Records Act request to the County of Monterey and Monterey County Water Resources Agency seeking the records that support a MCWRA claim that the MCWRA or the MCWD have water rights for the proposed Regional Project. To date, the County has not provided any documents that support those claims. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3A??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 25 Proposed Addendum Does Not Satisfy CEQA. The addendum proposed for adoption by the MCWD Board tonight is inappropriate under CEQA. Because MCWD is the lead agency for the Regional Project, it must certify the EIR. Under CEQA, a Final EIR must be released to the public at least ten days prior to an agency's certification thereof. As part of the Final EIR, the addendum should have been released at least ten days prior to the MCWD Board's final action. It was not. The addendum was released to the public Wednesday, March 10, only six days prior to tonight's Board meeting. Further, an addendum may be prepared by a responsible agency only where there were changes between the time of the certification of an EIR and the time a responsible agency is ready to act. CEQA Guidelines, 15164.) Here, the MCWD planned the addendum long before the CPUC acted. The information in the addendum should have been part of the Regional Project description evaluated in the EIR. The MCWD has never owned the land on which the proposed desalination plant would be built. The MCWD's possible purchase of the land has been known about for years, as the option shows. There is no'question that the MCWD's purchase of the Armstrong Ranch land is an integral part of the Regional Project. The purpose of the property purchase is to enable development of the Regional Project. At the same time, the development of the Regional Project will enable funding for the property purchase. Purchase payments planned to be made by MCWD after the property is developed will be funded by MCWD ratepayers and Cal Am ratepayers through the Regional Project. The MCWD's purchase of the land was incorrectly left out of the project description and it was not analyzed in the CPUC's EIR. The MCWD knew that the purchase of the land was subject to CEQA, as shown by the MCWD's September 2009 Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the purchase of the Armstrong Ranch property. The CPUC's EIR was inadequate for this reason. Prior to the CPUC's certification of the EIR, the MCWD knew that the CPUC's EIR was inadequate, as shown by the MCWD notice of preparation of an EIR for the Armstrong Ranch property acquisition. Similarly, MRWPCA knew prior to the CPUC's certification of the EIR that the CPUC"s EIR was inadequate, as the attached exhibits show. The MCWD's approach, proposing to use an inadequate EIR with an inappropriate addendum, is piecemealing, which is prohibited by CEQA. As a separate problem, the addendum is inadequate because it does not adequately describe or analyze the whole of the entire project. The addendum does not include the whole of the Regional Project development that is proposed to be constructed on the property. The addendum also does not adequately respond to LAFCO's comments as to what BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3B??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 26 issues should be included in the environmental review of the Armstrong Ranch acquisition and annexation. Environmental Review To Date Is Not Legally Adequate under CEQA: Further Environmental Review Is Required Even if the CPUC-certified EIR were legally adequate, which it is not, a supplemental EIR would be required by the Marina Coast Water District before it acts to commit itself to the Regional Project. A supplemental EIR would include adequate analyses of the issues identified in this letter and by other members of the public and other public agencies. However, a supplemental EIR has not been prepared. As Lead Agency, The MCWD Should Prepare a Legally Adequate EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, the CPUC should have recirculated the EIR because it contains significant new information. The Final EIR contains significant newly identified impacts and new information that leads to new unanalyzed impacts that were not included in the Draft EIR. Several examples of the unanalyzed impacts are identified throughout this letter. The FEIR identified new significant and unavoidable impacts that had not been disclosed in the Draft EIR. These impacts include greenhouse gases and air quality PM10). The FEIR finds that PM10 construction emissions would exceed the local Air District thresholds. Greenhouse gas emissions and construction PM10 impacts of the Regional Project would be outside of the CPUC's jurisdiction. Both impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, the EIR treats the two impacts differently and inconsistently. The EIR inappropriately pre-determines that the local agencies might find that the Regional Project's PM10 mitigation measures would be infeasible because of the potential need to accelerate the construction schedule" for the project e.g., p. ES-19). The EIR attempts to place mitigations on the Regional Project which are unenforceable, because the CPUC has no jurisdiction over the Regional Project. E.g., FEIR p. 6.8-4, Mitigation Measure 6.8-11a.) The EIR approach is confusing and inconsistent, and misleads the public and decisionmakers as to which mitigations it can enforce and which it cannot enforce. This confusion continues in the EIR discussion of the environmentally superior alternative, where the EIR makes unsupported assumptions about mitigations and mitigation monitoring in order to affect its determination of the superior alternative. FEIR p. 7-67.) Further, the EIR's announcement of new significant and unavoidable impacts is inconsistent with the FEIR's response to the League of Women Voters' comments that there are no significant project impacts. Accordingly, the FEIR's response to comments is inadequate and inaccurate. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3C??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 27 As a separate reason for recirculation, the FEIR reduced the DEIR's conclusions about the RUWAP project production from 1,700 to 1,000 AFY. That is significant new information, because it significantly affects the determination of the Regional Project water supply. In fact, the selected project now under way, the hybrid RUWAP, will produce 3,000 AFY. The FEIR used an incorrect 1,000-AFY figure to analyze cumulative and growth-inducing impacts, and the EIR analysis is incorrect. As another reason for recirculation, the EIR fails to include the planned cogeneration plant in the project description, or to analyze its impacts. Findings The MCWD does not propose adopting the required findings under CEQA Guidelines section 15091 or section 15093 tonight. Further, the MCWD has failed to make findings as to those mitigations proposed in the CPUC EIR that are within the power and control of the MCWD. Without those imposed mitigations, the Regional Project will have significant unavoidable environmental impacts, the CPUC's EIR found. Even under MCWD's flawed hypothesis that it is a responsible agency, when it is in fact a lead agency, the MCWD also fails to make findings or adopt mitigation measures under section 15096. SWRCB Antidegradation Policy; CRWQCB Basin Plan. The EIR fails to adequately investigate and disclose the extent of the proposed projects' violation of the State Water Resources Control Board's Antidegradation Policy. This policy, formally known as the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16), restricts degradation of surface and ground waters. The policy protects water bodies where existing quality is higher than necessary for the protection of beneficial uses. Under the Antidegradation Policy, any actions that can adversely affect water quality in all surface and ground waters must 1) be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, 2) not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of the water, and 3) not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality plans and policies. Any actions that can adversely affect surface waters are also subject to the Federal Antidegradation Policy 40 Code of Federal Regulations CFR] section 131.12) developed under the Clean Water Act. The Central Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan implements the antidegradation policy. The EIR also fails to adequately investigate and disclose the proposed projects' violation of the Basin Policy. Potential Takings Claims. In comments to the DEIR, it was pointed out that it is reasonably possible that the proposed project, if approved, would result in the deterioration in, or elimination of, valuable water rights of the Armstrong Ranch property owned by the Ag Land Trust. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3D??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 28 Such action would result in a compensable taking of the Ag Land Trust`s property. On a related point, the stripping of the water rights from this productive agricultural land is a physical change to the environment which must be addressed in the FEIR and, when feasible, mitigated to a level of insignificance or considered as part of the alternatives analysis of the FEIR. The FEIR fails to fairly consider and address these impacts. To the best the public can discern from the MCWRA's seawater intrusion depictions, the Ag Land Trust property overlies a part of the 400-foot aquifer that is not seawater intruded. See attached figure.) The Regional Project could significantly affect the water quality in the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifer. The Ag Land Trust would lose valuable property rights if its ground water rights were affected. The EIR fails to identify the potential eminent domain authority or actions that could be used to implement the project, or even to present the fact that eminent domain may be used or necessary for project implementation. For example, the FEIR p. 5-50) states merely that private landowners may be affected by sale or lease of their property for project purposes. In fact, the public agency proponents of the project including MCWD have eminent domain authority, and may choose to exercise it to implement the project. An eminent domain action is a project" under CEQA Pub. Resources Code, 21065) and must be reviewed at the earliest possible stage for potential impacts. Because such eminent domain action is foreseeable, it should be disclosed and evaluated in a legally adequate EIR. The MCWD action tonight cannot proceed until that analysis is done. Problems with Access to Final EIR. CEQA states that draft EIRs for proposals of unusual scope or complexity should normally be less than 300 pages. CEQA Guidelines, 15141.) Here, the Draft EIR was approximately 1,500 pages, and the Final ElR is over 3,100 pages and contains significant new information. The Final EIR is not available in hard copy anywhere in the Monterey County. The local agencies, including Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, have the FEIR available on CD only. For these reasons, it has been extremely difficult for the public to access and review the over 3,100 pages, much of which contained complex and interrelated new information, within the available time. The Acquisition and Annexation Project Requires a Parcel Map. The proposed acquisition and annexation project requires a parcel map under the Subdivision Map Act for public policy reasons. The project would create different owners of the same parcel. Different uses are intended of the new MCWD property desalination plant and related and appurtenant uses) as opposed to agricultural use of the Armstrong Ranch property. It is foreseeable that different financial obligations and demand will be placed on the new MCWD property. The MCWD will need LAFCO BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3E??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 29 approval to annex the parcel. LAFCO concerns include preparing a parcel map. See attached LAFCO comment letter on the MCWD NOP.) All these are known now, at this stage. The requirement of a parcel map would serve the goals of the Subdivision Map Act. The Subdivision Map Act has three principal goals: to encourage orderly community development, to prevent undue burdens on the public, and to protect individual real estate buyers. The Act serves to coordinate planning with the community pattern laid out by local authorities and to assure proper improvements are made so the area does not become an undue burden on the taxpayer. Thus, the Act serves to coordinate planning with the community pattern laid out by local authorities and to assure proper improvements are made so the area does not become an undue burden on the taxpayer. It also serves to protect individual transferees as well as the public at large. Van't Rood v. County of Santa Clara 2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 563-564.) As a public agency, acting on behalf of the public, the MCWD should file a parcel map to protect the public ownership of the property. A conveyance of approximately 224 acres is of significant concern to the public, especially for the reasons identified in this letter. Public policy requires notice and a hearing to determine whether a parcel map is necessary in conveyances of land to or from a public entity or public utility. Gov. Code, 66428(a)(2).) In this case, substantial evidence supports a parcel map. Efforts to Obtain and Provide Further Information. The Ag Land Trust's efforts to communicate with MCWD and MCWRA have been rebuffed by those agencies. On January 25, 2010, representatives of the Ag Land Trust met with representatives of the Marina Coast Water District Jim Heitzman and General Counsel Lloyd Lowrey) and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency General Manager Curtis.Weeks and Counsel Irven Grant) in the office of the Supervisor Lou Calcagno. Due to the Ag Land Trust's concerns regarding the impacts of the Regional Project on their land, the MCWD and MCWRA representatives assured the Ag Land Trust that those two agencies would communicate their intentions regarding the Regional Project and keep the Ag Land Trust in the loop. Those assurances have not been fulfilled. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3F??Kenneth K. Nishi, President, and Members of the Marina Coast Water District Board March 16, 2010 Page 30 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Michael W. Stamp Attorneys for the Ag Land Trust Attachments: Exhibits A through BB BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3G??EXHIBIT R BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3H??4 Not Found Not Found The requested URI /desal/index.htrni was not found on this server. http://w wtiw-.incwd.org'desal/index.thtinl 9,pachei 2. 3 Red Hat) Server at wav rttcivd. org Port 80 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3I??EXHIBIT S BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3J??ANG/avs 2/1.2/2010 FILED 02-12-10 09:21 AM BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of California-American Water Company U21OW) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct and Operate its Coastal Water Project to Resolve the Long-Term Water Supply Deficit in its Monterey District and to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Connection Therewith in Rates. Application 04-09-019 Filed. September 20,2004; Amended July 14, 2005) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING REGARDING PHASE 2 SCHEDULE Summary As discussed at the second formal status conference on February 10, 2010, collaborative discussions and negotiations that parties have engaged. in during the Alternative Dispute Resolution process have been productive. As requested by the parties, I have scheduled an additional status conference for March 5, 2010 at 10 a.m. in San Francisco. Parties also requested a slight delay in either filing a motion for adoption of a settlement or in submitting updated testimony. The current schedule for Phase 2 is as follows: 41499') BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3K??A.04-09-019 ANG/avs Event Date 1.09-1.2-017 issued. certifying FEIR December 17, 2009 Settlement Conference December 21, 2009 If Settlement If No Settlement Status Conference 1 January 4, 2010 January 4, 2010 Status Conference 2 February 9, 2010 February 9, 2010 Status Conference 3 March 5, 2010 March 5, 2010 Motion for Settlement filed By March 15, 2010 Comments on Settlement By April 14, 2010 Supplemental Testimony subnutted by CAL- AM and MCWD Costs and CPCN issues) N/A March 15, 2010 Prepared Testimony served by DRA and Intervenors Costs and CPCN issues) N/A April 9, 201.0 Concurrent Rebuttal Testimony and estimates of cross examination time Costs and CPCN issues) N/A April 23, 2010 Evidentiary Hearings Costs and CPCN issues) May 10-14, 2010 May 10-14, 2010 I will set a briefing schedule upon. the conclusion of the hearings. I expect to issue a proposed decision in the summer or fall, depending on whether a settlement is filed. IT IS SO RULED. Dated February 12, 2010, at San Francisco, California. /s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN Angela K. Minkin Administrative Law Judge BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3L??A.04-09-019 ANG/avs INFORMATION REGARDING SERVICE I have provided notification of filing to the electronic mail addresses on the attached service list. Upon confirmation of this document's acceptance for filing, I will cause a Notice of Availability of the filed document to be served upon the service list to this proceeding by U.S. mail. The service list I will use to serve the Notice of Availability of the filed document is current as of today's date. Dated February 12, 2010, at San Francisco, California. / s/ ANTONINA V. SWANSEN Antonina V. Swansen N O T I C E Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears. The Commission's policy is to schedule hearings meetings, workshops, etc.) in locations that are accessible to people with disabilities. To verify that a particular location is accessible, call: Calendar Clerk 415) 703-1203. If specialized accommodations for the disabled are needed, e.g., sign language interpreters, those making the arrangements must call the Public Advisor at 415) 703-2074 or TDD# 415) 703-2032 five working days in advance of the event. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3M??A.04-09-01.9 ANG/ av s k w + PARTIES ********.***** SERVICE LIST Last Updated on ll-FEB-2010 by: RC4 A0409019 LIST George Riley CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC WATER 1198 CASI'RO ROAD MONTEREY CA 93940 831) 645-9914 geo rgeriley a?hotmail. com For: Citizen for Public Water David C. Laredo Attorney At Law DE LAY & LAREDO 606 FOREST AVENUE PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950-4221 831) 646-1502 dave@,4aredolaw.net For: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Dan L. Carroll Attorney At Law DOWNEY BRAND, LLP 621 CAPITOL MALL, 18T11 FLOOR SACRAMENTO CA 95814 916) 444-1000 dcarroll downevbrand.com For: Monterey County Water Resources Agency Mark Fogelman FRIEDMAN DUMAS & SPRINGWATER, LLP 150 SPEAR STREET`, SUITE 1600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 415) 834-3812 rnfogelman@friedtimspring.com For: Marina Coast Water District Lenard G. Weiss Attorney At Law MANATr, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 30TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 41.5) 291-7460 hveiss@nanatt.com For: California American Water Company Monica L. McCrary Legal Division RM. 5134 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-1288 mlm@cpuc_ca.gov For: DRA Patricia Nelson PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE, RESOURCE RENEWAL BUILDING D, FORT MASON, ROOM 290 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123 415) 497-1147 nelsonp344hotrnail.com For: The Public Trust Alliance Sabrina V. Teller Attorney At Law REMY THOMAS MOOSE & M ARLEY, LLP 455 CAPITOL MALL, STE. 21.0 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 916) 443-2745 steller%rtmmlaw.com For: Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Ellison Folk SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 415) 552-7272 folk@smwlaw.com For: Statewide Desal Response Group Sabrina D. Venskus A Professional Law Corporation VENSKUS & ASSOCIATES 1055 WII SHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1660 LOS ANGEIES CA 90017 213) 482-4200 venskus?Iawsv.com For, Surfrider Foundation ***~ STATE EMPLOYEE *?*** * Andrew Barnsdale Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-3221 bca?cpucca.gov |10
13| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3N??A.04-09-019 A.NG/avs Diana Brooks Division of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4208 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-1445 dstN@CPIIC,ca.gov Max Gomberg Division of Ratepayer Advocates RIB-4. 4208 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-2002 mzxgcpuc.ca.gov Steven Kasower 1.720 Q STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 916) 442-1477 s tev e@seacom.paity.org Laura L. Kran.nawitter Executive Division RIM 5303 505 VAN NESS AV E San Francisco CA 94/023298 415) 703-2642 Ilkcpuc.ca.gov Ravi Kumra Division of Water and Audits AREA 3-C 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-2571 rkkacpuc.ca.gov Angela K. Minkin Administrative Law Judge Division RM. 5105 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-1573 ang@cpuc.ca. gnv Jonathan J. Reiger Legal Division R.M. 5035 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 355-5596 jzr00epucca.gov Carrie Gleeson CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER 1033 B AVENUE, SUITE 200 Cynthia J. Truelove Policy & Planning Division RM. 5119 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-1764 cjt@cpuc.ca.gov Richard rausctuneier Division of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 3200 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 3298 415) 703-2732 rra@ cpuc. ca.gov **"****" INFORMATION ONLY Tanya A. Gulesserian Attorney At Law ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 601 GATEWAY BLVD. STE 1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 650) 589-1660 tgu lesserian'a damsbroadwvell. com Alan B. Lilly Attorney At Law BARTKIEWICZZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 1011 22ND STREET, SUITE 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95810907 916) 446-4254 ablhbkslavfirm.com Gregory, K. Wilkinson BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP 3750 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 400 RIVERSIDE CA 92501 951) 686-1.450 Gregory. Wilk.inson@bbklaw. com For: Ocean Mist Farming Company Jason M. Ackerman BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 400 RIVERSIDE CA 92501 951) 686-1450 jason. Ackerman0 bbklaw.com Heidi Quinn DELAY & LAREDO 606 FOREST AVENUE BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3O??A.04-09-019 ANG/ av5 CORONADO CA 92118 61.9) 435-7411 Catherine A. Bowie Manager External Afffairs CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER PO BOX 951 MONTEREY CA 93942 831) 646-3206 catherine.bowie@3amwater.com David P. Stephenson CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER 4701 BELOI T DRIVE SACRAMENIO CA 95838 916) 568-4222 dstephen@=ainwater.com For. California American Water Stephen A. S. Morrison CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER 333 HAYES S'T., SUITE 202 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 415) 863-2960 stephen_m orrison$arnsvater.corn Tim Miller Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER 1033 B AVENUE, SUITE 200 CORONADO CA 92118 619) 435-7410 tim.miller'tamwaIer.com David Berger CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER CO. 511 FORFSI' LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100 PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950 831) 646-3241 DAVID.BERGER?AMWATER.COM Manuel G. Fierro CITIZEN FOR PUBLIC WATER 461 LINE STREET MO N'I'EREY CA 93940 831) 373-1167 manuel fierroo2gvahoo.com Nancy Isakson Government Affairs Consultant PO BOX 804 CARMEL CA 93920 831) 22-14-2879 PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950 heid i4la redolaw. net Kevin M. O'Brien Attorney At Law DOWNEY BRAND LLP 621 CAPITOL MALL, ISTH FLOOR SACRAMENTO CA 95814 916) 444-1000 kobrien' downevhrand.corn Audra Hartmann Director, Government & Reg. Affairs DYNEGY, INC. 4140 DUBLIN BLVD., STE. 100 DUBLIN CA 94568 916) 441-6242 Audra.IIartnnann`.4 Dynegy.com Eric Zingas ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES/WATER 225 BUSH STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 415) 896-5900 ezigas`esassoc.com Fran Farina 3S9 PRINCEI'ON AVENUE SANTA BARBARA CA 93111-1637 ffarinagcox.net Derrick N.D. Hansen FRIEDMAN DU1%4tVS &-. SPRINGWV ATER, LLP 150 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 415) 834-3800 d hansen0friedumspri.ng. corn Stefanie A. Elkins FRIEDM AN DUMAS & SPRINGWATER, LLP 150 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 415) 834-3800 selkinsCa:friedumsprin g. com Glen Stransky HIDDEN HILLS SUBUNIT RATEPAYERS ASSOC. 92 SADDLE ROAD CARMEL VALLEY CA 93924 831) 695-2119 Glen.Stransky@LosLau relesH OA.conn Darby IV. Fuerst General Manager MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MNGMNT DIST PO BOX 85 187 EL DORADO STREET BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3P??A.04-09-019 ANG/avs nisakson@rnbap.net Lori Ann Dolqueist Attorney At Law MANATT, PHILI'S & PHILLIPS, LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 30-11-1 FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 115) 291-7400 Idofqueist, manatt.cout Sarah E. Leeper Attorney At Law MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 30TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 415) 291-7461 sleepermana tt.com James Heitzman MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT 11 RESERVATION RD MARINA CA 93940 831) 883-5938 jimi?ncwd.org Bob Mckenzie 375 SPENCER STREET, NO 1 MONTEREY CA 93940 831) 6-12-9809 bobmacs!gwest_net Jerry Gallego MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 15790 HORIZON WAY PRUNEDALE CA 93907 Curtis V. Weeks MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY PO BOX 930 SALINAS CA 93902 831) 755-8906 w=eekscg~co. monterey.ca_u s Andrew M. Bell District Engineer MONNTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT PO BOX 85 IONTI'EREY CA 93942-0085 831) 658-5620 andyllmpwmd.dst.ca.us Michael Warburton PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE 290 BLDG. D, FORT MASON SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123 510) 655-0752 rnichaeI@3'rri.org MON-ITEREY CA 93942-0085 831) 658-5651 darbv@mpwmd.dst.ca.us Robert B. Holden Control Agency MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION 5 HARRIS COURT, BLDG. D MONTEREY CA. 93940 831) 645-4634 bobhimrw?pca. corn Joyce Ambrosius NOAA'S NATIONAL MARLNE FISHERIES SERVICE 777 SONOMA AVENUE, ROOM 325 SANTA ROSA CA 95404 707) 575-6064 joyce.ambrosi usC??noaa. gov Lloyd W. Lowrey, Jr. CHRISTINE KEMP Attorney At Law NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS PO BOX 2510; 333 SALINAS STREET SALINAS CA 92902 831) 424-1414 llow?rey nheh.com For: Marina Coast Water District Stephen Collins OCEAN MIST 26153 LEGENDS COURT SALINAS CA 93908 831) 974-0577 steclins@aol.com Stan Williams POSEIDON WATER 111 NORTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 300 SAN JOSE CA 95113 408) 332-5819 s w-illia.ms@poseido n1. corn For: Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3Q??A_04-09-019 ANG/avs Tyla Montgomery RBF CONSULTING 9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD. STT. 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1324 858) 614-5000 trnontgome yiirbfcom Lyndel Melton RMC WATER & ENVIRONMENT 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 400 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 925) 627-4100 lmeltonurmcx-ater.com Conner Everts SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATERSHED ALLIANCE 2515 WII SHIRE BLVD. SANTA MONICA CA 90403 310) 829-1229 connere`~,west.ne t Joe Geever Southern California Manager SURFRIDER FOUNDATION 8117 W. MANCHESTER AVE 297 PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293 310) 410-2890 Igeever~@surfrider.org Sarah Corbin Central California Regional Manager SURFRIDER FOUNDATION 809 BROWNS VALLEY ROAD WATSONVILLE CA 95076 831) 239-1520 scorbin surfrider.org Daniel Lopez THE MONTERY COUNTY HERALD 8 UPPER RAGSDALE DRIVE MONTEREY CA 93940 831) 646-4494 dlopez@monterepheraldcoin BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3R??EXHIBIT T BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3S??ALJ/MLC/ sid Mailed 91512003 Decision 03-09-022 September 4, 2003 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY U 210 W) for a Certificate that the Present and Future Public Convenience and Necessity Requires Applicant to Construct and Operate the 24,000 acre foot Carmel River Dam and Reservoir in its Monterey Division and. to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Connection Therewith in Rates. Application 97-03-052 Filed March 28,1997) See Appendix A for a list of appearances.) DECISION RESOLVING MOTIONS BY CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY REGARDING DESIGNATION OF LEAD AGENCY AND RATEMAKING ISSUES 1. Summary This decision designates the Commission as the lead agency for environmental review of the Monterey Bay desalination Coastal Water Project, resolves certain ratemaking issues related to the Coastal Water Project and an earlier Coastal River Dam project, and dismisses this application without prejudice to our requirement that a new application be filed. I11is proceeding is closed. 1 55229 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3T??A.97-03-052 ALJ/M.LC/sid proceeding to request a CPCN to construct a Coastal Water Project,' consisting of a desalination facility and aquifer storage and recovery component instead of the previously proposed Carmel River Dam. On March 12, 2003, the assigned Administrative Law Judge ALJ) issued a ruling granting part of the relief sought in the motions, and requesting additional information prior to ruling on the lead. agency and ratemaking issues. Cal-Am complied with that ruling on April 1, 2003, and comments were filed on April 11, 2003. The District filed comments on May 7, 2003 and Cal-AYn responded on May 9, 2003. Testimony was served by Cal-Am on. ratemaking issues on April 1, 2003 and by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates ORA) on May 7, 2003. Cal-Am served rebuttal testimony on May 9, 2003. ORA served surrebuttal testimony on. May 13, 2003. Evidentiary hearings were held on May 1.4, 2003. Ill. Relief Sought Cal-Am's motions made several requests but only three remain outstanding after the ALJ's March 12, 2003 ruling. First, Cal-Am requests that this Commission be designated as lead agency under CEQA to conduct, prepare and certify the environmental assessment required for Applicant's proposed Coastal Water Project/ Plan B. Second, Cal-Am seeks authorization to establish appropriate ratemaking accounts to book costs and expenses for future recovery incurred for environmental review of the Carmel River Dam and that will be incurred in connection with the review of the Coastal Water Plan. Finally, Cal-Am asks that it be directed to prepare and file its Proponent's Environmental I The proposed Coastal Water Project is the same as the project identified in the Plan B Project Report to replace the 10,730 acre feet of water from the Carmel River. We will refer to Cal-Am's current proposal as the Coastal Water Project. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3U??A.97-03-052 ALJ / MLC/ sid as lead agency under CEQA for environmental review of the Coastal Water Project. A. Legal Standard for Determining Lead Agency Under CEQA, where the project is to be carried out by nongovernmental entities, the lead agency will normally be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a hole." Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1.4 15051(b).) Usually, this is the agency with the broadest governmental powers. Cal. Code Regs., tit., 14, 15051(b)(1).) I-However, where two or more public agencies have relatively equal responsibility, the lead agency which will act first on the project in question. shall be the lead agency." Cal Code Regs., tit, 14 15051(c).) This is consistent with the legislative goal of assuring environmental impact assessment in governmental planning at the earliest possible time. Citizens Task Force on Solzio v. Board of Harbor Connrs. 1.979) 23 Cal.3d 812, 814.) Where the identity of the lead agency cannot be determined by the foregoing criteria, the possible candidates may simply agree among themselves which will be the lead agency. Cal. Code Regs., tit., 14, 15051(d).) Where two or more public agencies cannot resolve which agency should act as the lead agency, the dispute may be submitted to the Office of Planning and Research. for resolution. Cal. Code Regs., tit., 14, 15023, 1.5053, and 16012 et seq.) Relevant case law instructs that the roles of the various agencies should be evaluated in the context of the scope of the project in question. City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board 1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960.) The project is generally considered to be the whole of an action, which has a potential. for resulting in a physical change in the environment..." Cal. Code BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3V??A.97-03-052 ALJ/MLC/sid The County provides examples of the District's limited role in relation to the Coastal Water Project and contends that the District is not qualified to act as the lead agency under CEQA's criteria. In particular, District territory is specific to the Monterey Peninsula and adjacent Carmel Valley. The majority of the proposed Coastal Water Project facilities are not located within the District's boundaries or permitting authority. In addition, the District has only limited jurisdiction over water resources because it manages those resources for only a segment of the County population. It is the MCWRA that has the responsibility and jurisdiction to manage water resources throughout the entire County. The County also points out that under a Memorandum of Understanding, the District must obtain the written consent of the MCWWVRA before undertaking any project in the County of Monterey which is wholly or partially outside the District's boundaries, including the use of water resources located outside those boundaries. We believe the District possesses valuable knowledge and experience in evaluating relevant environmental issues in the Monterey area. We also do not question that the Coastal Water Project will require Cal-Am to obtain certain permit approvals for the project from the District. However, qualification as a lead agency is contingent upon the agency's overall responsibility in relation to the whole of the project activities. Because many of the proposed project facilities fall outside the District's jurisdictional boundaries and authority, it follows that the District is not the agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." Accordingly, we find that CEQA's criteria do not support the District as lead agency for the Coastal Water Project. |1013| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3W??A.97-03-052 ALJ / MLC/ sid treatment facilities" and requiring County authorization for the construction and operation of those facilities. In support of the County, MCWD states that the proposed Moss Landing desalination plant site is a valuable regional resource and that good stewardship will require the cooperation and oversight by regional entities. MCWD states that as the provider of water and wastewater services to the Marina and Ord Community, it has authority to build a desalination plant at Moss Landing, and has experience doing so at Marina. MCWD does not assert that it should be lead agency for the Coastal Water Project, rather it says as between the County and the Commission, the County has the greatest responsibility for approving the project as a whole. The County has demonstrated that it, particularly in combination with the MCWRA, has jurisdictional responsibilities covering land use implementation and development, management of water resources, and facility construction and operation. We agree that this broad scope of jurisdiction, permitting authority, and oversight responsibility for the project as a whole are consistent with CEQA's lead agency criteria. D. Role of California Public Utilities Commission Cal-Am reasons that the Commission should act as lead agency because the Coastal Water Project is a multi-jurisdictional project, and among the various federal, state, county, municipal and other agencies with permitting authority, only the Commission is a statewide public agency with broad jurisdiction. Cal-Am states that the Commission has general governmental oversight and responsibility for the project as a whole, must issue a CPCN for the project, and |10 13| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3X??A97-03-052 AL)/MLC/sid No party contends that the Commission does not possess, generally, the nature of regulatory authority that would justify acting as Lead Agency. The Commission regularly acts in the role of CEQ.A Lead Agency for proposed utility projects and we believe we could do so here. However, determining the appropriate CEQA role for this agency should be evaluated based on the scope of our responsibility for supervising or approving the Coastal Water Project as a whole, particularly in relation to that of the County and the MCWRA. We recognize that County in combination with MCWRA) has responsibility and jurisdiction over, and the closest nexus with, a range of practical project issues involving land use implementation, water resource management, development, construction and operation. MCWRA has the authority to manage and protect water supply quality and quantity in Monterey County. Nevertheless, CEQA's lead agency criteria look to the agency with the broadest governmental powers." Cal. Code Regs., tit., 14 150511(b)(1).) We believe that the above stated provisions enumerating this Commission's broad, and specific, statewide authority and responsibility to regulate public utility water companies require that we should assume lead agency status to conduct environmental review of the Coastal Water Project under CEQA. However, in expressing our intent to undertake this task, we. believe efficient and effective environmental review will require extensive involvement by virtually all the responsible agencies with permit authority over the Coastal Water Project, and will particularly require drawing upon the knowledge and expertise of the District, the County and MCWRA. We take this opportunity to express our intent to undertake that close coordination and encourage their full and active participation in the CEQA process. 11- BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3Y??A.97-03-052 ALj/ MLC/ sid environmental review by the District of Cal-Am's Carmel River Dam project. Cal-Am s witness indicated that $3,279,161 in costs have been incurred to date Exhibit 1, 3:22) but that at least two invoices from the District have not been paid by Cal-Am and others may be submitted for payment in the future. TR 234:20-25.) Under cross-examination, Cal-Am's witness indicated that he was unaware of additional activities by the District or Cal-Am that might cause additional costs to be incurred in connection with the Carmel River Dam project. TR 235:17-236:4.) Decision D.) 03-02-030 adopted ratemaking treatment for certain costs associated with the Carmel River Dam project. Costs incurred prior to 2002 $2,852,900) are classified as Construction Work In Progress CWIP) and included in ratebase, earning Cal-Am's authorized rate of return. Cal-Am expects that once a long term water supply project is put in service, these costs will be included as part of the total project construction cost. Exhibit 1, 4:7-9.) D.03-02-030 authorized an additional $750,000 in CWIP for the Carmel River Dam project in 2002 through 2004. Cal-Am considers these authorized funds to be in support of a long- term water supply solution for its Monterey District, not only available for the Carmel River Dam project. Accordingly, Cal-Am expects that costs associated with initial, preliminary engineering studies, environmental studies, analysis of necessary permitting requirements, and development of cost estimates for the Coastal Water Project will be treated the same way as these authorized costs for the Carmel River Dam project were in D.03-02-030. TR 236:24-237:13.) Cal-Am asks that any costs incurred above the total amount authorized by D.03-02-030 $5,102,900) be booked in a deferred debit account earning an Allowance For Funds Used During Construction AFUDC) at Cal-Ana's authorized rate of 13- BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3Z??A.97-03-052 ALj/MI.C/sid that there will be additional costs associated with the ongoing review of the Carmel River Dam project or winding down of that review process in light of Cal-Am's new project proposal. This ratemaking treatment will allow a clean separation of costs between Cal-Am's old project the Carmel River Dam) and new project Coastal Water Project). B. Plan B Costs In Resolutions W-4131 and W-4237, the Commission authorized the expenditure of $1.75 million for development of an alternative water supply solution to the Carmel River Dam.3 Cal-Am was authorized to establish a memorandum account to track payments for this effort. Interest in this account accrues at the 90-day commercial paper rate. Cal-Am was directed to seek recovery of these costs by advice letter after full payment was made to the Commission. Cal-Am has also booked costs spent in connection with holding public meetings, notifying customers of public meetings and Commission proceedings, Cal-Arm's legal and consultant fees to review Plan B, and accrued interest. As of May 9, 2003 the date Cal-Am served its rebuttal testimony), Cal-Am indicated the Plan B expenditures including the costs just described) totaled $1,761.,75157.4 Cal-Am indicates that as of April 1, 2003 the date it served its testimony), it had recovered $554,992 through a surcharge. Exhibit 1, 6:17-18.) 3 Of this amount, $500,000 was to be financed through the Commission's budget, with $1.25 million to be collected from Cal-Am.'s Monterey customers. 4 It appears that the Commission charged Cal-Am for the full amount of the Plan B development contract, rather than paying $500,000 out of the Commission budget. Cal-Am indicates that it will seek reimbursement of $430,000 from the Commission. Exhibit 2, 7:1-3.) |1013| BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3[??A.97-03-052 ALJ/TALC/sid why Cal-Am has not filed an advice letter for recovery of the outstanding Plan B costs. TR 288:28-289:12.)7 There are two primary issues outstanding with respect to recovery of costs associated with Plan B. First, should Cal-Am's costs beyond the Commission's Plan B costs be allowed to be booked into the Plan B memorandum account for recovery? Second, should interest on the amounts in the memorandum account continue to accrue interest at the 90-day commercial paper rate until recovered? We address these issues one at a time. 1. Booking of Cal-Am Costs Beyond Commission Plan B Costs We have reviewed Resolutions W4131, W-4205, and W-4237 which approved the establishment of the ratemaking accounts6 to book Commission Plan B costs. Resolution W-41.31 states in Ordering Paragraph 1 that Cal-Ain shall reimburse the Commission for the costs of consulting services for the preparation of the long-term contingency plan and environmental assessments for its Monterey Division." This language does not contemplate that the account established will include any costs beyond Commission incurred costs. Resolution W-4237 increased the amount to be recovered from Cal-Am and again the ordering paragraph limited the costs to the costs of consulting services to prepare the long-term contingency plan and environmental assessments" and for payments to the Commission." See Ordering Paragraphs 1 and 2.) Although Cal-Am states that it has incurred approximately $80,000 in connection with On June 19, 2003, the Commission issued D.03-06-072 resolving R.01-1.2-009. The resolutions referenced refer both to memorandum and balancing accounts. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3\??A.97-03-052 ALJ / MLC/ sid advice letter to propose a surcharge for recovery of the outstanding costs properly booked to the Plan B memorandum account. C. Coastal Water Project Costs As described above, Cal-Am proposes that costs associated with initial, preliminary engineering studies, environmental studies, analysis of necessary permitting requirements, and development of cost estimates for the Coastal Water Project, up to the amount authorized in D.03-02-030, be treated as CWIP at Cal-Am's authorized rate of return. For costs incurred above the level authorized in D.03-02-030, Cal-Am proposes that those expenditures be booked in a deferred debit account accruing AFUDC at Cal-Am's authorized rate of return Exhibit 1, 6:1-8.) Cal-Am expects to propose in its next general rate case to transfer accun-Lulated expenses in the deferred debit account to CWIP. Exhibit 1, 7:18-23.) ORA opposes Cal-Am's proposed ratemaking treatment. ORA proposes that all costs incurred related to the Coastal Water Project be booked in a memorandum account and accrue interest at the 90-day commercial paper rate. ORA Brief, p. 12- 13.) ORA states that this treatment is consistent with the ratemaking treatment for long-term construction projects that do not earn their authorized rate of return until placed in service. ORA argues that the Coastal Water Project is unique from typical water projects because of its scale and lead time and thus should not earn at the full rate of return until placed in service. Exhibit 1.0, 7.) ORA indicates that in D.00-03-053, the Commission adopted this ratemaking treatment AFUDC at 90-day commercial paper) for the costs of the Carmel River Dam project. Cal-Am also proposes to recover costs associated with a public information campaign it plans to undertake in support of its Coastal Water 19- BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3]??A.97-03-052 AU! MLC/ sid approach was adopted for the water industry because water utilities generally had few long-term construction projects and that the average water construction project took four months. See Exhibit 10, pp. 7-8.) Because the Coastal Water Project clearly does not meet these criteria, ORA recommends that its costs be handled like other long-term construction projects, i.e., earning interest at the 90-day commercial paper rate. ORA likewise favors use of a memorandum account over a deferred debit account because items tracked in a memorandum account are clearly subject to review for reasonableness. As we previously held in D.94-08-031., water utilities: are uniquely able to seek construction work in progress CWIP) accounting to recover the cost of financing plant under construction but not yet used and useful. Other utilities must rely on the less immediate allowance for funds used during construction' AFUDC) accounting method, which defers recovery of construction financing costs until after the plant is placed in service. Water utilities are authorized to seek'CWIP accounting because of a perception that water utility construction projects are generally shorter than other utility construction projects, and because CWIP accounting may cost ratepayers less than AFUDC accounting." See D.94-08-031,1994 PUC LEXIS 474 at *7, note 2.) Thus, we must evaluate whether or not the costs at issue here are related to a water utility construction project of generally short duration to determine whether or not the CWIP or AFUDC at authorized rate of return ratemaking treatment Cal-Am seeks is appropriate. Because the Coastal Water Project will clearly require a significant period of time for construction, distinguishing it from typical water utility construction projects, we conclude that it is not entitled to the specialized CWIP ratemaking treatment offered to short duration water projects. In addition, the costs at issue here are predecessor 21. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3^??A.97-03-052 AU! MLC/ sid recovery of these expenditures and recover the reasonable costs through a surcharge in addition to the rate adopted in that general rate case. VII. Disposition of Application 97-03-052 This proceeding was opened in 1997. The nature of the project for which Cal-Am seeks authorization has changed significantly and the record developed with respect to the Carmel River Dam project is essentially moot for purposes of evaluating Cal-Am's new request for a CPCN for the Coastal Water Project Because Cal-Am must prepare a thorough environmental review document in seeking authority to construct the Coastal Water Project, regardless of whether it is handled within the current application or a new application, we do not believe that a dismissal of the current application will delay Cal-Am's pursuit of a long- term water supply solution for its Monterey District. For administrative efficiency, we will dismiss this proceeding without prejudice. At the same time, we expressly direct Cal-Am to file a new application to seek Commission authorization to pursue the Coastal Water Project. Development costs for the Coastal Water Project, including costs associated with any such new filing and new proceeding, should be booked as directed in this decision. This decision does not prejudge whether a CPCN should be granted for the Coastal Water Project or the reasonableness of future costs of any project ultimately approved. VIII. Comments on Proposed Decision This decision deals with certain issues that were the subject of evidentiary hearings, and other issues that were not the subject of hearings. For purposes of receiving comments, the decision is being issued as a proposed decision under Pub. Util. Code 311(d). BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3_??A.97-03-052 ALJ/MIC/sid The County and MCWRA urge that the Proposed Decision in its Ordering Paragraphs state that the Commission shall consider the regional nature and aspects of the Coastal Water Project during the environmental review process and, further, that public hearings regarding the project be conducted in Monterey County. As the Proposed Decision makes clear, regional considerations are important, but Cal-Am's primary concern is to obtain 10,730 acre feet of water to serve its service territory and its customers. We see no need to alter the Proposed Decision in this regard. The location of public hearings is a matter yet to be decided, but we will give considerable weight to the recommendations of the County and MCWRA in. scheduling these hearings. ORA supports the major findings of the Proposed. Decision, but it urges that Cal-Am not be permitted to book public information costs into a memorandum account for possible recovery in Cal-Am's next general rate case. Cal-Am notes in its reply brief that Cal-Am will have to justify any public information expenditures before it can recover these costs. We believe that establishment of a memorandum account is a reasonable method of dealing with this issue. ORA also urges that the Commission explicitly require Cal-Am to explore possible regional partnerships for development of the Coastal. Water Project without regard to whether that exploration is undertaken as part of an environmental review. We believe that objective is implied in the Proposed Decision. Changes in the Ordering Paragraphs are unnecessary. The District supports the Proposed Decision, but it suggests that the Commission make the District co-lead agency under CEQA. We decline to do that but, as the Proposed Decision notes, we are committed to working closely with the District in carrying out our CEQA responsibilities. BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3`??A.97-03-052 ALJ/MLC/sid 10. Cal-Am recommends that the Commission be designated as lead agency under CEQA to certify the environmental assessment required for the proposed Coastal Water Project. 11. The County, MCWRA and MCWD urge that Monterey County be lead agency in cooperation with MCWRA. 12. The District and CAWS support the District as lead agency. 1.3. The District was the lead agency for Cal-Am's application to construct the Carmel River Dam, and the District has extensive experience regarding Monterey Bay water supply options. 14. Many of the proposed Coastal Water Project facilities fall outside the District's jurisdictional boundaries and authority. 15. The County represents the community most affected by the Coastal Water Project proposal, and has permitting authority over the proposed desalination plant location. 16. The County in combination with MCWRA has jurisdictional responsibilities covering land use, management of water resources, and facility construction and operation. 17. The Commission is a statewide public agency with broad jurisdiction over a multi-jurisdictional project like the Coastal Water Project. 1.8. Effective environmental review will require extensive involvement by virtually all the responsible agencies with permit authority over the Coastal Water Project. 19. Cal-Ann.'s ratemaking request covers 1) costs incurred or yet to be incurred for the Carmel River Dam project; 2) costs incurred in development of Plan B/Coastal Water Project, and 3) costs expected to be incurred with the Coastal Water Project. 27- BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3a??A.97-03-052 ALJ/MLC/sid 5. Cal-Am's costs beyond the Commission's Plan B/Coastal Water Project development costs should not be booked to the ratemaking accounts authorized by the Commission's resolutions. 6. Interest on Plan B/Coastal Water Project development costs should continue to accrue until the costs are fully recovered by a surcharge. 7. Cal-Am should establish a memorandum account, with interest, to track ongoing costs of the Coastal Water Project. 8. Cal-Am should establish a memorandum account, with interest, to. track public information costs for the Coastal Water Project. 9. A.97-03-052 should be dismissed without prejudice, and. Cal-Am should be directed to file a new application for Commission authorization to pursue the Coastal Water Project and a Proponent's Environmental Assessment. O R D E R IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Commission is designated the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act to conduct, prepare and certify the environmental assessment required for the Coastal Water Project proposal of California- American Water Company Cal-Am). 2. The ratemaking treatment adopted in Decision D.) 03-02-030 shall apply to costs incurred or yet to be incurred by Cal-Am in the development of its Carmel River Dam project in this application. 3. In its next general rate case, Cal-Am shall adjust its revenue requirement to remove from Construction Work in Progress CWIP) any amounts adopted in D.03-02-030 that were not spent on the Carmel River Dam project. 29- BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3b??A.97-03-052 ALJ/ M.I.C./ si.d APPENDIX A SERVICE LIST Last Update on 20-JUN-2003 by: DYK A9703052 LIST APPEARANCES *` David P. Stephenson CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY 303 H SI-REET, SUITE 250 Cl IULA VISTA CA 91910 619) 409-7712 dstephen@ amwater.com For: California-American Water Company Dennis Le C1ere Deputy County Counsel COUNTY OF MONTEREY 60 WEST MARKET S BEET, SUITE 140 SALI AS CA 93901 831) 755-5045 Ieclered@.co.monterev.ca.us For: County of Monterey David C. Laredo Attorney At Law DE LAY & LAREDO 606 FOREST AVENUE PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950 831) 646-1502 dave4Iaredolaw.net For: Monterey Peninsula Water Managernent District Ann L. Tow bridge Attorney At Law DOWNFY BRAND ATTORNEYS LLP 555 CAPITOL MALL, 10TH FLOOR SACRAMENTO CA 95814 916)4,14-1000 atrowbridge?downey bra nd.com For: Monterey County Water Resources Agency MC 1W`RA) John P. Brennan ESSELEN TRIBE OF MONTEREY COUNTY BOX 1647 CARMEL VALLEY CA 93924 831) 659-8,34.2 jbrennan@~redsl-tift.com For. The Esselen Tribe Frances M. Farina Attorney At Law 389 PRINCETON AVENUE SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 805)681-8822 ffarinauicox.net For: MPWMD; CARP; SOCR John W. Fischer 230 GROVE ACRE, ROOM 313 PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950-2342 831) 655-3609 wyrdjon( vahoo.com For: John W. Fischer Sean Flavin 500 CAMINO EL ESTERO MONTEREY CA 93940 831.)372-7535 sflavi.n^redshiftcom For: Sean Flavin Donald G. Hubbard HUBBARD & HUBBARD LLP AGUAJITO BUILDING 400 CAMINO AGUAJITO MONTEREY CA 93940-3596 831) 372-7571 afhuhbard`aol.com Lloyd W. Lowrey, Jr. MARINA COAST WATER DISI-RICT 333 SALLNAS STREET SALINAS CA 93902 831) 424-1414 Ilowrev@nheh.com For: Marina Coast Water District Roberti. Mc Kenzie 375 SPENCER STREET, SUITE 1 MONTEREY CA 93940 bobmck@%mbay.net Sheryl Mc Kenzie Government Affairs Director MONTEREY COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS PO BOX 2692 MONTEREY CA 93942 gad@,mcar.com For: Monterey County Association of Realtors Nancy I.sakson Water Solution MONTEREY PENINSULA CITIZENS FOR PRESIDENT P() BOX 804 CARMEL CA 93921 831) 624-2377 nisakson isal has an ex iusive agreamett far purchase, Therefore, it would appearthe CalAm North Marina alternative is not teasible unless t tCW'D is a partner In the project S 33,25 3.30 Once tispnsat S. is not dear what Is meant by the satement'Duricg starer everlts and when ttse CSIP Is not in operation, the Wine stream would be mixed wltle cternrnater flow from, the MRWPCA,' Wh at e3orrr,waterltowo ate referenced by this statement? s the brine stiilt discharged through the outfa0 in these cases? If nom where Is t- Sent after It ts'mieeod w)ah stotmwatsl? The statement also says that brine vrilt be mixed wish stcreewater'wften C5:-ir rot le opvroflcn'. it is oat clear that 55IP operation has any impacts on brine disposal. 16 Start, wells maybe tooted near ntomeeey epineflnwer and oho, drte suns sensitive habitat tposs)bly Smiths blue hutterfsy, tall. Broaden dean. iptie m fr~m'wnO sites" 40 area sips red matrMance access areas.` ukewlse, arsvtt other peojee1 w;nFnr ent sectenaes include teed Chayere 4 4,4.44 maintenance access arcas.- IL_MCWD-2 1L MCWD-3 1L_MCWD-4 1L_MCWD-5 Jt_McwD.5 TL_MCIAT-7 12-1-102 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3h??4.5.3 4.'-33 Tire trotsta et that The treasent prrxesses emPipted to venerate the product water would ensure mmpiance c` the product water wah the Safe DrinkingWater Ac: and the federal pren:ry and zeca:rdary drinker water standards" Proeidt a tahk showing he expected. water Guatry fw all! consmuents after VeaLatrea_thrav s a gurgle pan RO system, 2 4,3.2,_ 4.3.4 Peavio habitat Section stares Sur a phyurpanktan specks, cud: as Cothi chin" canon harmf l algal brooms when they reproduce to very high densities wad" trWns lAveosec ng-Howard V. at. 25771." What dscunentation exists about the abii:y of a ore pass R7 system" to rtmtovt tonims that might be,Mezrzt L1 the open water intake of the Moms Landing p-ojet17 4.3.2.5 4.3.4.1 52- |10
13| 5.2.2 4.3-16 43':9 514 5.15 L MCWD-11 1 i I L_MCWD-12 IL_MCWD-13 L MCWD-14 The second semitone Ln the section stales that t e outfag pan discharge up to 21 or ton gaibct 01 treated sewage a day." The 21 mgd t re rate k the annual average flow rare. Flom through the arofot daring wet weather' pronto ran earteed 21 rngd, and t re cattail rated capatry is apprwr nar_ely 63 go Er Its current mn'igurattoa, and can be expanded to apprrimately 60 nsgd by opeel g the ramalnirg existing x- fall he draft E1R Identlfiet a brine drsclrarge of 10% shave amb3rrt sea water TDS as a potential sf6'ri`roant impact, Croon ndy there are no adopted Qccan plat objectors that apply speciftafly to brine waste di cherges from desatr ation facilities. The 10% abcsr ambient scaw'atvr 1705 has not formuty hero adopted by a rtgriato y agency and shmrld be on noted in the tilt I M--WCtknawirdlies the itsxs associated wtzh irnplementatian of the Salinas River S5IP and the permit approval protest may necessitate the SWTP being delayed Al; Phase 2 of the Regal Project Further disa4tsian month MCW%A is regWted to develop a definitive schedsle for rmptementatete o`, this Project compnner,L A larger desslinatron plant may be rextui mid in Phan 1 ff the Salinas Rim SWTP is rot inipkmened as a part of Phase 1. The pant would intonate in capacIty from 10 mgd apptdxtrutely 1C,D3 AMY} to appmehrateiy 13 mgd appm,,intaiely 13 057 AF), and would be s rear in capacity as described It Section 5.3.2 of the D-a t Slit 17 5-4 S-1L r It is aMir~pated that there wig be 6 vertical weal pa rpi g apprxorOrrstety 2,60 gpm for the Phase I Regional Desa motion FacIity 5- 16, 5-27, con`ponent of the Regional Project. The cumber of wells troy heed to be increeed slightly if the Salinas Riven-5007P Is not included in Phase I Chapter S 19, 61.6 and a arger Desalu oiloo tsr5ti'y it requited. Ig 5-212.1 S-19 &5-25 After adlxYwtut analysis, the taalon of the Phase I RaWater wells has bterr revised as serene on a*,zohed Revised Figure 5-3. The wells will be Coated an Armstrong Rant) in an area between N-rghway I and the dunes, sa,ieh of the tonestar faclity, 19 3rd paragraph: The St/IS seaweterfbraddsh water) ratio for the desalination wends was determined by madtlmg perfarn ed by Geoscrence Support Services, Inc. The model eg and results am summaxised in the ftarth Marina Groundwater Model ftcouairan of Acyinaatftoject 5.22.1 519 Sreoorio 4f, February L_MCWD 5 L_MCWD-16 L_h4CWD-17 21 lmpact 6.t-= LI-12 airt'x projects ld woc. Time anatysii of ditidrie k bOoeissrerrt between the torch Marina and Regional Project tematiues. The Intuit for b include a small fraction o?. grouraiwatei as de?,u$hed on page 4242 far the North Marina project and page 62.14 for,Nre Regiorol Project_ Nowpser, the analysis of Source Water Qualify- Cantamrnartts tot the North Marina project Ignores the effect of groundwater to the The meUndology for the r~tb oested dleldrbi waceniratiad while the analysis of the Regional Project indstdes It- analysis ihoaid be coa.sisteni b athprojects In edd7tibtt,the discussion, of6mMr is evertycoaservative for the following reasnnr E Y 1 The weft with t e Iderfifred Qefdrto sample In the 2 usttf report W-21 is not representative of the decaitnatkrat intake foUidies weft is Located sever S odken south of the proposed Intakewells and appears to be located in the tamer Pont Ord. an area with known groundwater tarrtaintetatksn The waft is W. withier the torte of irdtumu of the intake wens. 2.The woke sampled in, the 20M USGS report that were located near the Riche far)Rties were all cart-detect for dieldrira 22 Inrpace 6,2.4 G2-14 The analysis appears to have been copied fr en the North Marna project analysis in Chapter 4 siszt it reftrcnrn the North Marina Project slant wello The fallowing Statement Is applicable to the Retdatel Projects vertical welt: For the Vernal wells, that portion of the potable product water that arrinsted es groundwater rathecdun seawater wN be r egad on lairds overlying list grou:alwattt basin clsu referred to as Zone 2C- That portion of the extracted groundwater that is nonpetable will be discharged through the ouliaLL 23 Impact 6.2.5 G2-16 The location of the vertical wells has been revised and they are row math of Territories A and IL The dlsouszion of this impact in the OR should bennfsed tobdetate that due walk are, not beefed in either S AorL 24 6,4.2.1 6.4-2 nie OR Mies; that the Phase 2 RegtonaloeoaRnation Project would include **Oft or Peso brattish water welts further Inland of de seawater weft proposed Seethe Prose 1 Prefect.` Per Section 5.3.S. in Phase 2, source waterfathe Regional Desalination FarIIhy would be mean Water combined with bncltlib Water te.aweter intruded groundwater) from a second a Rae of btackish Wells near highway I or an omenstan of se 1 added). 25 655 6.5.7 The, OR Includes a lengthy 6=.d= of the potential the of liquefaction due to proposed storage In the parched stroller underlying Armstrong Ranch and ccndWes that tow petered aquifer storage ca Ad resuk in an Increased risk of Protect Induced fnwe$Xan and related ground failure from a major earthquake resulting In atrvcharst dam.ge to Phase I PAgional Project facltlt es-'. T'.te EIR appearsto matt an engineering Wndu>dat about the potential for.bgoe.`action without the acoompanyrrg engineering analysis to fu? Ify such a statement. Either irrkide the fuit enatfsh orremave the anecdotal dkcu-.sioo and sate that additional analysis will be needed to analyze tee potential for and nutigste against fquttaction train storage of recycled water ved,10 the ptresed egw'fer In atxordance with Mitigation measure4$-L 26 653 5.4 Simlarfy ra the sfurry oaf dlzcnrtsian the F3R states tfsat the zltury waf'coul! he stnmusaly damaged from is ajar carthirao r resufang in loss of tontainment of perched groundwater.' fiber induct the full sehmo anatySis that W to this condustnn- or remtove the arrtdutai discussion and note that the slurry will will need to be designed to ri* i toe the risk of damage during a najor selsmio even' in acrnrdamct wish s4ftigatio. Measure 45-1, 27 Impact 6,42 6.SG Dente the ttntenct'Mechan~l eq ipment ty tlk welt and arbor stationary sources would Include mato shat tvo k o NLaled TStt. fj y rMund rfam dempiesis added) The caprguraton of the well head equ patent Witt be determined du i. og natal de lgn and w Ii be ether ahoye orbelow ground depending an shcspcGfl, pe-mixing requhement In eh1reccase the strurrumt will be designed t rare,,, c noire attenuz tar. rcgtdremens of Mitigation hteasute 49-2. |10
13| 3^ Comment Letter L MCWD L_aICWD-18 L_MCWD-19 L_MCWD 20 L MCWD-21 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3i??Comment Letter L MCWD tea impact 5.81 1 1; 1 3 Tttr fhn f t paragraph on this pare e rs to'tx ikrn portion of the Regions P e=ject" n is trot dear wits onion hart of rtoag to errs 1 Lalalm is not he lead agency for the Regonal Project. If this statement refers to the desalination plant it should be noted that MCWD cpntrolc the tend upon wnidt either the Ce.lFrn only North Maria or Regional proeec would be built Aced to prdieet could trot proceed cot |10
13| L be proposed site without MCt:D as a)aAnee or Lead at~ta- arify and ate the speciPe project compn That, Is reform hytles statement and describe Why it it tomidered a GtArt component. 79 gaps= 5.8-1 5.8-3 The analysts provided for Impact 1,5 1 is inateapsate to conclude that tonstrr:dian off tee 3tegiorat Prokxt coil yes ell it ugnlfi:aM. and unavoidable emission. s Gf cr feria pollutants- T e trot states it ti tti32 etnlYif'1nS eswciaeed With cooviadson of Phase I and Phase 2 of the Regtobil Prefect wnt3d be stiahtiv higher than those In the summaries presorted in S+tion 48.4" rnhphaSis addeef Tka at inadeWbate analysis to warrant the eonduston that. tf:e Regional Project wou result 1's significant and utcevoidable emisstare, STst taxis of the analysis appears to be that the Phase I Regional Proved insides a ssartav water treattrrdvt plan; that the other projects do rent flowerer, the Mass Landing project in des a 22 mgd pretreatment proems Sntbad;rag 5auulatirtg dar"itars and rnnthsbrane fikratln't whiff are essentially the same co nponeas as timer of the smaller, 14 mgd Phase 1 surfatt Water treatment print, rn addhtno, the Mow Landing Project Includes a 43,733 equate foot open rrservolc far egseliaaticn cast is not inciaded to the Phase 1 Region'. project- The Mves Larding Project therefore Includes constvr?inn of more facilities than the Phase I Regional project ii r rretruttuan emsssians from h a Moss Lxufing Project would be rnititeted to less than sir-recant levels Mitigaton Measure 4.8-1j, then the sooty cartctasian should be made for the Phase I Regional peojest 33 impact G.8-3 5.8-5 ten comment 32. The EIR has not provided ode ate dnvumentat}tn ter puxtify itr tamiuslon that Phase 1 el Uri Regio cal Project res:al??ts n r miu&tively cenoWrnble net i tomato of P3110 whit the impacts Pram mrssratrction of the Moss tanihog Prrapr.l or Borth Marina Project would trot tot csarrrdatsrely ceinsi etob:e. Chapter 4, Mitigation Measure 4.8.3), The Moss Landing Project includes coast ter tior of mare fad"itiet than the Phase t R-jlional p.-,jest- R the Moss tandltg PrvjrC k s.o cidered to L e sot cumu.atively cnrarr ralrie' titer. tits same candustan should be made for the Phase 1 tegi:,rat project. tut the Phase 2 analysts, sonar set the Phase 2 coo,ponerstc are r4'7:alfp exdustve acid the decision or Wnlrh cope ents Wore d be built would occur to the future, It is premature to evaluate anticipated emasiaahs from the Phase 2 conatrvctidn before selecttor, of the Phase 2 campor-ents bas been made- 31 7.5 1 7-37 1,720 The rnrttrern hard of vertical wilts shown in Figure 5.3 as Leah de eyed from the project The nerd leateth of the in:akr pipeline u feel not the 45,0x00 It shown in Tar' 11 71 32 t is not dear by what bass he EIR coadidcs tit toe Floe h Marcia project wit, seawater wells world are St gMPt rMrrp-s entafr1 sup~nc? 1 to Phase 1 of the Reg oral Protect 0.1. the Re Pmp d rnae fully mee s t: a CWP rot yet. he PIP sham a-}vde a dear expranatan s of tire ways in whin he North 1, anza project is crms:dere-5 ervircrorrerhat}y ss.ceno-. 7.7.2 7x;0 33 Marina projr t could utilize venial wets since Cur portion cf the groundwater that ism rime prow-.uct water ear ft I, not hat the C.44- North clear eu an lands overlying she Salinas grnvndwater bath, more fofmiaily, known as Zone 2G Use of etrtitai welts would prode;rtx mot be uti u dealmati~ plant product Water that vv:Adbecomposed of appro~drnatety 1536 gra~dwater, which would be too large a groundwater Additlonaiy, Pt Is tilt clear haw title much greater vakmae of t?gh dilution With recycled water. component for use within the LaP system tt product waver could be ecosmadeted wt-Nn the 80 acre?foat pond, Particularly during the winter months, 7 7.2. 7-CJ 34 tive enr:'roomeiraiy superIor to the Regtatal Project? Co page 7.57 and 7-Gil, there are Maw l Cal#m's North Marina kherera various advantages the Psegldnat Project has ova the North Marina A ternatfve, but on page 7-61, it Is stated the North Marina Altemative is envirnarnentaly superior if the slant welfn are replaced with vertical well, further, the Regional Project Indudes utairkst Methane gas produced at the Monterey Reg oaal Waste Maragerr tt DI;Wtct to power a congeneratlen fadlity teat will provide the power ee ndrenthents df to Regional Treatment fadN.ies. The methane gas wtndd otherwise be released to to atmosphere Taus eedsxilon of methane gas release conottRutes a tegatfee taboo footprnt. Because MCWD has the option to own the proposed site, only they could access the coogeneration facility power for the desalination faciliy. In other words, itshortionaffy, no other entity could actress the same green power from the landfill that MCt D would be able to. 7.7.2 761 L_MCW0-25 L MCWD-2& I. MCWD-27 MCWD-28 L L_MCWD-29 Comment Letter L MCWD I. i AM D-30 L ftiCWD-31 12.1-144 BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3j?? Comment Letter L MCWD Comment Letter L_MCWD rl Legend MRWPCA Monterey Regional Wale; Pollution di'~' conkolAgency PotenaalPhase t$eawaterWeland North Marina Gt"oundwaterModel Prpoire LocaNOns versa ewi phase Evaluation of Regional Project Scenario 4f Seawater Wen n Erpansipn Expansion S QreYmhary Pipetina A145nmenl WernaNe Akgn?nents M`44 Propcrtyon Arms;rongRench Prgied Wa"er Pipe5ne Transmnision Main Soul: Prepared ir. klariua Coast Water District February 26, 2009 V CE Support Services, Inc. OSCICu GL T6 909) 451-600 hr 900)151-6634 Afailing, I J. Aoz 2210, 0-mom, CA PI 71! Monterey Regional Water Revised Figure 5.3 620 Arrow M,ghwrn?, Sooo 2019, xr a e?ne, CA 91750 Supply Program Co-located North Marina Desalination Facilty & Surface Water Treatment Plant BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3k??Comment Letter L_MCWD Comment Letter L_MCWD Nash Marun Groundwpar Riedel North Marina t"nvun;Faatcr Mndoi EvaUar!on of Regionni F VrAf 5. 5.99 NORTH MARINA GROUNI)WATER MODEL FIGURES EVALUATION OF REGIONAL PROJECT SCENARIO 4f No. Description 1.0 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I I 2 180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vu. Regional Project Scenario 41' Groundwater Elevations Regional Ptoject Scenario 4fII}drograptu 3 180-Foot Aquifer Baseline vs, Regional Project Scenario 4f Seawater Intrusion 2.0 NORTH MARINA GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL 1 4 Predicted TDS Concentrations front Regional Project 4f Extraction Wells 3.0 MODEL PREDICTIVE SCENARIO 4F 2 4.0 RESULTS FOR REGIONAL PROJECT SCENARIO 4F 3 5.0 REFERENCES H FIGURES UhUSCIENC,E Suwon Scn cs, Ito. arena Coast WOts tiisu;ct U009CIFNCF. Suppnn 05,0505, Ins. Marina Coca Wuot Uarros BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3l??EXHIBIT W BIB] 40611-U01 PUBLIC-U02 COMMENT-U02 U02 STAMP-U02 CONT-U02 D.-U02 LI21329-U03 FO96183-U03 FO96184-U03 FO97017-U03 MG97055-U03 AS97074-U03 AS97080-U03 AI97618-U03 DO98140-U03 C14-U03 CORRESPONDENCE-U03 1/28/2011-U04 BORENM-U04 15922-U05 4-U06 AS-U07 THE-U07 BOARD-U07 OF-U07 SUPERVISORS-U07 OF-U07 THE-U07 MONTEREY-U07 COUNTY-U07 WATER-U07 RESOURCES-U07 AGENCY-U07 CONSIDER-U07 THE-U07 REGIONAL-U07 DESALINATION-U07 930-WRA-U08 CHAMBLISS-U09 WINIFRED-U09 CHAMBLISSW-U10 12/29/2010-U011 PROJECT-U012 ACT-U012 AS-U012 FOLLOWS:-U012 A.-U012 REVIEW-U012 CONSIDER-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 CERTIFIED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 ON-U012 DECEMBER-U012 17,-U012 2009,-U012 IN-U012 DECISION-U012 D.09-12-017-U012 THE-U012 ADDENDUM-U012 RELEASED-U012 BY-U012 THE-U012 CPUC-U012 S-U012 CONSULTANT-U012 ON-U012 MARCH-U012 24,-U012 2010;-U012 B.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS-U012 ATTACHED-U012 HERETO,-U012 INCORPORATED-U012 HEREIN-U012 INCLUDE-U012 A-U012 STATEMENT-U012 OF-U012 OVERRIDING-U012 CONSIDERATIONS;-U012 C.-U012 REAFFIRM-U012 APPROVAL-U012 ADOPTION-U012 OF-U012 THE-U012 MITIGATION-U012 MEASURES-U012 IDENTIFIED-U012 PROPOSED-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FEIR-U012 AS-U012 TAILORED-U012 TO-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 ROLE-U012 AS-U012 A-U012 RESPONSIBLE-U012 AGENCY-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 THE-U012 FINDINGS;-U012 D.-U012 APPROVE-U012 THE-U012 REGIONAL-U012 DESALINATION-U012 PROJECT,-U012 CONSISTENT-U012 MCWRA-U012 S-U012 CONDITIONAL-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL-U012 AS-U012 SET-U012 FORTH-U012 IN-U012 RESOLUTION-U012 NO.-U012 10-091;-U012 E.-U012 DIRECT-U012 STAFF-U012 TO-U012 TAKE-U012 OTHER-U012 ACTIONS-U012 MAY-U012 BE-U012 NECESSARY-U012 TO-U012 EFFECTUATE-U012 PROJECT-U012 APPROVAL,-U012 INCLUDING-U012 LIMITED-U012 TO-U012 FILING-U012 A-U012 NOTICE-U012 OF-U012 DETERMINATION-U012 THE-U012 OFFICE-U012 OF-U012 PLANNING-U012 RESEARCH-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 CLERK-U012 THE-U012 COUNTY-U012 OF-U012 MONTEREY.-U012 PUBLIC COMMENT - STAMP CONT D?3m??Comment Letter L_MCWRA MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY D PICK 930 SALMIAS, CA 45953 b3?}r50b20 rAS 15511424.5555 CURTIS V. WEEKS rrENF.RALMANA'ER March 23, 2009 Mr. Andrew Barnsdale coo Environmental Science Associates 225 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Comment Letter L_MGWRA Nix. Andrew Bamsdalc page 2 of4 pages March 23, 2009 Exportation of Groutdtrater from the SVGA SUREST ADDRESS 593 ta.ANCO CIRCLE SALINAS. CA 53901.4455 The Agency's enabling icgishation(Agcncy Act 1990 Slats. 1159. 1991 Slats, 1130, 1993 Slats, 234 and 1994 Scats. 903) states that, the Agency is developing a project which will establish a substantial balance between extraction and recharge within the Salinas River Groundwater Basin, For the purpose of preserving that balance, no groundwater from that basin may be exported for any use outside the basin, except that use of water from the basin on any part of Fort Ord shall not be deemed such an export. If any export of water from the basin is attempted, the Agency may obtain from the superior court, and the court shall grant, injunctive relief prohibiting that exportation of groundwater." See DEIR pages 4.2-31 4.2-32.) Tl,c Act describes the Agera:y's focus on stopping seawater intrusion, and the actions necessary to allow that to occur. I A history of Agency projects and activities related to the halting of seawater intrusion can be found in the DEIR, Section 1.6.1 page 1-7, 9). Once the last project, the Salinas Valley Water Project SVWP), is completed and delivering water, the SVUB will move towards hydrologic balance, thus halting seawater intrusion. It cannot be determined how long that will take, considering unknown factors such as annual precipitation, temperature, and other environmental factors the Agency has no control over, Removing water from the SVGA, as described in various locations within the DEIR could upset the progress of balancing the SVGB, thus further exacerbating the seawater intrusion condition. Some of those locations Ara as tbllvws: Re: Monterey County Water Resources Agency Comment Letter on Cal-Am's Coastal Water Project Draft TIR Dear Mr. flarrssdale: The Monterey County Water Resources Agency Agency) submits its continents on the California-American Water Company Coastal Water Project Draft Environmental Impact Report dated January 30, 2009 DEIR), The Agency is gratified that the DIitR recognizes the regulatory authority and jurisdiction the Agency possesses over groundwater and surface water resources that the alternative projects discussed in the DEIR could and in fact likely will impact. See for example DEIR at pages 4.2-31 4,2-32.) Environmental impacts on these resources will be at the center of the Agency's comments, submittal below, The Agency cannot, by raw, support any project alternative that would violate its statutory duties, which necessarily includes any project alternative that expects or allows export of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin SVGB), seawater intrusion into the SYOB, or impacts on the Salinas River that would have an impact on the ability of water from the Salinas River to Contribute to SVGS recharge. Therefore, the Agency will provide comments on the following concerns: Exportation of groundwater from the SVGB, Extraction of groundwater. Utilization of access to) Salinas River surface water, Use of recycled water Expansion of the Cestroville Seawater Intrusion Project CSIP), and Impacts of agreements necessary to insplcmcnt the portfolio of projects proposed Groundwater modeling indicates a suwll athount of groundwater will be taken trans the SVQ$ Section 3,3.1, page 3-26 State Water Resources Control Board SWRCII) Anti-Degradation Policy related to groundwater- Section 4.2.7,1. page 4,2-29 Reference to Agency Act Section 4,12,3,2, page 4.2-31-4.2.32 * impacts: n hnpact 4,2.5, Section 42,4.3. page 4.2-45 4.2.49 North Marina Alternative Source Water groundwater that is extracted from either slant wells at the coast or vertical wells. Water extracted would legally have to stay in the SVGB. The Moss Landing Alternative does not include a groundwater component, so this first concern is not raised in relation to that alternative. Extracttlpo of Gruuodwatcr The second concern is closely tied to the first one. Where groundwater is proposed to be extracted can have a tremendous effect on the hydrologic balance of the basin as well as on the behavior of grou0KJwater within the basin. These potential impacts thus need to be examined in greater detail than the analysis provided in the DEIR. Ile Doi IR has alt alternative North Martina Alternative) that is proposing to utilize one of two methods of gr,uthdwatcr extraction, MCWFiA?l L, hICWRA?2 either slant welts on the coast, or a series of vetical wells inland of the dunes, though to the west Y M nix eh C e ntY 0 1,, Rneurc.s Agency go, prnrcts. and tnk.n