MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-08-18

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Director's Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, March 8, 2018

Council Chambers
580 Pacific Street, Monterey
Monterey, California
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff
recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or MPRWA Director may request
that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion
1. Approve Minutes from September 18, 2017 - Romero
2. Approve Minutes from December 14, 2017 - Romero
3. Approve Minutes from January 11, 2018 - Romero
4. Approve Minutes from February 15, 2018 - Romero
5. Approve and File Authority Checks Through February 28, 2018 - Romero/Cullem
6. Receive Report and Adopt Resolution 2018-01 Approving a Conflict of Interest Code for
the Water Authority - Freeman
7. Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project, Status of Test Well Operation and Pipeline Construction - Cook
***End of Consent Agenda***

Thursday, March 8, 2018
***Adjourn to Closed Session***
Any person or group desiring to make Public Comments on a Closed Session item
may do so by addressing the Authority before they adjourn to Closed Session, or
by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940.
8. Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing

Litigation: In the Matter of the Application of California-American Water Company
(U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization
to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, California Public Utilities Commission
No. A.12-04-019 - Cullem
***End of Closed Session Agenda***
ADJOURN TO REGULAR SESSION
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
AGENDA ITEMS
9. Receive Report on the Joint Case Management Statement Submitted to the CPUC and on
the Case Management Conference, and Provide Staff Direction on Supporting a CDO
Modification Incorporating a Potential Pure Water Monterey Expansion - Cullem
10. Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on Authority Work Plan for the
Balance of FY 2017-2018 and for FY 2018-2019 - Cullem
ADJOURNMENT
The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance
to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (831) 646-3935.
Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will
be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use
the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-
to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing
amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerk’s Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.
2
M I N U TE S
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Special Meeting
7:00 PM, Monday, September 18, 2017
MONTEREY
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Directors Present: Director Carbone, Director Edelen, Alternate Director Smith, President
Kampe
Directors Absent: Director Dallas, Director Roberson, Director Rubio
Staff Present: Legal Counsel Freeman, Special Legal Counsel McGlothlin, Executive
Director Cullem
CALL TO ORDER
President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Directors Dallas and Rubio were absent, and Alternate Director Smith filled in for Director
Roberson.
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
• David Armanesko gave an update on Deep Water Desal (DWD) and noted that DWD
was officially approved as the backup project for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP).
• Michael Warburton, Public Trust Alliance, said he was originally in favor of the desal
project but changed his mind due to a law which might allow water to be transported to
the Peninsula. He said businesses may be pursuing litigation now that alternatives are
becoming available.
• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), commented on the

lack of County participation in MPRWA and that he is not happy with the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) budget.
• Michael Baer, resident, commented that the test well is only valid at 88% salinity and
fears that it could drop below 88% with a wet winter. He also commented on the
mounding at the Cemex mine pit.
CONSENT AGENDA
MPRWA Minutes Monday, September 18, 2017
A request was made to remove items #2 and #3 from consent.
1. Approve and File Authority Checks Through August 31, 2017

Action: Approved (4-0-2, Dallas and Rubio absent)
On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Smith, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved Consent Agenda item #1:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Edelen, Smith, Kampe
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 2 DIRECTORS: Dallas, Rubio
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None
2. Receive Report and Approve a Joint Meeting in October with the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District (MPWMD) and Provide Staff Direction
Action: Removed from consent; discussed; Approved a joint meeting with MPWMD in
October
Executive Director Cullem summarized the request by the MPWMD to have a joint meeting with
MPRWA to see if there are common concerns before the upcoming CPUC hearings.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, said he did not like Dave Stoldt’s response regarding the
joint meeting. He added that in the 1980’s the court had to intervene on
MPWMD’s water allocation decision and would like to see the MPRWA members
on the MPWMD board.
Director Smith commented that governance after MPWRA disbands is a worthy topic for future
discussions, but for now the focus should be on the water supply project. Director Edelen
voiced agreement with Director Smith and Mr. Rowley that there should be a plan for a follow
up role to avoid MPWMD no growth decisions in the future. President Kampe said these are all
valid requests but that the goal of the joint meeting with MPWMD will be a 90 minute
conversation to discuss mutual concerns for the water supply project. Director Smith suggested
that the joint meeting with MPWMD be a study session.
On a motion by Director Carbone, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved a Joint Meeeting with
MPWMD in October:
3. Authorize a Change Order to Separation Processes Inc. (SPI) and its Sub-consultant,
Geosyntec, in the Amount of $5000, to Analyze the MCWD Aerial Electromagnetic Method
(AEM) Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey (ERT) and Advise of Possible Impact to
Models of the Desal Facility Slant Well Intakes
Action: Removed from consent; discussed; Approved change order of $5,000 to the SPI
contract for an analysis on AEM and ERT
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Director's Meeting Minutes – Monday, September 18, 2017
2
Executive Director Cullem gave a summary of the request for an additional $5,000 set aside if
an impartial analysis by Geosyntec on the Hopkin’s report regarding AEM and ERT models is
needed. He said it may be beneficial to have an impartial analysis by Geosyntec, in addition to
the studies by MCWD and Cal Am.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• Micheal Baer opined that hydrogeologists are not needed to analyze the Hopkins
study. He said that the AEM study is only preliminary and suggested that the
Geosyntec review be delayed until the final report is ready.
• George Riley, Public Water Now (PWN), praised Marina Coast Water District
(MCWD) on cooperation on pipelines and GWR.
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, said he is concerned about potential delays and likes the
independent analysis by the Authority. He said there is always new data used as
a reason to delay the project.
The board discussed the benefits to having an impartial analysis to help move the project
forward.
On a motion by Director Smith, seconded by Director Carbone, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved a Change Order of $5,000 for
SPI for an Independent Consultant Analysis:

AGENDA ITEMS
4. Receive Report, Consider Proposed Water Authority Testimony and Rebuttal Testimony
concerning the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) to be Presented to the
CPUC by September 29, 2017, and Provide Staff Direction
Action: Authorized testimony be given to the CPUC on behalf of the MPRWA
Russ McGlothlin, Special Legal Counsel, gave a presentation to the Board on the following:
Ø Overview the schedule for the CPUC hearings.
Ø Outline of MPRWA testimony scheduled for September 29.
Ø Cal Am’s water demand estimates for the Peninsula and how the desal plant will meet
those demands.
Ø The need for the larger size desal plant and conditional support for expansion of PWM
and renewable energy for the project.
Ø MPRWA’s continued support for securitization.

3
Director Smith asked what gives the CPUC the authority to decide what size the desal plant can
be and how many acre feet of water is enough for the Peninsula, and Mr. McGlothlin responded
that the CPUC has jurisdiction over Cal Am and it’s service to regulate water supply. He added
that CPUC will be issuing the CPCN they need to determine that what is being applied for is in
the public interest and whether or not the project applied for is in the scale and capacity that is
necessary to meet the needs of the Peninsula.
Director Edelen requested that CPUC be made aware of Monterey’s conservation, and Mr.
McGlothlin said that this is well known and will be brought up again.
PUBLIC COMMENT
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, questioned the cost of GWR for the ratepayers and would like to
hear an analysis of the cost.
• George Riley, PWN, said that the CPUC is supposed to take the cost of the project into
consideration when making their decision. He said he would hope that during the joint
meeting with the Water District to discuss alternatives if the Cal Am project is put on the
shelf due to litigation.
• Michael Warburton, said alternative projects should be considered.
• Michael Baer, said that for every thousand acre feet of water the cost of the project goes
up exponentially.
• John Narigi, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, said that the coalition supports the
larger size desal plant as there is nothing left that the businesses can conserve. He said
the testimony should include that the project is for a long term solution.
• Julie Engall, resident, said she hopes that there is water set aside for affordable housing
and residents as opposed to tourism.
• Resident of Pacific Grove, said it seems the CPUC is trying to mitigate the impacts of a
desal plant but there is nothing that can be done about the impacts.
Director Smith said that it should be emphasized that the demand estimates are conservative
and that there is no time left to wait for another project; the MPWSP is the most viable project in
the 11th hour. Director Carbone concurred that a buffer is necessary in the drought years and
when the desal plant has mechanical failures. The Board thanked Mr. McGlothlin for his
presentation. President Kampe said that Cal Am will factor in an operating margin in their
testimony. He also said that there is no other alternative to MPWSP and GWR to meet the
needs and growth of the community.
On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Smith, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Authorized Testimony on Behalf of the
MPRWA:
4
ADJOURNMENT
President Kampe adjourned the meeting at 8:35 pm.
ATTEST:
Nova Romero, Authority Clerk MPRWA President

5
M I N U TE S
Director's Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, December 14, 2017
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY
Directors Present: Director Carbone, Director Dallas, Director Edelen, Director Roberson,
Director Rubio, President Kampe
Directors Absent: None
Staff Present: Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero
CALL TO ORDER
President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
All Directors present.
President Kampe said that a few people went to Sacramento on 12/7 to meet with State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Coastal commission regarding flexibility on
arrangements for future permits and milestones. He reported that the SWRCB and Coastal
Commission are aware of the situation and are willing to be flexible within the constraints of the
law, which is encouraging.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
• George Riley, Public Water Now, made an informal request to give an update at a future
meeting regarding the proposed measure on the ballot for public ownership of water.
• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), said Monterey isn't
the only area with water shortages. He said that there is still no data on the cost of
Ground Water Replenishment (GWR), and now there is discussion about expanding the
project and putting more money into it.
• Ian Crooks, California American Water (Cal-Am), gave a presentation on the historical
system demand for water, and said that the demand in 2017 is higher than it was in
2016. He presented a graph showing that Pure Water Monterey (PWM) won't produce
enough water to meet the demand.
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, December 14, 2017
CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Consent Agenda:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe

ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
1. Approve and File Authority Checks Through November 30, 2017 - Romero/Cullem
Action: Approved
2. Receive Copies of the Executive Summary of the Revised MPWSP Hydrogeologic Working
Group (HWG) Hydrogeologic Investigation Technical Report - Cullem
Action: Received report
AGENDA ITEMS
Supply Project, and Status of Test Well Operation and Pipeline Construction - Cook
Action: Received update; discussed
Chris Cook, Cal Am Engineering Manager, gave a brief update on the progress of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP),the status of the test wells, and pipeline
construction. He answered questions of the board.
4. Discuss and Approve MPRWA Participation with Other Public Agencies and California
American Water to Fund Retention of a Facilitator to Lead the Settlement Meetings Seeking to
Resolve Conflicts Pertaining to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project at Issue in CPUC
Proceeding A.12.04.019, with the Authority’s Portion of Funding Not to Exceed $7,000 -
McGlothlin
Action: Discussed; Approved funding of $7,000 towards funding a facilitator to lead
settlement meetings on the condition that the desal project is not up for negotiation and
that funding will only be given if MCWD participates in the meetings with the facilitator
Don Freeman announced that there will be a settling parties meeting on 12/19, and Dr. Marci
DuPraw has been retained by the Water Management District to act as a facilitator at the
meetings to narrow down the issues of each of the parties. Russ McGlothlin, via speakerphone,
said that Dr. DuPraw has been a successful facilitator in previous agreements with other public
agencies. He added that the Water Management District is asking for each settling party,
including MPRWA, to spend up to $7,000 to contribute towards the cost of the facilitator.
President Kampe said the facilitator would help avoid conflict and is a wise investment.

Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, December 14, 2017
2
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• George Riley, Public Water Now (PWN), said PWN is going to request that Cal Am get
grant assistance from the state to help fund slant wells.
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, said that he is concerned about the critical need for water and that
the authority must project that concern during negotiations.
• John Narigi, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, said that the Coalition is a member of
the settling parties and would like to stress the need for a viable water project, and
hopes that the facilitator is educated on the 40 years that the peninsula has had a water
shortage. He said the Coalition supports hiring the facilitator, but hopes the Authority will
focus on the need of the community.
• Scott Dick, resident, said that facilitator should look at what the common interests are,
which are to secure a permanent water supply.
Don Freeman and Russ McGlothlin answered questions of the board. President Kampe stated
that the settling parties meeting objective on the 19th is to discuss feasibility and prepare for the
April Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing and find common ground among the interveners.
He said that there is an obligation to respond to the concerns of the ALJ. Director Roberson
said there is a concern that the side projects are a distraction from the focus on making sure
that the desal plant is successful. Russ McGlothlin concurred with President Kampe that
each project has a level of uncertainty, however the desal plant is still the priority. He added
that there is a threat of litigation with the desal plant and therefore is a reason to find a quicker
and cost effective solution on the side.
President Kampe asked if the board would like to approve the motion to secure the facilitator for
$7,000 as directed by staff and legal counsel.
Director Roberson requested to amended the motion to add that the purpose of the meeting is
to secure the desal plant.
Director Rubio seconded the motion and amended it to add that the facilitator is not needed if
Marina Coast isn't present at the settling parties meeting.
The Board members agreed that during settlement meeting the Authority will not be negotiating
a solution that does not involve a desal plant. Director Rubio said he supports a facilitator to
help with this process, but not if it turns into mediation. He reiterated that main goal is getting
the desal project approved. Director Roberson stated that the Auhority should not give up the
desal project to avoid litigation with MCWD.
Russ McGlothlin said that it's not necessary to amend the motion, but could instead direct staff
what the intentions are for the meeting. He encouraged the board to stay open minded on the
process to getting to the desal project.
President Kampe clarified on the motion the expenditure of $7,000 for the facilitator is approved
as long as Marina Coast also participates and the desal plant is non-negotiable.

3
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved MPRWA Participation with Other
Public Agencies and California American Water to Fund Retention of a Facilitator to Lead the
Settlement Meetings Seeking to Resolve Conflicts Pertaining to the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project at Issue in CPUC Proceeding A.12.04.019, with the Authority’s Portion of
Funding Not to Exceed $7,000, contingent on Marina Coast Water District being present during
the facilitation meeting and the desal plant is not up for negotiation:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
ATTEST:
Nova Romero, Clerk of the Authority MPRWA President

4
M I N U TE S
Director's Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, January 11, 2018
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY
Directors Present: Director Carbone, Director Dallas, Director Edelen, Director Rubio, Alternate
Director Smith, President Kampe
Directors Absent: Director Roberson
Staff Present: Executive Director Cullem, Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero
CALL TO ORDER
President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
All Directors present, with Alternate Director Smith filling in for Director Roberson.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), encouraged the

Authority to keep up the good work.
CONSENT AGENDA
Executive Director Cullem requested that consent agenda items #2 and #4, approval of
minutes, be continued. He gave administrative edits to the audit report for consent item #6, on
pages 23 and 24. Director Smith gave administrative edits to audit report page 16, stating that
the percentage in bullet point 4 is incorrect. He abstained from voting on items #1 and #3,
approval of minutes, since he was not present for those meetings.
On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Carbone, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Consent Agenda items
#1, and #6, with edits made to item #6, and continued items #2 and #4:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Rubio, Smith, Kampe

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, January 11, 2018
On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Carbone, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Consent Agenda items
#3, and #5, with Member Smith abstaining:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Rubio, Kampe

ABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: Smith
1. Approve Minutes from June 22, 2017

Action: Approved 5-0-0-1 (Smith abstained)
2. Approve Minutes from September 18, 2017

Action: Continued
3. Approve Minutes from November 11, 2017

Action: Approved 5-0-0-1 (Smith abstained)
4. Approve Minutes from December 14, 2017

Action: Continued
5. Approve and File Authority Checks Through December 31, 2017

Action: Approved
6. Receive the Audit Report for FY 2016-2017 and Authorize an Extension of the Audit Contract
with McGilloway, Ray, Brown, & Kaufman for FY 2017-2018 and FY 2018-2019
Action: Received report, noted administrative corrections
AGENDA ITEMS
Supply Project, Status of Test Well Operation and Pipeline Construction
Action: Received report
Chris Cook, California American Water (Cal Am) Engineer, gave an update on the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), the status of the test well operation and pipeline
construction. He answered questions of the board.

Director's Meeting Minutes - Thursday, January 11, 2018
2
8. Receive Report, Discuss, and Provided Direction on Issues Being Discussed at the Settlement
Meetings
Action: Received report; discussed; Authorized Special Legal Counsel, Authority
President and Vice President to draft a response to the motion letter and submit to the
ALJ
Russ McGlothlin phoned in via speakerphone and reported that there have been two recent
settlement party meetings with Dr. Marci DuPraw as facilitator, and part of the discussion was
to provide an update to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who requested more info on Pure
Water Monterey (PWM) expansion. Executive Director Cullem said that staff needs direction
from the Authority on what the response to the motion should say. He added that the packet
includes a letter from Mayor of Salinas Joe Gunter saying there is no more water available from
Salinas Valley Basin.
President Kampe said during the discussions there was focus on the desal plant, and out of
that there was hopeful progress on how to reconcile differences, particularly around the aquifer
in Marina. He added that the next meeting is January 25th and that so far the scope of the
discussions has been far more specific than in the past. He also said that he was invited to go
to Marina and engage with them which is an important step to build bridges with MCWD.
Director Rubio reported that he attended the settlement meeting and the Cal Am project is
staying on its track. He voiced concern about the short time frame for the settling parties to
come to an agreement and isn't sure that some participants are willing to take the leap.
Russ McGlothlin echoed Director Rubio's concerns about uncertainty of coming to an

agreement with all parties. He said to keep in mind that this process needs to happen, whether
it’s now or later, and if the CPCN is issued as anticipated in the Spring then it’s best to have
these discussions. He said mini breakthroughs were being made at meetings and he remains
cautiously optimistic.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• George Riley, Public Water Now (PWN), said the settling parties seem willing to discuss
problems with litigation and set up some procedural options in the short term to deal
with conflicts. He added the conversation reflected time demands, the CDO, milestones,
and getting the whole picture on the page. He said that outsider influences may become
a factor, such as the letter from the Mayor of Salinas.
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, questioned if hiring a facilitator was money well spent.
• Fred Meuer, gave comment on community infrastructure and the ability to sustain with
the role with BRAC in this area. He said any effort to delay or downsize the desal plant
is a major threat to the community and the closure of BRAC. He added that the portfolio
approach is the best option, and gave the Board a written copy of his statement.

3
• Norm Groot, Monterey County Farm Bureau, said he was frustrated during the
settlement meetings he senses that not everyone has come to the table with willingness
to compromise. He said the portfolio approach is still the best approach. He added that
the while the Salinas basin has done their part on working on water shortage issues, the
Peninsula has not, and there is a loss of a common goal for a long term solution.
President Kampe noted that Mayor Joe Gunter's letter is a factor to consider, and he and Don
Freeman feel that the facilitator is money well spent and seems to be developing a process in a
timely fashion. Director Smith commented in response to Mr. Meuer’s comment that resiliency
and having long term resources on the Peninsula is crucial to keeping BRAC in the area.
Director Rubio said the Authority need to be specific in language for the motion on the direction
for settlement meetings. Mr. McGlothlin said that the motion can be filed individually or jointly
with Cal Am’s attorney, and either way will emphasize that any proceeding at the PUC must not
compromise compliance with the milestones. He added that the draft motion in the packet has
already been filed by other settling parties and he suggests that the Authority reply to it and
highlight to the ALJ that any further evidentiary meetings do not cause a delay to the project.
He said he can draft a reply and have it ready by early next week, and will have it focus on the
two main issues. Don recommended that the Authority authorize Russ to write the reply to the
motion and have the President and Vice President approve it before filing.
Director Dallas requested that the Authority to draft their own response to the motion apart from
Cal Am.
Director Rubio made a motion that he and President Kampe authorize and approve a reply
letter to the ALJ.
Director Edlen seconded the motion. Director Smith clarified that the motion is to have Russ
draft a reply to the ALJ saying that the portfolio is still the project, including a desal plant as the
long term project in the portfolio.
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Authorized Russ McGlothlin to draft a
response letter to the ALJ and have President Kampe and Vice President Rubio approve it
before submitting:
9. Receive Report, Discuss, and Approve an Increase in the FY 2017-2018 Budget to Provide for
Additional Special Counsel Services and Technical Support Services and Authorize Utilization
of Not-to-Exceed $40,000 from the Reserve Account
Action: Authorized $40,000 increase in the FY 2017-18 budget from the reserve account
for additional special counsel and technical support services

4
Executive Director Cullem requested that the Authority approve additional funding for special
legal counsel up to $30,000 from the reserve account to pay for special legal counsel costs to
get through June 2018 and/or additional technical support from Geosyntec if additional scientific
studies or analysis are needed as part of the settlement process. Russ McGlothlin reminded the
board that the settlement meetings were not part of his original budget estimate for FY2017-18,
and has evolved. He added that the last 3 years his services have been under budget.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
The board members agreed that any funds used for Russ McGlothlin’s services is money well
spent, and since funding is available decided it’s best to remain prepared to move the desal
project forward.
On a motion by Director Smith, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved a FY2017-18 Budget Adjustment to
Provide for Additional Special Counsel Services and Technical Support Services and Authorize
Utilization of Not-to-Exceed $40,000 from the Reserve Account:
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST:

5
M I N U TE S
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
Special Meeting
12:00 PM, Thursday, February 15, 2018
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
580 PACIFIC ST.
MONTEREY, CA
Directors Present: Director Rubio, Director Edelen, President Kampe, Director Dallas, Director
Roberson, Director Carbone
Directors Absent: None
Staff Present: Executive Director Cullem, Legal Counsel Freeman, Special Legal Counsel
McGlothlin, Clerk Romero
CALL TO ORDER
President Kampe called the meeting to order at 12:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
All Directors were present.
Director Edelen said that he enjoys having the MPRWA meetings at noon.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None
Meeting adjourned to closed session at 12:10 pm.
Meeting reconvened at 1:32 pm.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
Don Freeman reported that the Authority Directors received an update on the status of the
negotiations and provided direction to legal counsel.
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, February 15, 2018
1. Approval of Minutes - Recommended to be Continued to Regular Meeting on March 8, 2018

Action: Continued to March 8, 2018
On a motion by Director Carbone, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Continued the Approval of Minutes to
March 8, 2018:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Edelen, Dallas, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe

2. Approve and File Authority Checks Through January 31, 2018

Action: Approved checks
On a motion by Director Carbone, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Continued the Approved the Authority Checks
through January 31, 2018:

AGENDA ITEMS
3. Discuss MPRWA's Policies and Positions and Consider Changes as Appropriate in Light of
Information Provided by Legal Counsel During Closed Session
Action: Noted that the Authority is operating within policy; no action taken
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• Keith Van Der Maatten, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), says he appreciates how
the Authority has proceeded with coming to an agreement. He said he hopes that the
Authority can continue to work through and come to a solution and that he appreciates
the hard work.
• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), said there was an
article in the paper about there being a grant to help pay for Ground Water
Replenishment (GWR). He said that we need a long-term sustainable solution and that
he hopes that whatever was discussed in closed session stays on track with the
progress that has been made.
• John Narigi, Monterey Peninsula Business Coalition, he says he hopes that the closed
session discussion is moving towards continuing the forward with the water supply
project.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority(MPRWA)
Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, February 15, 2018
2
President Kampe noted that the Authority is still operating consistently with the MPRWA
policies and looking towards the future. No further discussion, no action taken on this item.
4. Receive Report and Provide Staff and Counsel Direction for the CPUC Case Management
Statement (February 22) and Case Management Conference (February 27) as Well as CPUC
and Settlement Requirements through June 2018
Action: Directed Special Legal Counsel to draft CPUC Case Management statement on
behalf of the Authority, and have President Kampe and Vice President Rubio approve the
statement before it is submitted on February 22, 2018
Russ McGlothlin, Special Legal Counsel, gave an overview of what is needed by the Authority
in regards to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Case Management Conference
on February 27. He said the packet contains a list of what the Authority’s statement should
cover, which is due by February 22, and will be a joint response with the other settling parties.
He made a recommendation that the response statement from the Authority to the CPUC
clearly state that it is critical that the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
desalination plant move forward in the most expeditious matter possible, and to ensure that the
Pure Water Monterey expansion is part of the discussion to ensure that the CDO milestones
are not missed. He concluded that position is consistent with the portfolio approach.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, said it would make sense if the CPCN was issued after the EIR is
approved.
President Kampe recommended that Russ McGlothlin draft the response statement to the
CPUC, and that he and Vice President Rubio approve the statement before it is submitted on
the 22nd.
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Directed Special Legal Counsel McGlothlin to
draft the Authority’s CPUC Case Management Statement (due February 22) and have
President Kampe and Vice Mayor Rubio Approve the Statement before it is submitted:
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Rubio, Edelen, Kampe, Dallas, Roberson, Carbone

5. Receive Report, Discuss, and Approve an Increase in the FY 2017-2018 Budget to Provide for
Additional Special Counsel Services and Technical Support Services as Discussed in Agenda
Items
Action: Approved increase in the FY 2017-18 budget to release funds for additional
Special Legal Counsel costs

3
Executive Director Cullem said that there have been unexpected legal costs this year that
require a budget adjustment. He noted that a lot of progress has been made at the settling
parties meetings with the facilitator, and although the Authority limits the involvement of Special
Legal Counsel whenever possible to keep costs low, the budget reserve and possibly more will
be needed to get through this fiscal year.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
Director Edelen made a motion to approve staff recommendation. Director Roberson seconded
the motion, with the clarification that the reserve funds be used to cover legal costs and not for
additional peer review study on Pure Water Monterey expansion opportunities.
President Kampe said that at the March meeting there will be an update on the cost estimate
on what the upcoming legal costs will be, and discuss whether to ask the Cities for a
supplemental contribution to cover the legal costs. Director Roberson said that the Cities would
have to get approval from their City Councils for extra funding, as well as the County Board of
Supervisors, and that could take some extra time.
On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Roberson, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved an Increase in the FY 2017-
2018 Budget to Provide for Additional Special Counsel Services:

6. Receive Report and Consider Retention of David Sunding, Economist, to Peer Review NBS
Economic Analysis of Pure Water Monterey Expansion Opportunities
Action: Continued
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Continued this item to a later date:


4
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• Tom Rowley, MPTA, said he wonders if the study on Pure Water Monterey expansion
project is available to the public.
Mr. McGlothlin responded to public comment saying that he believes the study will be available
at the end of March.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm.
ATTEST:

5
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Date: March 08, 2018
Agenda Report Item No: 5.
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT: Approve and File Authority Checks Through February 28, 2018
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable payments
made during the period February 1 through February 28, 2018, with total payments for
the above referenced period of $37,313.46 from the general fund account and authorize
the Directors to sign for such checks.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff
recommendation to provide the Directors a listing of financial obligations since the last
report for inspection and confirmation. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed and
approved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel, as well as by the Water
Authority Treasurer and/or President as appropriate, prior to payment to insure that it
conforms to the approved budget.
The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and
confirmation:
• $5,622.50 – Cullem Management Services, LLC, for January
• $2,500 – Don Freeman, February retainer
• $28,478.82 -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Invoice 706651
• $469.50 -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Invoice 706650
• $242.64 -- City of Monterey, MPRWA.org domain renewal fee
The bank balances as February 28, 2018, is sufficient cover the above checks,
therefore staff is recommending approval.
BUDGET UPDATE:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
None
SUBJECT: Receive Report and Adopt Resolution 2018- 01 Approving a Conflict of

Interest Code for the Water Authority
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the MPRWA Board Adopt Resolution 2018- 01 Approving a

Conflict of Interest Code for the Water Authority
DISCUSSION:
In the past, potential conflict of interest issues have been addressed by waiver letters
with consultants, and by the use of the Form 700 for employees of public agencies who
have responsibilities with the MPRWA.
To insure consistency with changes in State codes, the Water Authority Attorney has
prepared Resolution formally adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Authority
(Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Resolution No. 2018- 01 Authorizing Adoption of a Conflict of Interest Code
№06/12
MPRWA RESOLUTION NO. 2018-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER

AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING ADOPTION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission adopted a regulation, 2

California Code of Regulations Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard
model Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference, and which will
be amended to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice
and hearing conducted by the Fair Political Practices Commission pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code Sections 11370 et seq.;
WHEREAS, incorporation by reference of the terms of the aforementioned

Regulation and amendments to it in Conflict of Interest Codes saves entities time and
money by minimizing the actions required to keep the Code in conformity with the
Political Reform Act;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority determined that

this proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, "CEQA Guidelines", Article 20, Section 15378),
and is subsequently exempt from, CEQA review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
1. The terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, as it may be

amended from time to time by the Fair Political Practices Commission, along with the
attached Exhibit "A" in which officials and employees who are required to file
Statements of Economic Interest (Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700) are
designated, are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest
Code for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority.
2. Designated officials, employees and others shall file Statements of

Economic Interest (Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700) with the Clerk to the
Authority, who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction,
and shall submit them to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
3. Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority policy regarding reports

filed after deadlines set by this Act is to impose the fine allowed by the law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL

WATER AUTHORITY this ______ day of ________ 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES: DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: DIRECTORS:
ABSTAIN: DIRECTORS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Bill Kampe, President
Nova Romero, Clerk to the Authority

EXHIBIT A
Conflict of Interest Code — Exhibit "A"
Members of the Board of Directors, appointed and elected
Executive Director
Legal Counsel
Special Legal Counsel
Consultants
NOTE: Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Division 6, Chapter 7,

Article 2., Section 18730(b),(3):
In addition, this code does not establish any disclosure obligation for any
designated employees who are designated in a conflict of interest code for
another agency, if all of the following apply:
(A) The geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is wholly

included within the jurisdiction of the other agency;
(B) The disclosure assigned in the code of the other agency is the same as
that required under Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act
[Government Code] Section 87200; and
(C) The filing officer is the same for both agencies.1
1 Designated employees who are required to file statements of economic

interests under any other agency's conflict of interest code, or under [this]
Article 2 for a different jurisdiction, may expand their statement of economic
interests to cover reportable interests in both jurisdictions, and file copies of
this expanded statement with both entities in lieu of filing separate and distinct
statements, provided that each copy of such expended statement filed in place
of an original is signed and verified by the designated employee as if it were
an original.
SUBJECT: Receive an Update on the Summary Project Schedule for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project, and the Status of Pipeline Construction
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report from Cal Am on the
latest "Summary" MPWSP schedule and on the status of the pipeline construction.
DISCUSSION:
Cal Am's most recent Summary Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
schedule is at Attachment A.
Cal Am also has reported that it is currently installing last mile of 36” pipe. The pipe
bridge contractor is constructing support structures and is planning to place girders
spanning HWY 68 in early April. Hilby Avenue street reconstruct should be complete in
early March. Overall pipeline install and street repair is expected to be complete in
June. Commissioning would follow in next several months.
Note that regular updates on the MPWSP are available at Cal Am's project web site:
www.watersupplyproject.org .
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Summary Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
№06/12
ATTACHMENT A
MPWSP Anticipated Schedule
MPWSP Anticipated Schedule
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
9/30/17 CDO Milestone
9/30/18 CDO Milestone 9/30/20 CDO Milestone 9/30/21 CDO Milestone
! Start Construction
MRY Pipeline Approval ! CPCN Approval of MPWSP !
Start Desal Construction ! Complete One Well ! Complete 50% Wells
Plant Foundation Mechanical Storage
Storage Basin Excavation Water Tanks
50% Transmission PL
EIR & EIS / CPCN / CDP 25% Transmission PL
DEIR End of public Final EIR/EIS CCC CDP
! Substantial Completion
EIR/EIS CPCN Water In Service
Release review period Decision
Jan. 2017 Mar. 2017 Mar. 2018 June 2018 Dec 2018
GWR Start‐up Window
GWR Q2‐Q3 2019 On August 8, 2017, CPUC released
Permitting, Design & Construction FEIR/EIS schedule change to March 16,
2018 which is reflected in this schedule.
Monterey Pipeline and ASR Pump Station
Construction GWR
Water Available to System
Pipeline in‐service
providing enhanced ASR capacity
Q1‐Q2 2018
Start Construction Desalination Facilities
Q1/Q2 2019 Commissioning & Start‐
up
Window
Desalination Facilities
Design & Permitting Activities Construction
Q4 2020 Q2 2021
Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update and is accurate to +/‐6 months.
SUBJECT: Receive Report on the Joint Case Management Statement Submitted to

the CPUC and on the Case Management Conference, and Provide Staff
Direction on Supporting a CDO Modification Incorporating a Potential Pure
Water Monterey Expansion
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the MPRWA receive a report on the Joint Case Management
Statement submitted to the CPUC on February 22, 2018, including the position of the
Water Authority, and an outline of the Joint Case Management Conference held at the
CPUC on February 27, 2018. Staff also requests direction on support for a CDO
modification incorporating possible Pure Water Monterey expansion.
DISCUSSION:
The CPUC Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) directed that all parties submit a Joint
Case Management (CM) Statement by Feb. 22 and attend a CM Conference at the
CPUC on Feb. 27. All parties were to indicate their current positions with respect to the
CPCN schedule, the potential for expansion of Monterey One Water's Pure Water
Monterey (PWM) project, modification of the CDO milestones, and any progress on a
settlement agreement between Cal Am and the intervenors. A copy of the CM
Statement submitted to the CPUC on February 22, 2018 is at attachment A.
It appears that the ALJ will utilize the information provided in the CM process to
determine if a short hearing (2 day) on the issues should be held in early April 2018.
At the Water Authority meeting of Feb 15, 2018, Special Counsel McGlothlin outlined
the proposed Authority position for the CM Statement in an effort to secure a CDO
modification incorporating PWM expansion opportunities, improvements in the desal
design, and development of a non-litigious disputes resolution process. A limited delay
in the issuance of the CPCN or a conditional CPCN could be considered if the end
result was completion of a desal facility earlier rather than later.
A 30 minute video of the Feb 15 presentation and director discussion can be found at:
https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/m_3HX6961GRMsvkqSCdwmGeJ8rwpRZrR/playli
sts/4632/media/329674?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false
№06/12
Further, the Board is requested to provide staff direction as to whether the Authority will
support a CDO modification to include PWM milestones (along with existing desal
milestones) that will be submitted by the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) by
March 9.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Fiscal impacts will be discussed in agenda item #7.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Case Management Statement of February 22, 2018

ATTACHMENT A
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of California- A.12-04-019

American Water Company (U 210 W) for (Filed April 23, 2012)
Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Authorization to Recover
All Present and Future Costs in Rates.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
[PARTIES and
REPRESENTATIVES
Addresses and
Contact information]
Date: February 22, 2018

Pursuant to the February 8, 2018 Administrative Law Judges’ Ruling Setting Status
Conference and Requesting Parties to Submit Additional Information in Support of Motion
for Additional Evidentiary Hearings (the “Ruling,”) the parties submit herewith their Joint
Case Management Statement (Ruling, p. 6, ¶ 2), addressing the nine topics set forth in the
Ruling (Ruling, pp. 4-5) and, to the extent possible and practicable, the parties’ positions on
each of those nine topics.1
The parties’ positions regarding the nine specific topics set forth in the Ruling are set
forth below in the “Joint Statement,” section II. below. To the extent that a party (or parties)
wishes to address additional concerns or positions, those parties’ concerns and positions are
set forth in Section I. below. The position statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive,
and some parties have opted to support more than one position statement.
I. PARTIES’ POSITION STATEMENTS
A. Position of California American Water Company (“Cal-Am”)
In the Ruling, the assigned Administrative Law Judges ask the parties to address
certain issues. In particular, the Ruling notes the judges’ “serious concerns that if evidentiary
hearings are held in April 2018 there realistically will not be time to allow for the Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) decision by the Cease-and-Desist Order
(“CDO”) deadline of September 30, 2018.”2 The judges are correct to be concerned because,
as California American Water has previously shown, additional evidentiary hearings in Phase
1 of this proceeding will inevitably delay the issuance of the CPCN decision and lead to the
1
This filing is submitted by counsel for Marina Coast Water District on behalf of [insert
language and rule]
2
Ruling, p. 4.
1
September 2018 deadline being missed, which will have serious negative consequences for
California American Water, its customers, and the Monterey Peninsula community.
As stated in its Closing Brief, California American Water cannot emphasize enough
the importance of meeting the milestone requirements set forth in the CDO, the next of
which requires a CPCN for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (“MPWSP”) to be
obtained from the Commission by September 30, 2018. The failure to meet the CDO
milestones has potentially devastating consequences for California American Water, its
customers and the Monterey community. Nonetheless numerous parties propose additional
hearings and proceedings that jeopardize California American Water’s ability to meet the
September 2018 CDO milestone, as well as subsequent milestones. California American
Water takes very seriously its responsibility to its customers and the Monterey community to
use its best efforts to meet the CDO milestones and develop a reliable, long-term water
supply solution. As a result, California American Water cannot support any proposal that is
remotely likely to result in missing the September 2018 CDO deadline for issuance of a
CPCN.
Not only does California American Water believe additional hearings foist
unnecessary risk on California American Water, its customers and the Monterey community,
California American Water does not believe the parties have established a need for additional
hearings prior to issuance of a CPCN. Several parties suggest additional hearings or
proceedings will avoid delays caused by litigation after issuance of the CPCN, but no party
can guarantee that additional proceedings will eliminate all risk of future litigation.
Additionally, it is inappropriate for parties to use their own claims of litigation to attempt to
2
justify delaying a decision in this proceeding – the Commission should not allow itself to be
held hostage to such threats. Some parties also suggest that obtaining an extension of the
CDO milestones is almost a simple administrative issue, but there is no evidence indicating
that the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) has committed to granting a CDO
extension. Moreover, while California American Water continues to support and participate
in settlement discussions, the Commission cannot delay this proceeding indefinitely based on
these continued discussions. If California American Water is able to reach a settlement of
key contested issues with the various parties to this proceeding it will promptly inform the
Commission, but in the meantime the Commission must proceed according to the current
procedural schedule.
The extensive six-year record created in this proceeding establishes that the MPWSP
is the best solution to provide the reliable and certain long-term water supply that Monterey
deserves. The Commission has fulfilled its legal obligations, fully examined all of the
relevant issues, and provided ample opportunities for parties to present their views. Contrary
to the arguments of certain parties, the Commission has no obligation to evaluate every
speculative alternative to the proposed project. In a previous ruling, the assigned
Administrative Law Judge confirmed that the Commission has no obligation to consider
alternatives as part of the CPCN review and that Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC (1945) 326
U.S. 327, often raised to support alternative review arguments, “has no applicability here.”3
With this in mind, California American Water addresses the issues raised in the
Ruling below.
3
Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Concerning Workshop Agenda and Other Matters,
June 29, 2012, p. 7.
3
B. Position of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”) generally supports the position of
Monterey County and MCWRA as articulated above. Ratepayers must not be subjected to
the negative consequences of missed milestones or deadlines mandated in the CDO.
C. Position of Water Management District, Water Authority and Monterey One

Water, joined by Surfrider and Landwatch
Introduction and Discussion of Goals and Recommendations
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“Water Management District”),
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (“Water Authority”), and Monterey One
Water (“”)4 submit the following as an approach to this application and the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project that achieves the following results:
• Allows an opportunity for Monterey One Water and Water Management

District to complete their ongoing analysis of the potential to expand the
Pure Water Monterey (“PWM”) project by an approximate 2,250
additional AFY (hereafter “PWM Expansion”) for a total capacity
available to the Cal Am system of approximate 5,750 AFY;
• Avoids a failure to meet the 2018 milestone, which presently requires the
issuance of a CPCN for the desalination project. As discussed further
below, the parties have discussed the possibility of seeking modifications
in the CDO milestones to include alternative milestones related to progress
on the PWM Expansion. If such modifications were approved by the
SWRCB prior to mid-2018, then the CPUC could potentially defer
issuance of a CPCN on Phase 1 for a year.
The parties to this section also generally support the positions set forth by the Planning and
Conservation League (“PCL”) in this document but, given the schedule, were unable to fully
integrate this position statement with that submitted by PCL.
4
Monterey One Water recently changed its name from Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency.
4
As background, the Pure Water Monterey project is an advanced-treatment recycled
water project under development by Monterey One Water and the Water Management
District. The CPUC previously approved a Water Purchase Agreement for Cal-Am to
purchase 3,500 AFY of water from the PWM project. Monterey One Water and the Water
Management District are presently evaluating whether PWM could be expanded by an
approximate additional 2,250 AFY for delivery to Cal-Am. If it turns out that such expansion
is feasible and if environmental review commences promptly, the expansion could be
developed along with the already-approved 3,500 PWM project. Together with the
expansion, the PWM could provide approximately 5,750 AFY for Cal-Am ahead of the end
of 2021, allowing Cal-Am to terminate all unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River
ahead of the CDO deadline of December 31, 2021, even if there are additional delays in the
proposed desalination facility. Given the likelihood of court challenges to the desalination
project, consideration of the PWM Expansion is important to ensuring that water supply will
be available by 2021.
The parties to this section stress that action by the CPUC affirming interest in
evaluating this alternative water supply is critical to facilitate public agency funding for
further environmental review and that the authorization of a WPA under the schedule
proposed here is necessary to obtain funding for timely construction of the PWM Expansion.
PWM Expansion promises to allow development of approximately 2,250 AFY. The
parties to this section believe Cal-Am should be authorized to enter into a Water Purchase
Agreement (“WPA) with the Water Management District and Monterey One Water to gain
access to this increment of water that can be developed simultaneously with the already
5
approved 3,500 AFY PWM project. In order to support approval of the WPA the parties to
this section support use of criteria similar to those used for the initial WPA approval to
demonstrate that the PWM expansion is feasible.
Together, PWM and the PWM Expansion will make available to Cal-Am
approximately 5,750 AFY of additional water supply before the CDO’s final deadline to
cease unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River by the end of 2021. This quantity of
water would allow compliance with the CDO and likely also allow the current moratorium to
be lifted. The PWM Expansion is also anticipated to produce water at a significantly lower
cost to consumers than desalination. As such, the public interest is served by permitting
additional evaluation of the PWM Expansion. Monterey One Water and the Water
Management District are prepared to provide evidence to the Commission concerning the
viability of the PWM Expansion as soon as April 2018 or as soon thereafter as practical
when the Commission determines it can schedule an opportunity to receive evidence
concerning the project. It is estimated that this hearing can be completed in two days. Based
upon the evidence received during this hearing the Commission could determine whether (i)
a Phase 3 proceeding to address PWM Expansion is justified and (ii) whether Monterey One
Water has approved commencement of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
analysis for PWM Expansion or intends to do so shortly thereafter, which would satisfy the
revised September 2018 milestone (if the CDO is modified as proposed). If the Commission
determines that a Phase 3 process is justified, the Commission could issue a revised scoping
order to address and establish the Phase 3 process, including appropriate dates for hearings
and briefing to enable consideration of PWM Expansion.
6
While PWM Expansion appears promising, the timing and the express terms of the
CDO still present the conflict between the September CDO milestone (CPCN for the
desalination project)5 and the likelihood of lawsuits should a CPCN be issued for the
desalination project.6 Therefore, the parties to this section support two options. The first is to
request that the CDO be modified to add additional satisfactory milestones correlated to
progress on PWM Expansion. The additional milestones could be as follows:
• 09/2018: Monterey One Water approval to commence CEQA analysis of

PWM expansion (min. 2,000 AFY);
• 09/2019: CPUC approval of WPA for PWM Expansion (min. 2,000 AFY);
• 09/2020: commencement of construction of PWM Expansion;
• 09/2021: substantial completion of PWM (including PWM Expansion)

allowing removal of Carmel River unauthorized diversions.
If the CDO was so modified, the parties to this section respectfully urge the
Commission to postpone the decision of the desalination component of the MPWSP until
mid-2019. To be clear, the parties to this section continue to support desalination as a part of
the water supply opportunities for the Monterey Peninsula. Tens of millions of dollars and
years of planning have been invested in the opportunity and a desalination project should be
brought fully through the planning process before the Commission and responsible agency so
5
Missing the 2018 milestone is not an acceptable outcome. Not only would it result in a loss
of 1,000 AFY of Cal-Am’s interim diversion limits from the Carmel River under the
SWRCB Cease and Desist Order (the “CDO”), it would signal to the community and the
state that the water supply replacement efforts have stalled yet again.
6
Such lawsuits challenging the CPCN would likely be filed on several factual and legal
issues, potentially in multiple forums, and possibly in a staggered strategy. This could delay
the desalination project for many years and perpetuate division of the community within a
region that should be united in responsible water resource management. We should seek to
avoid this result if possible.
7
that desalination is available for construction at such time that it is needed. It will be needed
soon unless PWM Expansion can be added to the existing PWM project. If PWM Expansion
is added, the desalination project may not be immediately needed, but must be available to be
constructed to meet future demands when they develop. Provided the CDO is modified as
proposed, the Supporting Parties support postponing the Phase 1 decision on the desalination
project by one year to (i) determine the feasibility of the PWM Expansion opportunity and
(ii) to afford additional time to negotiate a settlement concerning the desalination project.
D. Position of Planning and Conservation League (“PCL”), joined by MCWD,

Landwatch, Sierra Club, PTA7, Public Water Now (“PWN”), Citizens for Just
Water, Water Plus, Surfrider
The Water Management District, Water Authority, and Monterey One Water issue a
statement of general support for the position of PCL.
PCL’s portion of the Case Management Statement explains why Phase 3 should
proceed before the CPCN decision on the Desal Plant. It describes the process and schedule.
It shows how CDO milestones can be amended to allow CALAM to comply with interim and
final milestones. It explains why an April hearing is critical. It contains proposed language
that could be included in a ruling authorizing a Phase 3 before a decision on the CPCN for
the desal project.
Why Phase 3 Before a Decision on the CPCN for the Desal Plant?
If a CPCN for the desalination project as presently proposed is issued then Marina
Coast Water District and the City of Marina (and potentially others) will inevitably file
7
Public Trust alliance joins this position statement alternative as well, aspiring to a similarly
reasonable and practicable clear path forward without irrevocable injury to public water
supplies but emphasizing CEQA permitting and CDO aspects of the decision.
8
lawsuits challenging the CPCN, likely on several factual and legal issues, potentially in
multiple forums, and possibly in a staggered strategy. Regardless of the alleged merits of
such claims, these lawsuits would likely delay the desalination project for many years past
the CDO deadline.
Parties would also protest the multiple permits required to perfect the project. These
objections could also delay responsible agency approvals and project financing. All of this
would make it impossible for CALAM to meet the CDO milestones.
Moreover, should the project proceed to construction while these lawsuits proceed,
there would be the risk of stranded capital should the lawsuits ultimately succeed in
enjoining the project
How Would Phase Three Work?
The essence of the approach is to move the Pure Water Monterey expansion
effort forward while the parties continue to see if they can come to agreement on the
desal plant.
Pure Water Monterey expansion could provide CALAM with an additional 2,250 acre
feet of water per year by 2021. That will allow full and timely compliance with the CDO
and allow lifting of the moratorium.
Future and additional water demands would be discussed in a disciplined fact finding
and dispute resolution process with a definite schedule. Phase 1 of the proceeding would be
kept open for 36 months to accomplish this.
9
The first step is to amend the CDO to include alternate milestones related to progress
and completion of the Pure Water Monterey expansion project. These are the proposed
alternate (not substitute) milestones:
• 09/2018: CEQA analysis of Pure Water Monterey expansion (minimum of 2,000
AFY) underway by Monterey One Water;
• 09/2019: CPUC approval of WPA for Pure Water Monterey expansion (minimum of
2,000 AFY);
• 03/2020: commencement of construction of PWM Expansion;
• 12/31/2021: substantial completion of PWM (including PWM Expansion) allowing
full compliance with the Cease and Desist Order and lifting the moratorium.
This is the same approach successfully used in Phase 2 of this proceeding. In that
instance an amendment to the CDO milestones and CPUC approval of a Water Purchase
Agreement for 3,500 acre feet from the first phase of the Pure Water Monterey project
allowed CALAM to meet the earlier CDO milestone.
Two days ago, on February 20, 2018, several parties discussed this with staff of the
State Water Resources Control Board. SWRCB staff indicated that it is legally possible for
the Board to act on a petition to amend the milestones in a relatively short time. The parties
are having a follow-up discussion with SWRCB staff this Friday, February 23, 2018.
Immediately thereafter PCL (a party to the CDO proceeding) will formally petition the
SWRCB to amend the CDO to include those alternate milestones.
Upon receiving positive reaction to this approach Monterey One Water can begin the
CEQA compliance.
10
Schedule
April, 2018 - SWRCB action on petition to amend CDO milestones to include Pure Water
Monterey expansion project
April, 2018 CPUC hearing
April, 2018 - CPUC ALJ’s issue ruling establishing Phase 3
May, 2018 – Monterey One Water commences CEQA analysis of Pure Water Monterey
expansion and continues refining responses to nine criteria that were helpful to the
CPUC when it approved a Water Purchase Agreement for 3,500 AFA from the first
phase of the Pure Water Monterey project. Monterey One Water also develops more
complete information on the nine criteria that were useful to the Commission when it
approved the Water Purchase Agreement for 3,500 AFA from the first phase of the
Pure Water Monterey project.
Marina Coast Water District is also afforded the opportunity to prepare information
responsive to the nine criteria on the potential sale of water to CALAM.
September, 2018 – Next milestone is complied with by Monterey One Water Monterey
having the CEQA analysis underway
Fall, 2018 - Pure Water Monterey is to present at a fall 2018 Phase 3 hearing information as
compete as possible responding to the nine criteria. Marina Coast Water District is
also afforded the opportunity to present responsive information on the potential sale
of water to CALAM.
After the fall 2018 hearing the ALJ’s will determine whether CALAM shall be directed to
work with Monterey One Water to develop a Water Purchase Agreement for at least
2,000 acre feet of supply annually from Pure Water Monterey expansion and possibly
another Water Purchase Agreement for water from Marina Coast Water District.
Spring, 2019, (Last Phase 3 hearing) CALAM to present one or two Water Purchase
Agreements (Pure Water Monterey expansion and/or water from Marina Coast Water
District) for CPUC approval.
Spring, 2019 – CEQA analysis complete and all regulatory permits in place
Spring, 2019 - Water Purchase Agreement, complete responses to the nine criteria and
certified CEQA document presented to ALJ’s
Summer, 2019 – CPUC approves Water Purchase Agreement
11
March, 2020 – Monterey One Water has begun construction of Pure Water Monterey
expansion
March, 2020 – Next milestone is complied with by Pure Water Monterey expansion being
under construction
December 31, 2021 – Construction of Pure Water Monterey expansion substantially

complete
December 31, 2021 - CDO fully complied with and moratorium lifted.
Between now and December 2021 Phase 1 will remain open to allow all parties to
continue settlement efforts concerning the desal project. This could include 18 months of
fact finding.8 Such fact finding could include referral to an independent outside
organization. The following 18 months would be devoted to dispute resolution. Parties can
decide whether that would include binding or non-binding arbitration.
Why an April Hearing Is Critical
In order to make an informed decision on the viability of holding Phase 3 before a
decision on a CPCN on a desal project, the ALJ’s would benefit from knowing key
information. This includes the status of amending the CDO milestones and the potential
viability of Pure Water Monterey expansion.
Monterey One Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District are
spending about half a million dollars to develop detailed information on Pure Water
Monterey by April. This specifically addresses the nine criteria that were useful in the
CPUC’s approval of the Water Purchase Agreement for the initial 3,500 acre feet from the
Pure Water Monterey project.
8
MCWD suggests that referral of the groundwater rights question to the SWRCB would
occur during this first 18-month period.
12
Several parties are working with SWRCB staff to identify how and when the SWRCB
can amend the CDO milestones.
E. Position of Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), City of Marina, Water Plus,
Public Trust Alliance,9 Public Water Now, Citizens for Just Water, California
Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”)
The parties to this section of the Case Management Statement believe that any
Phase 3 of the proceeding10 should be conducted and determined prior to the Commission’s
determination of whether a CPCN – a certificate of public convenience and necessity – for
the MPWSP should be issued. That is so because Public Utilities Code section 1001, which
governs the issuance of a CPCN, does not permit the approval or construction of a proposed
project unless the Commission first determines that “the present or future public convenience
and necessity require or will require [the] construction” of the project. The Commission
cannot lawfully condition a CPCN or project approval on the speculative assumption that the
public convenience and necessity will later require the construction of the project.
In making its public convenience and necessity determination, the Commission must
first make a complete record of, and then weigh, all relevant factors raised by the parties to
the proceeding and required to be considered by statute. (See, e.g., Northern California
9
Public Trust Alliance (“PTA”) joins this position statement, aspiring to a rigorous and
positive analysis of evidence suggesting a far less expensive and probably more resilient and
sustainable alternative water supply solution in light of the changing circumstances emerging
in the Record.
10
The term “Phase 3” was adopted by the Ruling, although it was not part of the motion
seeking additional evidentiary hearings, which was filed by a number of parties on January 9,
2018. That motion sought to “improve outcomes” for Phase 1 (see Jan. 9, 2018 motion, p.
7), therefore the parties to this section of the Case Management Statement understand that
“Phase 3” does not necessarily connote a phase of this proceeding that would occur after a
decision in Phase 1, similar to the Commission’s resolution of Phase 2 of this proceeding
before Phase 1.
13
Power Agency v. Public Utilities Com. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 370; Public Utilities Code §§ 1001,
1002; Water Code § 10720.9.) Moreover, where multiple alternative projects are proposed to
serve the need sought to be served by the proposed project, the Commission must conduct a
comparative hearing to determine which of the alternative projects – to the extent they are
mutually exclusive – best serves the public convenience and necessity. (Ashbacker Radio
Corp. v. F.C.C. (1945) 326 U.S. 327.) And of course no CPCN may be issued before an
adequate final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (“EIR/EIS”)
reviewing the project as proposed is duly issued and certified. (Save Tara v. City of West
Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 594.) Because a CPCN is a project approval, the premature
issuance of a CPCN will unquestionably precipitate significant litigation and will result in
substantial unnecessary delay and litigation cost for the parties, the applicant and the
Commission. A delay in the CPCN determination will allow the Commission to meet its
constitutional and statutory duties.
Ensuring that a CPCN determination is not made until the record on all alternatives
has been developed and completed will allow the parties time to work on reaching a lawful
and broadly-accepted resolution of this proceeding. It will allow the parties a full and fair
opportunity to (1) negotiate agreements for less expensive, more environmentally-benign
alternative water supplies that can be available long before the proposed project can operate,
and (2) complete an ongoing settlement process that possibly could amicably resolve all
issues in the proceeding. Such a prudential approach would inure to the benefit of all parties.
The Commission should not truncate, derogate or relinquish its own lawful duties simply to
satisfy scheduling milestones established by another state agency.
14
That said, the parties joining this section have no objection to the Commission
conducting and determining a Phase 3 in connection with the ongoing Phase 1 of this
proceeding, so long as Phase 3 is conducted before a CPCN decision. Phase 3 should
(1) address expansion of PWM and MCWD sales, and (2) provide for referral of the question
of groundwater rights under the SWRCB’s Final Review and receipt and consideration of the
answer to that question, prior to a CPCN decision. Several parties, including Marina Coast
Water District, City of Marina, Cal-Am, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District,
Monterey One Water (M1W) and the Planning and Conservation League, have already
participated in a call with SWRCB staff and another such call is planned, to explore the
circumstances of a potential referral from the Commission. As MCWD has previously
indicated, it believes that referral of the groundwater rights question to the SWRCB or the
courts is appropriate and required here. MCWD is prepared to work cooperatively with the
parties to make a referral request to the Commission in the most constructive manner
possible.
F. Position of the City of Marina, supported by MCWD
The City of Marina joins in the positions of MCWD and certain other parties above
and supports the goals of PCL of amending and/or obtaining approval for alternative
milestones in the Carmel River CDO relating to the Pure Water Monterey project, although it
is not joining that PCL statement because of time constraints involved in reviewing the
specific text. The City is also fully supportive of the general positions (except as to certain
footnotes) of the Water Management District, Water Authority and Monterey One Water
articulated regarding the expanded PWM project, which the City believes is a feasible and
15
relatively affordable alternative source of water for the Peninsula that should be pursued
vigorously by CalAm and approved by the Commission.
The City believes that the September 2018 Carmel River CDO milestone should not
be used as a way to avoid scrutiny of unrealistic project water demand projections, to justify
failing to pursue viable, more immediate and relatively affordable alternative water sources
such as the PWM expansion, and for viewing permanent conservation measures (a “new
normal” in California) as a temporary phenomenon that will soon disappear. The City does
not believe that a failure to meet the September 30, 2018 milestone will have devastating
impacts on either CalAm or its customer base. In fact, it will have virtually no impact given
the Monterey District’s current water demand profile, alternative water sources, and positive
performance record under the 2016 revised Carmel River CDO. The Commission should not
allow this interim milestone to interfere with its performance of its duties on whatever time
scale is appropriate.
Accordingly, Marina urges the Commission to take steps to quickly advance and
consider the PWM expansion project and MCWD water sale offers (including holding the
requested April 2018 hearings) prior to its CPCN decision, and to take the time that is needed
to thoroughly evaluate and come to a considered decision on whether or not to issue the
CPCN for the desalination project.
G. Position of County of Monterey and Monterey County Water Resources Agency
The County of Monterey (“County”) and the Monterey County Water Resources
Agency (“MCWRA”) will not respond to every one of the nine issues stated at pages 4 and 5
the Ruling. Monterey Peninsula residents and businesses must not be subject to the
16
consequences of a missed September 30, 2018 CDO deadline. The Commission should not
do anything in response to the substantive issues discussed in the Ruling or any of the nine
issues on pages 4 and 5 that in any way jeopardizes the Commission being able to issue a
decision on Phase 1 before that deadline expires.
H. Position of Monterey County Farm Bureau & Salinas Valley Water Coalition
Monterey County Farm Bureau and Salinas Valley Water Coalition (Organizations)
do not support any delay to the issuance of the CPCN in the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC). The fundamental basis of this project is the portfolio of projects that are intended
to produce a reliable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula, including future growth,
tourism and hospitality bounce-back, change of use, and lots-of-record not developed. The
portfolio of projects that includes desalination, reclamation, and aquifer storage and recovery
provides the best assurance of a long-term water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.
Both Organizations support a desalination facility providing a minimum of 6.4 MGD
to provide stability to the Monterey Peninsula water supply.
Any delay in issuance of the CPCN will cause the purveyor to miss critical milestones
of the modified Cease-and-Desist (CDO) order, causing irreparable harm to the Peninsula
water supply, economy, and the greater economy of Monterey County. There is no
assurance that the State Water Resources Control Board will consider a modification to the
CDO at this late stage of the proceeding; in contrast, there is general knowledge that the
Monterey Peninsula has been unable to solve their water supply problems, even under threat
17
of a CDO. No assumptions should be made on how the State Water Resources Control
Board will view any further delays in water supply development.
As good neighbors to the Monterey Peninsula, Monterey County Farm Bureau and
Salinas Valley Water Coalition have participated in two settlement proposals before the
CPUC that address our concerns with the MPWSP. The return water flow settlement is a
win-win-win agreement that benefits multiple parties and possibly helps with the on-going
seawater intrusion issue of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
While both Organizations could support expansion of the Pure Water Monterey
project under specific circumstances yet to be determined, this expansion should not be
considered in lieu of the desalination component, nor any delay in the issuance of the CPCN
as scheduled for September 2018.
Additional evidentiary hearings on the expansion of Pure Water Monterey can be held
at a time in the future and not as a distraction from the pathway to the CPCN deadline and
the CDO milestones.
Monterey County Farm Bureau and Salinas Valley Water Coalition support California
American Water and their position stated in this Joint Case Management Settlement
document.
I. Position of LandWatch Monterey County and Surfrider Foundation
LandWatch and Surfrider Foundation generally support both the position set out by
PCL and the position set out by MPWMD, Monterey One Water, and the MPRWA.
Combined, these positions produce the following roadmap, which LandWatch and Surfrider
Foundation support: (1) seeking modification of the CDO to permit consideration of
18
alternative water supplies; (2) holding a narrow April hearing to determine the scope of a
Phase 3, which would consider alternative supplies including the expansion of Pure Water
Monterey; (3) if the SWRCB modifies the CDO, deferring the Phase 1 decision to allow for
Phase 3 hearings and, if necessary, negotiation and/or other resolution of issues related to
the desalination proposal; and (4) in the event that the SWRCB does not modify the CDO by
the date of the April hearing, bringing to the Commission a conditional CPCN in June 2018,
providing for further consideration of PWM expansion and non-litigation resolution
processes for disputes related to the desalination proposal. LandWatch and Surfrider
Foundation add to this roadmap and to the parties’ positions that a CPCN should provide
CalAm authority to build the desalination plant only if and as required to meet demand that
alternative supplies (including conservation) cannot satisfy, as determined in Phase 3 or later.
J. Position of Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
The Coalition (“CPB”) generally agrees with the responses from Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority, et al, with the exception noted in the Coalition’s response to
questions 5 and 6 (sections II.E and II.F). The Coalition generally also agrees with responses
from Cal Am and from the Monterey County Farm Bureau and the Salinas Valley Water
Coalition.
II. PARTIES’ RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SET FORTH IN RULING
A. Specific issues to be addressed within the scope of a Phase 3 to the proceeding.
From Cal-Am: At this point, it is unclear if a third phase to the proceeding will be
necessary. If, following the issuance of a CPCN decision the Commission believes that there
19
are still issues that should be addressed, it can issue a scoping memo initiating a third phase
and identifying such issues.
Issue 1, From Monterey One Water, Water Authority, Water Management District, City
of Marina, MCWD, PCL, PTA, PWN, Surfrider and Water Plus: Feasibility of PWM
Expansion (minimum of 2,000 AFY); approval of WPA for PWM Expansion in 2019.
Issue 2, From City of Marina, MCWD, PCL, PWN, PTA, Water Plus: Postponement of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) decision to 2019, while Phase 3
alternative proposals are addressed.
Certain parties believe that the Cease and Desist Order (“CDO”) milestones previously
established by the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) should therefore
promptly modified and/or extended, see sections B. and E. below for further details.
Issue 3, From City of Marina, MCWD, PCL, PTA, PWN, Water Plus: Sales by Marina
Coast Water District (“MCWD”).
Issue 4, From City of Marina, MCWD, PWN PTA: Referral of the groundwater rights
question to the SWRCB for resolution, see sections B. and E. below for further details.
Water Plus prefers referral to a court for decision.
Issue 5, From the City of Marina, joined by CURE: Phase 3 must be completed and
decided before any Phase 1 decision on whether the MPWSP is required in the public
convenience and necessity.
From Water Plus: Water Plus supports the above position of the City of Marina and
opposes any desalination project that requires return water--he larger the amount, the greater
20
the cost to ratepayers; and the smaller the amount, the greater the damage to the Salinas
River Groundwater Basin.
From PTA: “Facts” must be reasonable and consistent with commonly accepted
perceptions of “reality.” Scientific realities must be properly acknowledged and
appropriately employed for any “proceeding” to be credible.
From the CPB: CPB is not convinced a Phase 3 evidentiary hearing is needed; the
administrative record is already extensive and sufficient to allow the Commission to reach a
fair decision on a CPCN or a conditional CPCN.
B. Proposed schedule with exact dates.
Commission Phase 3 schedule proposals.
1. Cal-Am: See California American Water's response II.A.1 above.
2. The Water Management District, Water Authority and Monterey One Water, joined
by Surfrider and Landwatch, propose the following schedule
1. Assuming no modification of CDO:
a. Last week of April 201811 – hold an evidentiary hearing re::
(i) status of PWM Expansion evaluation to determine

degree of PWM Expansion opportunity that could
justify a Phase 3 proceeding to address PWM
Expansion;
(ii) receive evidence on viability of MCWD sales

(feasibility, CEQA, timing for definitive
11
Monterey One Water witness Sciuto is not available on April 23rd and 24th but is
available April 25-27.
21
agreements, timing of commencement, quantity,
period of delivery, and price)
b. May 2018 -- Issue revised scoping order establishing Phase 3

and setting dates for hearings and briefing re consideration of
PWM Expansion and for potential approval of WPA for PWM
Expansion
c. June 2018 -- Issue Proposed Decision re Phase 1 CPCN on

desalination. This decision should incorporate conditions on the
CPCN to address further consideration of PWM as well as any
dispute resolution process other than litigation agreed to by the
parties concerning the desalination project.
c. July 2018 -- Issue Commission decision re Phase 1 CPCN

including any appropriate conditions to CPCN (if issued) to address
any Desal Settlement Process.
i. As an alternative to holding April 2018 Phase 3

evidentiary hearing, the Commission could instead issue a
revised scoping order to establish the Phase 3 process and set
other dates it deems appropriate for hearings and briefing to
enable consideration of PWM Expansion and authorization of
the Cal-Am WPA.
2. In the event that the SWRCB modifies the CDO in such a manner to
revise the September 2018 milestone such that a CPCN decision is
deferred:
a. May 2018 -- Issue revised scoping order establishing Phase 3

and setting dates for hearings and briefing re consideration of
PWM Expansion and for potential approval of WPA for PWM
Expansion
b. Summer 2019 -- Issue decision (i) whether to approve a WPA

for PWM Expansion and (ii) whether to approve a CPCN for the
desalination project, subject to any appropriate conditions
reflection any approval of a WPA for PWM Expansion as well
as any dispute resolution process other than litigation agreed to
by the parties concerning the desalination project.
3. The following parties propose the schedule below for Phase 3 hearings: City of
Marina, MCWD, PTA, PWN, Water Plus.
22
Event Date
Direct testimony on PWM expansion and Early March, 2018

MCWD sales
Rebuttal testimony on PWM expansion and Mid to late March, 2018
MCWD sales
Evidentiary hearings on on PWM expansion Earliest April, 2018 hearing date available
and MCWD sales [one to two days]
Opening briefs on PWM expansion and Late April, 2018
MCWD sales
Reply briefs on PWM expansion and Early May, 2018
MCWD sales
CDO and Milestones. As noted in section A. above certain parties are in agreement
that the Commission should postpone its Phase 1 decision, and some of the parties wish to
seek SWRCB modification of the existing CDO milestones. Any schedule for modifying
CDO milestones would be within the purview of the SWRCB. The parties who support
milestone adjustment (listed in section E. below) intend to pursue such modification
promptly, and they anticipate reporting further at the February 27, 2018 status conference.
Referral of groundwater rights question. As also noted in section A., above, the parties are
not in agreement as to the necessity or desirability of referring the question of whether Cal-
Am will have sufficient groundwater rights needed for the MPWSP to a decision-maker
other than the Commission, nor as to whether or how the timing of such a referral would
impact the Commission’s Phase 1 decision. The timing of resolution of the question would
be within the purview of the decision-maker. However, the parties who could potentially
support such a referral, listed in section E. below, agree that the Commission could properly
request that the matter be determined expeditiously. A sub-set of the parties that could
potentially support such a referral intend to file shortly with the Commission a motion
23
seeking referral, and those parties who have indicated their support for such a referral motion
are listed in section E., below, as well, and those parties anticipate reporting further at the
February 27, 2018 status conference.
C. Schedule that provides the specific timing for approvals by lead and responsible
agencies that would need to occur for any expansion of PWM or authorize water
sales.
1. PWM Expansion, from Water Management District, Water Authority, Monterey

One Water
The potential expansion of the PWM project presents a unique opportunity to bolster
the region’s water supplies because expansion of the PWM project has little opposition. In
addition, an expansion to the PWM project would produce new water supplies with less
energy requirements as compared to desalination and would capitalize on economies of scale
by adding roughly 2,250 AFY of capacity to the already approved 3,500 AFY project.
As a preliminary matter, Monterey One Water would need to obtain the necessary
rights to sufficient source waters for the potential expansion of the PWM project. Access to
these rights are presently under negotiation between Monterey One Water, the Monterey
County Water Resources Agency, Salinas Basin interests, and others. Monterey One Water
projects that these water rights could be obtained by the end of 3rd Quarter 2018.
Monterey One Water would serve as the lead agency for CEQA review of the
potential expansion of the PWM project. Monterey One Water is currently conducting
preliminary analysis of whether compliance with CEQA would occur through an addendum
to the existing Final EIR for the PWM project certified by Monterey One Water in October
2015, or whether a supplemental EIR would be required. If an addendum is sufficient,
CEQA compliance could be completed by the 4th Quarter 2018 or 1st Quarter 2019. If a
24
supplemental EIR is required, Monterey One Water projects that such review could be
completed to support a decision by the Monterey One Water Board on whether to approve
the expansion of the PWM Project by the end of 2nd Quarter 2019.
Monterey One Water would also need to obtain certain new and/or amended
approvals from state and federal agencies, including but not limited to an amended NPDES
permit from the Regional Water Board and an amended approval from the State Water
Board’s Division of Drinking Water pursuant to Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations. Amendment to many of the permits and approvals that were needed for the
approved 3,500 AFY PWM project currently under construction would not be required due
to the limited physical changes to the environment that would be required due to the potential
expansion of the PWM project. Monterey One Water projects that all federal, state, and local
permits needed for the potential expansion of the PWM project could be obtained by the end
of 3rd Quarter 2019.
All of these dates are predicated upon prompt action in the near-term showing
positive interest in further evaluation of the PWM expansion (e.g., through establishing a
Phase 3 schedule). Such action is necessary to support additional public agency funding of
environmental review and engineering. Similarly, prompt action authorizing a WPA for the
PWM Expansion in mid 2019 is critical to obtaining construction funding for the PWM
Expansion consistent with this schedule.
If these milestones are met, construction of the facilities needed for the expansion of
the PWM project could begin in early 2020, with a projected completion date of January
2021.
25
Monterey One Water and the Water Management District will be prepared to provide
the Commission with additional information concerning the timing of the environmental
review and permitting process in April 2018 should the Commission schedule an opportunity
for submission of additional evidence concerning the potential expansion of the PWM
project.
2. MCWD Sales Options, from MCWD
MCWD Sales Options Event Date
Feasibility analysis, short term and long Done

term supply provisions
Contracts drafted Initial drafts completed; updates or
replacements will be required depending
upon option(s) selected for implementation
Environmental review Already completed for sale of increment of
MCWD’s initial PWM allocation to Seaside
golf course for direct use;
Environmental review for other options can
be completed in a matter of months
Other potential issues The injection options (non-direct use) will
likely require sign-off from other agencies
and may require additional infrastructure,
terms to be negotiated among relevant
parties
3. From CPB:
CPB insists that the source water for any expansion of PWM be proven to be
sustainable and secure and not interruptible for any reason including changes in ag practices.
D. Schedule that provides the specific timing for approvals by lead and responsible
agencies that would need to occur for the MPWSP to meet the CDO Milestones.
California American Water provides the following response:

26
Milestone Milestone Major Responsible Approval
Deadline Approvals Agency Required by
Required
12/31/2016 Water Purchase Funding and CPUC and local COMPLETE
ACHIEVED Agreement & various agencies
Start construction
Construction of permits
CalAm
Conveyance
Facilities
9/30/2017 Start Various Various COMPLETE
ACHIEVED Construction of
PWM
9/30/2018 CPCN Issuance EIR CPUC 9/2018
certification and
CPCN issuance
9/30/2019 Start Coastal Coastal 8/2019
Construction of Development Commission,
MPWSP Permit and City of Marina,
Desalination various local Monterey
Components permits County and
dependent on other agencies
EIR
certification
9/30/2020 Start drilling at Well Permit Monterey 8/2020
least one source County Water
water well and Resources
progress other Agency
desalination
components as
identified in
CDO
9/30/2021 Desalination Construction California Continuous
Construction permit American during
progress as compliance Water reporting construction
identified in activities and compliance
CDO to various
agencies
12/31/2021 Substantial NPDES SWRCB 11/2021
Completion of PWS including
Desalination RWQCB,
Plant to produce DDW, CDPH
water to system
From the Water Management District, Water Authority and Monterey One Water: If
the SWRCB modifies the CDO as proposed, PWM Expansion could serve as a basis to
ensure compliance with CDO milestones, including the interim milestones and the final
27
termination of unauthorized Carmel River diversions. The proposed alternative milestones
that Water Management District, Water Authority, and Monterey One Water are set forth
above their position statement set forth in Section 1. The schedule for PWM Expansion is set
forth in Section II.C. above. If the SWRCB does not modify the CDO, a CPCN will need to
be issued on desalination prior to the September 2018 CDO milestone.
From the City of Marina: The Carmel River CDO (as revised in 2016) does not
contain milestones that specifically address lead or responsible agency approvals, except the
September 30, 2018 deadline for CPUC action on the CPCN application. The next milestone
(September 30, 2019) only requires the start of construction on “any” Project component
(such as starting site grading for the desalination plant), which may or may not require any
further agency approvals. The first significant construction work deadline is not until
September 30, 2020 and substantial completion of the CalAm project components is not
necessary until December 31, 2021. An extension of all of these deadlines can be sought
from the State Water Board if 1,000 AFY of alternative water sources are approved pursuant
to footnote 17 of the CDO and testimony by Jonas Minton at the recent evidentiary hearings
established that such an extension is reasonably possible.
E. Risks and benefits to initiating a Phase 3 of the proceeding prior to issuance of a

decision in Phase 1 as opposed to authorizing a Phase 3 in the Phase 1 decision.
Potential risks and benefits, as compiled collaboratively by some of the parties, are
listed immediately below the following statement of Cal-Am.
Position of California American Water: If Phase 3 is held prior to the issuance a
CPCN decision, it is highly likely that the Commission would not be able to issue a CPCN
28
decision until October 2018 or even later, causing California American Water to miss the
CDO milestone deadline. As California American Water has discussed previously, the
consequences of missing the upcoming CDO milestone would have a significant and
negative impact on California American Water’s customers and the economy of the
Monterey Peninsula. California American Water’s available water supplies would be
immediately reduced,12 which would severely impact California American Water’s
customers and the economy of the Monterey Peninsula and put California American Water at
risk for multimillion-dollar penalties.13 Moreover, missing the September 2018 CDO
milestone would have a domino effect, making it more likely that California American Water
would miss subsequent CDO milestones that are dependent on a CPCN decision. Since the
consequences of missing subsequent milestones become progressively more dire, a delay in
issuing the CPCN decision, or issuing a CPCN with conditions that would hinder California
American Water’s ability to meet subsequent milestones would only risk greater harm to
California American Water’s customers and the Monterey community.
Several parties propose additional hearings and reference proceedings as a means to
avoid potential delays associated with threatened legal challenges to the CPCN. California
American Water questions the need for and wisdom of scheduling additional proceedings at
this time. First, scheduling additional proceedings presupposes that the existing evidentiary
record is insufficient or inadequate to support a CPCN decision for the MPWSP as currently
proposed. The Commission has met its obligations under the Public Utilities Code and, with
the issuance of the EIR/EIS it will have met its obligations under CEQA and NEPA. The
12
SWRCB Order WR 2016-0016, pp. 20-21, Ordering Paragraph 3.b.vi.
13
Id., p. 11.
29
Commission has met its obligations under the Public Utilities Code to evaluate whether the
MPWSP is reasonable and necessary. It has no obligation to continually delay this
proceeding to undertake review of last minute alternative proposals. Inasmuch as the CPUC,
California American Water, Monterey Peninsula rate payers and other interested parties have
invested many years and millions of dollars developing a technical record to support the
CPUC’s environmental document and pending CPCN decision, California American Water
cannot agree that there is an inadequate record supporting issuance of the CPCN. Moreover,
the history of this proposed project proves that there will always be threats of litigation
(indeed, certain parties may make such threats to justify delaying a decision) and efforts by
opponents of a water supply solution for the Monterey Peninsula to cause delays, and the
time has come to move towards a final decision to authorize the MPWSP to proceed.
Second, the various proposals for additional hearings and proceedings are fraught
with their own legal and timing uncertainties and risks, and it is not at all certain that
additional proceedings will avoid litigation or expedite final action to allow the MPWSP to
proceed. For example, not all potential litigants are parties to settlement discussions, and
until a CPCN is issued, it is impossible to completely identify all potential challengers or
claims that could be made. In addition, it is not clear that all of the claims that have been
threatened by the parties can be adjudicated as proposed, nor is it clear that such additional
proceedings would result in final binding determinations on the claims that have been
threatened. So despite the good intentions of the settlement parties, California American
Water submits that it is not practical to accurately identify all conflicts and claims in advance
30
of actual challenges to the CPUC’s final Environmental Impact Report and CPCN decision,
to avoid future litigation and delay.
Moreover, such arguments seem to assume that that the Commission’s EIR/EIS or its
CPCN decision will be flawed or inadequate. California American Water cannot support
such lines of thinking, nor can it support proposals that seek to delay or circumvent the
EIR/EIS or CPCN. The Commission has spent years preparing the EIR/EIS and developing
the record for the CPCN decision. There is no reason to believe that the Commission will not
meet its legal obligations.
Any utility or benefit from hearings prior to the conclusion of Phase 1 would likely be
negligible or non-existent and the risks of potential negative impacts on California American
Water’s customers and the Monterey region are substantial and severe. To the extent that the
Commission wishes to provide an opportunity for further exploration of certain issues, it
should only do so after it has granted a CPCN for the MPWSP as proposed by California
American Water.
Position of Water Management District, Water Authority, and Monterey One
Water: There are no risks to initiating a Phase 3 on PWM before the Phase 1 decision. The
benefits would be to establish a basis for continued work on perfecting the PWM Expansion
opportunity.
Position of CPB: CPB sees an enormous risk that scheduling a Phase 3 evidentiary
hearing prior to PUC reaching a decision on Phase 1 would cause a delay in the already
much-delayed proceeding and cause Cal Am to miss the 9-30-18 CDO milestone with
31
significant, even devastating, negative impacts on Cal Am customers. On this point we
disagree with MPRWA et al (see comments below in response to question 6).
Phase 3 Prior to Phase 1 Risks Phase 3 Prior to Phase 1 Benefits
From MCWD: Potential delay of From MCWD: Provide testimony and other
compliance with existing CDO milestone if evidence regarding cost, schedule and
milestone date not extended by SWRCB details of PWM expansion and MCWD
(see note below) sales
Monterey One Water, the Water From MCWD: Potential avoidance of
Management District and the Water immediate rehearing and litigation
Authority: There are no risks to initiating a challenges to issuance of CPCN, allowing
Phase 3 on PWM before Phase 1 decision. time for further settlement discussions
The benefits would be to establish a basis
for continued work on perfecting PWM
Expansion opportunity
County and MCWRA: Failure to comply From MCWD: Time for referral of
witb September 30, 3018 deadline for groundwater rights question to SWRCB or
Commission decision with resulting court (see note below)
negative consequences for the Monterey
Peninsula.
City of Marina: Development of a record in
Phase 3 prior to Phase 1 will better inform
the CPUC whether the desal Project is
required in the public convenience and
necessity.
NOTE: Consistent with testimony and NOTE: Due to the existence of a disputed
evidence presented by the Planning and issue of fact and law concerning the ability
of the MPWSP to be operated consistent
Conservatiaon League Foundation during with the groundwater rights standard, as set
the October-November 2017 hearings, some forth in the SWRCB’s July 2013 Final
parties support a request to the SWRCB to Review (Ex. MCD-17), some parties would,
modify or extend the 2018 and 2019 CDO under certain circumstances, support the
milestones. Commission’s referral of the question of
groundwater rights to the SWRCB.
Phase 1 Decision Prior to Phase 3 Risks Phase 1 Decision Prior to Phase 3 Benefits
From MCWD: Likely rehearing and County and MCWRA: Eliminates risk of
32
Phase 1 Decision Prior to Phase 3 Risks Phase 1 Decision Prior to Phase 3 Benefits
litigation challenges to any CPCN issued September 30, 2018 deadline not being met
without Phase 3 proceedings and further for failure to issue a Commission decision.
settlement discussions
City of Marina: Without a record in Phase
3 being considered in the Phase 1 decision,
the Commission will not have before it all
reasonable alternatives to the construction
of the Project.
F. Demonstrate that a proposed Phase 3 in the proceeding will not jeopardize issuance
of a decision by the Commission on the MPWSP application prior to the CDO
deadline.
The parties have differing views on whether holding evidentiary hearings in April
2018 will realistically allow time for a CPCN decision by the Commission before the CDO
milestone deadline of September 30, 2018. The parties also have differing views on the way
in which varying sequences of proceedings and decisions will enable Cal-Am to have a
sufficient water supply in place by December 31, 2021 to enable it to fully comply with the
CDO’s effective diversion limit on that date.
View 1: California-American Water position: The only way to prevent Phase 3 from
causing California American Water to miss the September 2018 CDO deadline is to hold
Phase 3 after the issuance of a CPCN decision. Otherwise, if a hearing is held in April, it is
likely that the Commission would not be able to issue a CPCN decision until October 2018
or even later, causing California American Water to miss the CDO milestone deadline.
Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that California American Water would be
able to get an extension of the CDO milestones and deadline as a result of a delayed CPCN
decision. Indeed, the CDO itself limits extensions of the milestone schedules to situations
33
beyond California American Water’s control.14 As such, California American Water cannot
support any proposal that is likely to result in missing the CDO’s September 2018 CPCN
milestone or other future milestones. Even if such an extension is legally possible, there is
no indication that the SWRCB is committed to expending its resources to grant such an
extension. California American Water is the only party to this proceeding that is subject to
the CDO. It is easy for parties not subject to the CDO to make proposals for extensions or
risk missing milestones, but the Commission should give significant weight to the fact that
such proposals do not have California American Water’s support. California American Water
and its customers will suffer substantial negative consequences if CDO milestones are not
met. The speculative proposals that may be considered as part of Phase 3, which might
provide options for additional or supplemental water if the MPWSP is delayed, are not
sufficient justification for seeking an extension of the CDO or risk missing CDO milestones.
View 2: The City of Marina, CURE, MCWD, PTA, PWN, Water Plus, Citizens for
Just Water, believe that, with the already-approved Pure Water Monterey supply and the
infrastructure improvements the Commission approved in D.16-09-021, Cal-Am is well-
positioned to meet the CDO deadline without the desalination component of the MPWSP.
Exploring additional non-desalination supply alternatives through PWM expansion and
potentially through sales by MCWD in Phase 3 would provide a further increment of
operational security well into the future.
14
Id., Ordering Paragraph 3.b.viii. provides: “…If the report indicates that a Milestone is
likely to be missed for reasons beyond Applicants’ control, the State Water Board may make
a determination during that meeting or at a subsequent meeting whether the cause for delay is
beyond Applicants’ control. If the State Water Board determines that the cause is beyond
Applicants' control, it may suspend any corresponding reductions under Condition 3.b.vi
until such time as the Applicants can reasonably control progress towards the Milestone.
34
View 3: The Water Management District, Water Authority and Monterey One Water
position, joined by Surfrider and Landwatch:
As discussed above, if the SWRCB modifies the CDO as proposed, PWM Expansion
could serve as a basis to ensure compliance with CDO milestones, including final
termination of unauthorized Carmel River diversions. If the SWRCB does not modify the
CDO, a CPCN will need to be issued on desalination prior to the September 2018 CDO
milestone.
View 4: The County and MCWRA position: The County and MCWRA understand
“CDO deadline” in this issue to refer to the September 30, 2018 milestone. (See Ruling, p. 4,
first full ¶, 4th and 5th lines [referencing “CDO deadline of September 30, 2018”]; p. 4, first
full ¶, 5th - 8th lines [“We have serious concerns that if evidentiary hearings are held in April
2018 there realistically will not be time to allow for the CPCN decision by the CDO deadline
of September 30, 2018.”]) It has not been demonstrated whether or when efforts to revise
that CDO deadline will succeed, resulting in lack of a demonstration that issuing a Phase 3
decision will not jeopardize the Commission’s ability to issue a Phase 1 decision prior to that
CDO deadline
Water Management District, Water Authority, and Monterey One Water agree with
this reading of the question, and therefore believe that unless the CDO is modified as
requested, a CPCN for the desalination project must be issued before September 30, 2018.
View 5: CPB position. CPB is convinced scheduling a Phase 3 evidentiary hearing
prior to a decision in Phase 1 would jeopardize timely issuance of the CPCN decision. The
theory of the request for a Phase 3 evidentiary hearing is that a desal plant could or should be
35
downsized or eliminated by a) expanding Pure Water Monterey (with no evidence that
adequate sustainable source water is available or acquirable – a fact that cannot be avoided or
overcome in a reasonable amount of time – or reliable cost information) or by b) borrowing
water supplies from an adjoining water district (which is not a permanent supply of water as
called for in the CDO).
G. Status update on progress of settlement discussion among the parties (expected

timing for concluding discussions and presenting outcome to Commission).
The parties have met five times since the hearings last fall, four of which meetings
have been facilitated by Dr. Marcelle DuPraw of the Center for Collaborative Policy,
California State University, Sacramento.. No definitive agreements have yet been reached
but the parties support continuing to meet. Dr. DuPraw is presently soliciting availability for
the date of the next settlement meeting, planned to be held in March. The timing of a
successful conclusion of the discussions cannot be predicted at this time.
Position of California American Water: California American Water has participated
in the current settlement discussions and will continue to do so. California American Water
cautions the Commission, however, from assuming that a settlement could be achieved that
would warrant delaying the current procedural schedule. There are numerous parties
involved in the settlement discussions, the issues are complex, and in certain cases settlement
may not be possible given the positions of the parties. For example, California American
Water would not be able to reach a settlement that involves a delayed or conditional CPCN
decision, since California American Water has an obligation to its customers and the
Monterey community to employ its best efforts to meet the CDO schedule to develop a
stable, long-term water supply. The Commission cannot delay this proceeding indefinitely
36
just because settlement discussions are ongoing. If California American Water is able to
reach a settlement with the various parties to this proceeding on key contested issues, it will
promptly inform the Commission. Unless and until such an agreement is reached, however,
the Commission should proceed according to the current procedural schedule.
Moreover, there are still opportunities for continued discussions and possible
agreements after the Commission releases the EIR and a CPCN is issued. Indeed, the brine
settlement agreement provides a process for resolving future issues, should they arise.
Similarly, for example, after the EIR was issued for the San Clemente Dam removal project,
interested parties were able to work together to address key issues in innovative ways. If the
Commission issues a CPCN for the MPWSP as proposed by California American Water,
there will still be future opportunities for similar agreements.
PTA states: Efforts to make the settlement process “consistent with CPUC practices”
have sometimes precluded reasonable and frank discussions between parties and resulted in
the hardening of legal positions. If these points could be addressed more frankly and
directly, success might be more likely.
CPB position: CPB is convinced that reaching a reasonable new settlement
agreement is not possible to replace the settlement agreement filed in July 2013. Several of
the parties - many of them relatively new to the proceeding and approved as parties long after
the July 2013 settlement agreement was reached - are adamantly opposed to locating a desal
plant where proposed in the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project application. Some of
those parties have threatened to sue to stop the desal project. Some of the parties oppose
construction of a desal plant, period. No amount of settlement discussion will reconcile the
37
diametrically opposed views on the location of the desal portion of MPWSP or whether the
Peninsula community should even have a desal plant.
H. Specific proposed language that could be included in the CPCN decision if it were to
also authorize a Phase 3 decision.
From California American Water
While California American Water is open to continuing discussions with interested
parties even after a CPCN is issues, it does not believe that as Phase 3 has been justified as of
yet and thus has no language to propose.
From Water Management District, Water Authority, and Monterey One Water
If following an evidentiary hearing in April 2018, the Commission determines that a
sufficient showing has been made to support continued efforts to perfect PWM Expansion as
an additional water supply source for the Cal-Am system, it should open a Phase 3.
Language authorizing a Phase 3 could be as follows:
Based upon evidence presented to the Commission, there is the potential that the Pure
Water Monterey Project (“PWM”) could be expanded to provide an additional approximately
2,250 AFY of supply to meet demands within the Cal-Am system and such expansion may
be completed prior to the CDO deadline of September of 2021, Therefore, the Commission
encourages further analysis of the expansion potential, including necessary environmental
review. Based upon the evidence received, completion of the environmental review, if
completed, is anticipated on or before May of 2019. Therefore, provided that Monterey One
Water elects to proceed with PWM expansion and completes environmental review for the
expanded project consistent with CEQA, the Commission will hold an evidentiary hearing in
June of 2019 concerning the merits of the PWM expansion as a source of supply and whether
38
to approve a water purchase agreement for the water produced from an expanded PWM
project. Cal-Am shall engage with the Water Management District and Monterey One Water
in good faith to develop a draft water purchase agreement applicable to the expanded project.
Testimony concerning the merits of the PWM expansion shall be submitted evaluating the
nine criteria applied to consideration of the approval of the Water Purchase Agreement for
the initial 3,500 acre feet from the PWM project, to the extent such criteria are also
applicable to the PWM expansion project. Specific dates for the June 2019 hearing,
submission of direct and rebuttal testimony, and post-hearing briefing shall be made by
separate order to follow. If the June hearing occurs following completion of Monterey One
Water’s environmental review for the expanded project consistent with CEQA, the
Commission anticipates considering approval of the water purchase agreement for the
expanded PWM no later than July of 2019.
The Commission may also consider any settlement agreements or other proposals
concerning the desalination project that are submitted to the Commission prior to May 2019
and may decide to receive evidence concerning such settlement agreements or proposals at
the June hearing or by separate hearing. Any hearing on such settlement agreements or
proposals, together with applicable dates for submission of testimony, and post-hearing
briefing shall be set by separate order when and if appropriate.
From PCLF
Phase 3 of the proceeding is open to allow for the possibility of a Water

Purchase Agreement for a minimum of 2,000 AFA annually from Pure Water
Monterey expansion to CALAM and possibly a Water Purchase Agreement with
Marina Coast Water District.
39
Pure Water Monterey is to present at a fall 2018 Phase 3 hearing information
as compete as possible responding to the nine criteria that were helpful to the
Commission in approving the Water Purchase Agreement under Phase 2 of this
proceeding.
Marina Coast Water District is to present at a fall 2018 Phase 3 hearing

information as complete as possible responding to the nine criteria that were helpful
to the Commission in approving the Water Purchase Agreement under Phase 2 of this
proceeding
After the fall 2018 hearing the ALJ’s will determine whether CALAM shall be
directed to work with Monterey One Water on a Water Purchase Agreement for at
least 2,000 acre feet of supply annually from Pure Water Monterey expansion and/or
a Water Purchase Agreement with Marina Coast Water District
Spring, 2019, If so directed by the ALJ’s after the fall, 2018 hearing CALAM
is to present a Water Purchase Agreement with Pure Water Monterey expansion
and/or Marina Coast Water District for CPUC approval.
Fall, 2019 CPUC will decide whether to approve a Water Purchase Agreement
with Pure Water Monterey expansion and/or Marina Coast Water District.
Between now and December 2021 Phase 1 will remain open to allow all
parties to continue settlement efforts concerning the desal project. This could include
18 months of fact finding. Such fact finding could include referral to an independent
outside organization. The following 18 months would be devoted to dispute
resolution. Parties can decide whether that would include binding or non-binding
arbitration.
From the City of Marina
The City of Marina does not believe that it is appropriate to issue a Phase 1 decision
that in any way grants a CPCN for the MPWSP in any manner, even if it envisions a later
phase. Evidentiary hearings that directly relate to the “need” for the MPWSP, such as
considering water supply alternatives in Phase 3, must take place before any Phase 1
decision. This view is joined by CURE, MCWD and Water Plus.
From Surfrider Foundation and LandWatch
40
The language proposed by the Water Management District, Water Authority, and
Monterey One Water will serve as an order, rather than a CPCN, in the event that the CDO
milestones are modified. If the milestones are not modified, then Surfrider Foundation
proposes incorporating that language, with the following addition at the end: “This CPCN
does not authorize the construction of the desalination component of the MPWSP unless and
until this Commission determines in Phase 3 that the proposed PWM expansion, plus
existing legal sources and any other alternative sources demonstrated during Phase 3, cannot
meet projected demand in the CAW service area. The Commission’s Phase 3 decision will
include a determination regarding whether this condition has been met and, if so, the
warranted capacity of the desalination facility. It may additionally include conditions for
future construction of expansion of that facility.”
I. Anything else parties believe is necessary for the Commission to make an informed,
reasonable, and timely decision regarding the remainder of the schedule for this
proceeding that allows for both (a) meeting the CDO deadline and (b) providing the
Commission with the best available evidence (subject to cross-examination) and
legal argument for reaching its decision consistent with due process for all parties.
1. From Cal-Am: The Commission has spent nearly six years reviewing the
MPWSP. As the Ruling explains, the Commission has held more than 25 days of
evidentiary hearings, the parties have had multiple opportunities to provide
evidence, address legal issues and even enter into settlement agreements. The
extensive record provides a more than adequate basis for the Commission to reach
a decision on the MPWSP and the relevant legal arguments have been briefed
extensively. This lengthy proceeding has provided all parties with due process and
opportunities for the Commission to hear and address their complaints. There is
41
no need to delay the issuance of the CPCN decision or to condition the CPCN on
future evidentiary proceedings.
2. From MCWD:
A. Consistent with its briefing, MCWD believes the Commission has already
taken sufficient steps to permit Cal-Am to continue serving its customers while
meeting the December 31, 2021 CDO deadline. MCWD reserves its right to raise
issues beyond those discussed in this joint statement, including all issues
addressed in its Opening and Reply Briefs.
B. Cal-Am and MCWD are currently engaged in a contract disputes resolution
process concerning Cal-Am’s request, which MCWD has denied, to use a MCWD
pipeline for delivery of desalination product water to the Monterey Peninsula.
Cal-Am has conveyance capacity rights in the MCWD pipeline to convey ASR
water both north and south in the pipeline. If Cal-Am does not have sufficient
rights to firm conveyance capacity in MCWD’s pipeline, then the operational
utility of the MPWSP could be impaired or a separate pipeline would need to be
constructed. MCWD does not agree with Cal-Am’s contention that firm
conveyance capacity exists in the pipeline to convey MCWD water, ASR water,
and recovered PWM water as well as MPWSP desalinated product water.
Evidence on the matter was presented in the October-November 2017 hearings
and Cal-Am and MCWD have briefed the issue in Phase 1. The parties can keep
the Commission apprised of any additional developments, including any need for
the Commission to further address the matter in Phase 3.
42
3. From the City of Marina: Marina renews its Rule 11.6 extension request served
on the ALJs and all parties on February 1, 2018, after complying with the
requirement to first poll parties on their positions on that request. By that request,
Marina seeks, and continues to seek, an extension of time to the filing deadlines
established by the August 28, 2017 Ruling to file Opening and Reply Briefs on the
final EIR/EIS by adding an additional 10 days for the Opening Brief and an
additional 7 days for the Reply Brief to the deadlines ordered by that Ruling, a
request that was supported by the majority of parties polled.
Citizens for Just Water and MCWD support Marina’s request.
4. From Public Trust Alliance: As long as the preservation of litigation options is
privileged over problem-solving, legal professionals will present a standoff to the
CPUC and “problems” won’t be adequately defined for professional solution.
5. From Citizens for Just Water: The Commission does not have an adequate basis
for evaluation of the MPWSP, when no objective discussion has occurred
regarding the recent AEM data from Stanford University.
6. From CPB: CPB believes the PUC will have, when the EIR/EIS is completed and
in hand, all the relevant information it needs to make an informed, reasonable and
timely decision consistent with due process for all parties. Delay serves no
purpose other than to allow more time for those who want the project substantially
changed or defeated.
To blithely assume, as some of the parties apparently do, that the terms of the
CDO can just be amended on request have no evidence to support this belief or to
43
counter the clearly understood suspicion by some members of the State Water
Resources Control Board that the Peninsula will continue endlessly to explore and
deliberate ‘alternatives’ rather than solve its water supply problem and stop illegal
diversions from the Carmel River.
The Monterey Peninsula has needed an augmented water supply for over forty
years. The time is now to realize a safe, secure, stable and sustainable water
supply. A desal plant – at a minimum of 6.4 mgd - is essential to this goal since it
is safe, secure, stable and sustainable; the Pure Water Monterey project is not, nor
is expanded Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Pure Water Monterey depends for its
source water on ag processing wash water and other discarded ag water; that is, at
best, an interruptible supply and subject to changes in ag practices. PWM
expansion, if feasible, could be used in later years to satisfy CDO milestones if the
desal plant is stalled for any reason. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is
completely weather-dependent; during drought, or even slight rain, conditions
there is simply not sufficient excess Carmel River flows to divert; ASR depends
on a desal plant to make up water demand not satisfied by ASR. A diversified
portfolio of water supply projects is grand in theory but its long-term success
depends on an element of sustainability that can only be provided by a desal plant,
not by water recycling, water loans from other jurisdictions or diversion of non-
existent river flows.
44
[INSERT DATE & SIGANTURES]
45
SUBJECT:
Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Staff Direction on Authority Work Plan for the
Balance of FY 2017-2018 and for FY 2018-2019
RECOMMENDATION:
Edit and update the MPRWA Workplan Priority Ranking priority adopted by the Board
on June 6, 2016 and revised by the Board on 8 June 2017.
DISCUSSION:
A draft MPRWA Workplan Priority Ranking for the balance of FY 2017-2018 and FY
2018-2019 is at attachment A. These priorities should be considered in light of available
resources, expected sunset date of the Authority, and the mission statement of the JPA
which states in part:
"The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a public entity separate from its Members
to jointly exercise some or all of the foregoing common powers, as deemed necessary
by the Authority, to: (1) ensure the timely development, financing, construction,
operation, repair, and maintenance of one or more Water Projects; and (2) ensure that
the governance of such Water Projects includes representation that is directly
accountable to the Cities' water users."
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Draft Table of Work Plan Priorities
№06/12
ATTACHMENT A
MPRWA Workplan Priority Ranking - Draft

March 8, 2018
Main Organizations Situation Priority
MPRWA Current Action Tasks
Extend NOAA mitigation agreement for Carmel
1 CalAm; NMS; NOAA Discussions in progress; NOAA delay 3
River
2 Complete EIR/EIS for Desal CPUC; CalAm Working to new schedule 1
3 Support GWR NEPA as basis for grants MRWPCA; CalAm; MPWMD; MPRWA Studies started?? 2
Act as needed to Legal Challenges from various Provide amicus support with selected "objective 3rd party"
4 CalAm; MPRWA 2
parties assessment as needed.
Contain costs; monitor water usage; focus on water supply;
5 Ongoing public agency collaboration MPRWA; MPWMD; MRWPCA; NOAA 2
adapt to events
6 Contribute to Settlement Agreement Update CalAm; MPWMD; MPRWA Discussions in progress 1
7 Obtain a cost of water estimate CalAm; MPRWA 2
MPRWA Future Action Tasks

8 CPCN CPUC; CalAm; MPWMD; MPRWA Will be considered after EIR/EIS 1
9 Obtain various city / county permits after CPCN CalAm; Cities; MPRWA Will be required for pipelines after CPCN 1
10 Post MPWSP water allocation plan MPWMD; MPRWA Likely to require an EIR, therefore a long lead task 1
MPRWA Completed Action Tasks

1 Finalize brine discharge agreement Surfrider; CalAm; MPRWA Completed 2
2 Finalize Return Water agreement CalAm; CSIP Completed 2
3 Restart Test Well CCC; CalAm; MPRWA Restarted 1
4 Extend Cease and Desist Order CalAm; MPRWA; WPWMD Extension granted 1
5 Finalize WPA with Castroville CCSD; MPWMD; MCWRA Agreement Complete 3
6 Gain CPUC approval for GWR pipeline, WPA MRWPCA; CalAm; MPWMD; MPRWA Approval issued on 09/115/2016 1
Priority classes
Direct support of mission; MPRWA brings core community perspective 1
Vital to success of project; other parties bring primarily expertise. MPRWA adds community values perspective 2
Of interest as part of the overall project; other parties bring higher engagement and expertise 3

MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-08-18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPRWA Agenda Packet 03-08-18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

7:00 PM, Thursday, March 8, 2018

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

1. Approve Minutes from September 18, 2017 - Romero

2. Approve Minutes from December 14, 2017 - Romero

3. Approve Minutes from January 11, 2018 - Romero

4. Approve Minutes from February 15, 2018 - Romero

***End of Consent Agenda***

8. Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing

***End of Closed Session Agenda***

ADJOURN TO REGULAR SESSION

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), commented on the

A request was made to remove items #2 and #3 from consent.

1. Approve and File Authority Checks Through August 31, 2017

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Edelen, Smith, Kampe

***End of Consent Agenda***

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

• Michael Warburton, said alternative projects should be considered.

President Kampe adjourned the meeting at 8:35 pm.

Nova Romero, Authority Clerk MPRWA President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Staff Present: Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero

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

All Directors present.

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe

***End of Consent Agenda***

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe

Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.

Nova Romero, Clerk of the Authority MPRWA President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

President Kampe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

• Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association (MPTA), encouraged the

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Rubio, Smith, Kampe

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Dallas, Edelen, Rubio, Kampe

1. Approve Minutes from June 22, 2017

2. Approve Minutes from September 18, 2017

3. Approve Minutes from November 11, 2017

4. Approve Minutes from December 14, 2017

5. Approve and File Authority Checks Through December 31, 2017

***End of Consent Agenda***

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Russ McGlothlin echoed Director Rubio's concerns about uncertainty of coming to an

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Nova Romero, Clerk of the Authority MPRWA President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

President Kampe called the meeting to order at 12:00 pm.

All Directors were present.

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

Meeting adjourned to closed session at 12:10 pm.

Meeting reconvened at 1:32 pm.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

1. Approval of Minutes - Recommended to be Continued to Regular Meeting on March 8, 2018

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Carbone, Edelen, Dallas, Roberson, Rubio, Kampe

End of Consent Agenda

End of Closed Session Agenda

End of Consent Agenda

End of Consent Agenda

End of Consent Agenda

End of Consent Agenda