Technical Memorandum RBF Consulting

8/3/2019 Technical Memorandum RBF Consulting

1/27

1 | P a g e

Technical Memorandum

Date: October 5, 2011

To: Richard Svindland, Director of Engineering, California American Water

From: Paul Findley, RBF Consulting

Subject: Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives

This technical memorandum presents the results of cost analysis for eleven alternatives to solve the

water supply deficit in CAWs Coastal Division. It should be noted that these alternatives represent

physical solutions and that we have not fully explored permitting and schedule impacts for each of these

alternatives. Permitting and schedule impacts will be presented in a subsequent technical

memorandum.

Alternative 1 Implementation of 10 mgd Marina project; Alternative 2 Implementation of 6.5 mgd Marina project with 2700 AFY MRWPCA

Groundwater Recharge in Seaside, and 2700 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and

injection dilution;

Alternative 3 35 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system inSeaside;

Alternative 4 24 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system inSeaside, with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge, and 4200 AFY of Carmel River water

used for ASR and injection dilution;

Alternative 5 32 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, a 3. 5 mgd desalination plant inNorth Marina, and a 5500 AFY ASR system in Seaside;

Alternative 6 35 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, expansion of the Sand Citydesalination plant from 0.3 mgd to 1.0 mgd, and a 6500 afy ASR system in Seaside;

Alternative 7 32 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant, a 3.0 mgd desalination plant nearthe Naval Post Graduate School, and a 5200 AFY ASR system in Seaside;

Alternative 8 20 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Iron Removal Plant, a 5 mgd desalination plant nearthe Naval Post Graduate School, and a 5100 AFY ASR system in Seaside;

Alternative 9 35 mgd Salinas River Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside; and


2/27

2 | P a g e

Alternative 1010 mgd Deep Water Desalination Plant near Moss Landing with a 1300 AFYASR system in Seaside.

Alternative 11 5 mgd Marina project with 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge inSeaside, 2700 AFY of Carmel River water used for ASR and injection dilution, and

implementation of a more aggressive conservation program to reduce demand by an additional1500 AFY. A potential variation of this alternative would be to obtain additional Table 13 direct

diversion rights in lieu of additional conservation.

Regional Project as Basis for Cost Estimating

Capital Costs

The capital and annual cost estimates costs for the Regional Project have been estimated by RMC and

are shown in a table titled Monterey Bay Regional Water Supply Project, Project Cost Comparison-

(With Escalation to October 2012). From that reference, it is clear that the estimate is based on anassumption that all of the supply wells for the regional desalination plant are slant wells, and that the

costs are in October 2012 dollars. The capital costs for MCWD and MCWRA are also shown in Exhibit C

of the Water Purchase Agreement, as follows:

Project Facilities Estimated Base Construction Costs $140,100,000

Implementation, Start-up and Acceptance Costs $ 29,600,000

Initial Capital Outfall Expenses $ 3,000,000

MCWD and MCWRA Real Property Acquisition Costs $ 2,000,000

Mitigation Costs $ 2,000,000

Pre-Effective Date Costs and Expenses $ 14,000,000

Project Administration and Oversight Expenses $ 3,000,000

Subtotal Estimated Project Facilities Cost $193,700,000

Project Contingency $ 46,700,000

Subtotal - Estimated Project Facilities Cost $240,400,000

High-end Allowance (for Accuracy) $ 42,070,000

Total Overall Estimated Project Facilities Cost $282,470,000

Reserve Fund Payments Account $ 6,000,000

Costs of Obtaining Indebtedness $ 9,000,000

Total $297,470,000


3/27

3 | P a g e

RMCs cost comparison table also includes an estimate for CAWs regional project facilities, in October

2012 dollars, as follows:

Base Construction Cost $ 53,300,000

Post-Effective Implementation Costs $ 14,500,000

Pre-Effective Date Costs and Expenses $ 36,900,000ROW Easements and Land Acquisition $ 3,400,000

Mitigation $ 1,000,000

Capital Costs (Excluding Contingency) $109,100,000

Project Contingency $ 22,700,000

Most Probable Capital Cost with Contingency $132,000,000

High End of Accuracy Range $156,000,000

Low End of Accuracy Range $118,000,000

From the Settlement Agreement and the CPCN, it is clear that the cost cap of $106.875 million for CAW

facilities was set at the mid-point between a most probable cost estimate of $95 million and the high

end of the accuracy range at $118.75 million. Using the estimate above, an estimated capital cost of

approximately $107 million can be obtained by adding an accuracy allowance of $12 million to $95

million, which is the most probable capital cost with contingency but without CAWs pre-effective costs.

An estimate of $404 million for the capital cost of all facilities in the Regional Project can be obtained by

adding the estimate of $297 million for MCWD/MCWRA facilities to the estimate of $107 million for

CAW facilities. Many of the individual line items in the above cost estimates can be consolidated into

facilities or facility categories. The consolidated capital cost estimate for the Regional Project is shown

in Table 1.

TABLE 1

REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST

Capital Cost Categories Estimated Cost (Oct 2012 $)

MCWD/MCWRA

Raw Water & Brine Facilities $56,600,000

Treatment Facility $174,200,000

Conveyance Facilities $37,200,000

Total MCWD/MCWRA Facilities $268,000,000

Pre-Effective Date Costs $14,000,000

Reserve Requirements & Financing $15,000,000

Total MCWD/MCWRA Capital Cost $297,000,000

CAWConveyance Facilities $57,300,000

Terminal Reservoir $24,200,000

ASR System $25,500,000

Total CAW Capital Cost $107,000,000

TOTAL REGIONAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST $404,000,000


4/27

4 | P a g e

Alternatives

Alternative 1 Implementation of a 10 mgd Marina project

Description. This alternative would have the same facilities as the previously described Regional Project.

Operation. The assumed operation of Alternative 1 is shown in Table 2. For this alternative and all

other alternatives except Alternative 11, the assumed system demand is 15,200 AFY. The total

production of new project facilities for Alternative 1 would be 11,800 AFY. The desalination plant

would be operated at 10,500 afy (8,800 afy to CAW and 1,700 afy to be returned to Salinas Valley users)

and BIRP would be operated to produce a long term average of approximately 1300 AFY of excess

Carmel River water to be stored and recovered via the ASR system. The desalination plant would

produce 700 AF of excess water to be stored in the ASR system during the 6-month wet season and

recovered in the 6-month dry season.

Alternative 2 Implementation of 6.5 mgd Marina Project and 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater

Recharge

Description. This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 except that the desalination plant would be

reduced to 6.5 mgd capacity and the ASR system would be supplemented with recharge of 2700 AFY of

advanced water treatment (AWT) effluent from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control

Authoritys regional treatment facility. The AWT effluent would be used to recharge the Seaside aquifer

with separate injection wells. These separate injection wells are not included in the capital cost

estimate for CAW facilities, however, a 5000 feet, 18-inch diameter pipeline is included to transport

dilution water to the AWT effluent injection wells. The Transfer Pipeline from the desalination plant to

the Monterey Pipeline would be reduced from 36- inch diameter to 24-inch diameter.

Operation. For this alternative, it was assumed that the desalination plant would be operated at a

constant rate of 6.5 mgd, producing approximately 7300 AFY (6100 AFY to CAW and 1200 to be returned

to Salinas Valley users). The Salinas Valley return would be split seasonally, with 400 AFY being

delivered during the 6-month wet season, and 800 AFY being delivered during the 6-month dry season.

BIRP would be operated to produce a long term average of approximately 4600 AFY of Carmel River

water, of which 2700 AFY would be injected in the ASR system as dilution water to match the amount of

recharge water received from MPWPCA (required by regulation). It is assumed that CAW would then

recover the total recharge amount (AWT effluent plus dilution water) at ASR extraction wells. This

alternative would require operation of the Seaside wells during the injection season, and they would not

be operated during the 6-month dry-season . The ASR wells would be operated in extraction mode

during the 6-month dry season at an average rate of 9.8 mgd, to recover 5500 AFY.

Alternative 3 Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant (LCVFP)

Description. This alternative, shown schematically on Figure 1, features a seasonally operated surface

water filtration plant fed by an extensive system of supply wells (16 wells) and piping (10,000 lineal feet

of 12-inch to 42-inch diameter pipe) in the lower Carmel Valley. It is assumed that the raw water supply

from the wells would be considered groundwater under the influence of surface water (GWUISW),

and thus it would require filtration to meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule


5/27


6/27

5 | P a g e

The LCVFP examined in this analysis would be the primary supply, not a supplement to a desalination

plant. The capacity of the raw water supply system and the plant would need to be approximately 35

mgd (54 cfs) in order to capture more water during periods of high river flow and to produce a long term

average of 8,900 AFY of excess Carmel River to meet demand during the rainy season and to provide

injection water for the ASR system. This and all alternatives promoting an increase in high flow river

diversions above the currently permitted maximum instantaneous diversion rate will be of concern to

the Steelhead Association and Environmental agencies.In addition to the raw water supply system

described above, this alternative also includes the following new facilities:

35 mgd membrane filtration plant, on 6 acres at a location generally south of CarmelValley Road and east of Carmel Rancho Road, with pressure ultra-filtration (UF) system,

UV and chlorination disinfection, 3.5 MG clear well, membrane backwash supply

system, waste backwash recovery, solids processing and handling , chemical building,

and O&M building;

35 mgd, 4,500 hp treated water pump station on the LCVFP site; 43,000 feet, 42-inch diameter Peninsula Transfer Pipeline, proceeding from the west

end of Carmel Valley Road towards 17 Mile Dr, Forest Lake Road, Congress Avenue and

Sinex Road to the old Eardley Pump Station at the west end of the alignment for the

Regional Projects Monterey Pipeline;

26,000 feet, 42-inch diameter Monterey Pipeline, on the same alignment as theRegional Projects Monterey Pipeline, to the intersection of Del Monte Boulevard and

Broadway Avenue.

9,000 feet, 42-inch diameter Seaside Pipeline, proceeding from the intersection of DelMonte Boulevard and Broadway Ave along Broadway Avenue and then to Yosemite

Street and then to the east end of the Seaside Pipeline alignment as proposed for the

Regional Project;

3 mgd Valley Greens Pump Station, same as proposed for the Regional Project;

6 MG Terminal Reservoir, same as proposed for the Regional Project; 40 mgd, 1,400 hp ASR Pump Station, located at the northwest corner of the intersection

of Hilby Avenue and new General Jim Moore Boulevard (GJM);

2 ASR wells at Fitch Park, each at 2.1 mgd injection/4.3 mgd extraction, same asproposed for the Regional Project;

2 ASR wells located along GJM, each at 2.1 mgd injection/4.3 mgd extraction; 12 ASR injection wells, each with 2.1 mgd injection capacity, at various locations north

of the existing Santa Margarita ASR wells;

57,000 feet of 16-inch and 30-inch diameter pipeline for ASR well supply/extraction,recirculation, and backflushing;

Centralized reclamation facility for ASR backflush; and Centralized chlorination facility for extracted ASR water.


7/27

6 | P a g

Table 2

System Flow Rates

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

AFY

Average

Flow

(MGD)

AFY

Average

Flow

(MGD)

AFY

Average

Flow

(MGD)

AFY

Average

Flow

(MGD)

AFY

Average

Flow

(MGD)

AFY

Average

Flow

(MGD)

Supply

SRFP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LCVFP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,870 15.8 - -

Desal (to

CAW)3,990 7.1 4,810 8.6 3,250 5.8 2,850 5.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Desal

Return1,630 2.9 70 0.1 400 0.7 800 1.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sand City 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3

ASR

Extraction- - 2,000 3.6 - - 5,500 9.8 - - 6,850 12.2

SeasideWells

- - 1,500 2.7 1,500 2.7 - 0 - - 1,500 2.7

MRWPCA N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,700 4.8 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A

BIRP 4,620 8.2 - - 4,620 8.2 - - 4,620 8.2 - -

Demand System 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2

ASR

Injection2,020 3.6 - - 5,520 9.8 - - 6,920 12.4 - -


8/27

7 | P a g

Table 2 - Continued

System Flow Rates

Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

AFY

Avg.

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

AFY

Avg

Flow

MGD

Supply

SRFP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LCVFP 6,170 11.0 - - 5,510 9.8 - - 8,080 14.4 5,510 9.8 - -

Desal (to

CAW)N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,950 3.5 1,390 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,670 3.0 1,670 3.0

Desal

ReturnN/A N/A N/A N/A - - 560 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sand City 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 540 1.0 540 1.0 150 0.3 150 0.3

ASR

Extraction- - 6,850 12.2 - - 5,460 - - 6,460 11.5 - - 5,180 9.2

Seaside

Wells- - 1,500 2.7 - - 1,500 2.7 - - 1,500 2.7 - - 1,500 2.7

MRWPCA 2,700 4.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

BIRP 4,600 8.2 - - 4,600 8.2 - - 4,600 8.2 - - 4,600 8.2 - -

Demand System 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2

ASR

Injection6,920 12.4 - - 5,510 9.8 - - 6,520 11.6 - - 5,230 9.3 - -


9/27

8 | P a g

Table 2 - Continued

System Flow Rates

Alternative 8 Alternative 9 Alternative 10 Alternative 11(*)

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

6-Month Wet

Season

6-Month Dry

Season

AFYAvg.Flow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

AFYAvgFlow

MGD

Supply

SRFP N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,870 15.8 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LCVFP 3,250 5.8 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Desal (to

CAW) 2,800 5.0 2,800 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,970 7.1 4,850 8.62,650 4.7 2,050 4.7

Desal

Return N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A150 0.3 750 0.3

Sand City 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3 150 0.3

ASR

Extraction - - 4,500 8.0 - - 6,850 12.2 - - 2,000 3.6- - 5,400 6.4

Seaside

Wells 450 0.8 1,050 1.9 - - 1,500 2.7 - - 1,500 2.71,500 2.7 - -

MRWPCA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,700 4.8 - -

BIRP 4,600 8.2 - - 4,600 8.2 - - 4,600 8.2 - - 4,620 8.2 - -

Demand System 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,700 12.0 8,500 15.2 6,200 11.1 7,600 13.6

ASR

Injection4,550 8.1 - - 6,920 12.3 - - 2,020 3.6 - - 5,420 6.5 - -

(*) Conservation approach presented in this Table. Additional direct diversion from Table 13 would have different values.


10/27

9 | P a g e

Operation. The assumed supply, demand and facility flow rates used to prepare the O&M cost estimate

for this alternative are shown in Table 2.

The LCVFP would be operated during the 6-month wet season at an average rate of 15.8 mgd, toproduce a long term average of approximately 8870 AFY, of which approximately 5620 AFY would be

injected into the ASR wells. At the same time, BIRP would be operating. Together, the two plants

would produce water to meet demand during the 6-month wet season (estimated at 6700 AF) and to

also capture a long term average of approximately 6920 AF that would be injected into ASR wells. The

LCVFP and the BIRP would not be operated during the summer. The ASR wells, supplemented by the

Seaside wells and the Sand City desalination plant, would be used to meet demand during the 6-month

dry season (May through October). The ASR system would provide a long term average supply of

approximately 6850 AFY.

The assumed average demand during the 6-month wet season is 12 mgd (range of 9 mgd to 14 mgd).

For this 6-monthwet season, the assumed operation for Alternative 3 is as follows:

Operate LCVFP at an average of 15.8 mgd (range of 5 mgd to 35 mgd, depending on riverflow);

Operate the BIRP at an average of 8.2 mgd (range of 6 mgd to 16 mgd, depending on riverflow), with 6 mgd (3300 AF in 6 months) being delivered to customers, and a long term 6-

month average of approximately 2.3 mgd (1300 AF) would be sent to the ASR Pump Station

via the Segunda/Crest/Carlton Pipeline route.;

Operate the Sand City desalination plant continuously at approximately 0.3 mgd; Operate the ASRPS and ASR wells in injection mode at an average of 12.3 mgd (range of 0

mgd to 40 mgd);

Operate the Seaside wells to meet any daily shortfalls caused by demand exceeding thecombined output of the SRFP, BIRP, and Sand City desalination plant;

Turn off the Valley Greens Pump Station; and Operate the Segunda Pump Station at an average of approximately 3 mgd (range of 1 mgd

to 10 mgd).

The assumed average demand during the 6-month dry season is 15.2 mgd (range of 12 mgd to 21 mgd).

For this 6-month period, the assumed operation for Alternative 3 is as follows:

Turn off the LCVFP and BIRP; Operate the Sand City desalination plant continuously at approximately 0.3 mgd;

Operate the ASR wells in extraction mode at 8 mgd to 21 mgd, and an average of 12.2 mgd; Operate the Seaside wells at 2 mgd to 6 mgd, and an average of approximately 2.7 mgd; Operate the Valley Greens Pump Station at approximately 3 mgd in order to maintain

Segunda Tank levels, Crest Pipeline flow, and supply to upper Carmel Valley;

Operate the Segunda Pump Station at approximately 1.5 mgd to maintain flow in the CrestPipeline.


11/27

10 | P a g e

Alternative 4 24 mgd Lower Carmel Valley Filtration Plant with a 6900 AFY ASR system in Seaside,

with 4200 AFY Carmel River ASR and 2700 AFY MRWPCA Groundwater Recharge

Description. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would supplement the ASR system with recharge

of 2700 AFY of advanced water treatment (AWT) effluent from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution

Control Authoritys regional treatment facility. The AWT effluent would be used to recharge the Seaside

aquifer with separate injection wells. It is assumed that CAW would provide up to 2700 AFY of excess

Carmel River water as dilution water to the AWT effluent injection wells, and would then recover the

total recharge amount (AWT effluent plus dilution water ) at ASR extraction wells.

In comparison to Alternative 3, the capacity of the LCVFP, and the associated intake well system and

high service pump station, would be reduced from 35 mgd to 24 mgd. The Peninsula Pipeline would be

reduced from 42-inch diameter to 36-inch diameter. The number of new ASR wells would be reduced

from 16 to 11 (2 new injection/extraction wells and 9 injection-only wells), and the ASRPS capacity

would be reduced from 40 mgd to 30 mgd.

Operation. The LCVFP would be operated during a 6-month season (November through April) at an

average rate of 11.0 mgd, to produce a long term average of approximately 6170 AFY, of which

approximately 2920 AFY would be injected into wither the AWT effluent injection wells, or the ASRwells. At the same time, BIRP would be operating. Together, the two plants would produce water to

meet demand during the 6-month wet season (estimated at 6700 AF) and to also capture a long term

average of approximately 4220 AF that would be injected. The LCVFP and the BIRP would not be

operated during the summer.

As indicated previously, 2700 AFY of AWT effluent would be separately injected into the Seaside Basin

and recovered by the ASR wells. The ASR wells, supplemented by the Seaside wells and the Sand City

desalination plant, would be used to meet demand during the dry season (May through October). The

ASR system would provide a long term average supply of approximately 6850 AFY.

Alternative 5

Marina Desalination Plant and LCVFP

Description. This alternative, shown schematically on Figure 2, adds a 3.5 mgd desalination plant to the

facilities described in Alternative 3. The desalination plant would be located at the North Marina site.

The capacity of the LCVFP would be reduced to 32 mgd. The LCVFP clearwell (3.2 MG) and treated

water pump station (32 mgd, 3,600 hp) would be slightly smaller in this alternative than in Alternative 3.

In addition to the facilities described for Alternative 3, additional facilities in this alternative would

include:

3 vertical feedwater supply wells, each at 2.3 mgd and 250 hp, at locations currentlyproposed for the Regional Projects desalination plant supply wells;

30,000 feet, 24-inch diameter feedwater pipeline to the desalination plant; 3.5 mgd desalination plant, at location currently proposed for the Regional Projects

desalination plant;

0.4 MG clearwell at the desalination plant site; 3.5 mgd, 300 hp desalinated water pump station at the desalination plant site; 1 mgd, 25 hp desalinated water return flow pump station;


12/27


13/27


14/27


15/27

12 | P a g e


for this alternative are shown in Table 2. The LCVFP would be operated at an average of 14.4mgd

(range of 4 mgd to 35 mgd) during the 6-month wet season, to produce a long term average of

approximately 8080 AFY, of which 5220 AFY would be injected into the ASR wells. The ASRPS and ASR

wells would operate in injection mode at an average of 11.5 mgd (range of 0 mgd to 40 mgd) during the

6-month wet season, and the ASR wells would operate in extraction mode at 7 mgd to 20 mgd (long

term average of 11.6 mgd) during the 6-month dry season. All other operational aspects of Alternative 6

would be the same as for Alternative 3.

Alternative 7 Monterey Desalination Plant and LCVFP

Description. This alternative, shown schematically on Figure 4, adds a 3 mgd desalination plant to the

facilities described in Alternative 3. The desalination plant would be located in Monterey near the Naval

Post Graduate School. The capacity of the LCVFP would be 32 mgd. The LCVFP clearwell (3.2 MG) and

treated water pump station (32 mgd, 3,600 hp) would be slightly smaller in this alternative than in

Alternative 2A. In addition to the facilities described for Alternative 3, additional facilities in this

alternative would include:

4 feedwater supply slant wells, each at 2.2 mgd and 50 hp, at beach locations; 1200 feet, 18-inch diameter feedwater pipeline to the desalination plant; 3 mgd desalination plant, with partial second pass; 300,000 gallon clearwell at the desalination plant site; 3 mgd, 300 hp desalinated water pump station at the desalination plant site; 3,000 feet, 18-inch diameter horizontal directional drilled brine discharge pipeline to

the ocean, with brine diffuser;

1,500 feet, 18-inch Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline from the desalination plant toconnect to the Monterey Pipeline;


for this alternative are shown in Table 2. In Alternative 7, the desalination plant would be operated

continuously year-round at 3 mgd. The LCVFP would be operated at an average of 9.8 mgd (range of 2

mgd to 32 mgd) during the 6-month wet season to produce a long term average of 5510 AFY, of which

approximately 3930 AFY would be injected into the ASR wells. The ASRPS and ASR wells in injection

mode would operate at an average of 9.3 mgd (range of 0 mgd to 40 mgd) during the 6-month wet

season, and the ASR wells would operate in extraction mode at 6 mgd to 17 mgd (long term average of

9.2 mgd) during the 6-month dry season. All other operational aspects of Alternative 7 would be the

same as for Alternative 3.

Alternative 8 Monterey Desalination Plant and LCV Iron Removal Plant For ASR Supply

Description. This alternative, shown schematically on Figure 5, would include a 5 mgd desalination

plant located in Monterey near the Naval Post Graduate School, and a 20 mgd iron removal plant in

lower Carmel Valley (LCVIRP). The LCVIRP would produce water that would be sent directly to the ASR

system via an 80,000 feet, 36-inch diameter pipeline. It is assumed that iron removal is required in order

to prevent plugging of the ASR injection wells with oxidized iron precipitates. The LCVIRP would not


16/27


17/27


18/27

13 | P a g e

provide sufficient treatment or disinfection to meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule, so water from

the plant could not be served directly to customers. Water from the LCVIRP would be sent directly to

ASR injection wells, and separate ASR wells would be used for extraction. It is assumed that sufficient

separation will be provided between the injection and extraction wells so that the injected water

becomes groundwater as it travels from the injection wells to the extraction wells.

This alternative would include the following facilities:

20 mgd iron removal plant, on 2-3 acres at a location generally south of Carmel ValleyRoad and east of Carmel Rancho Road, with aeration towers, contact basin, gravity dual

media filters, chloramination system, 2.0 MG clear well, waste backwash recovery,

solids processing and handling , chemical building, and O&M building);

20 mgd, 2400 hp treated water pump station on the LCVIRP site; 80,000 feet, 36-inch diameter Peninsula Transfer Pipeline, proceeding from west end of

Carmel Valley Road towards 17 Mile Dr, Forest Lake Road, Congress Avenue and Sinex

Road to the old Eardley Pump Station and then parallel to the Monterey Pipeline and

the Seaside Pipeline to the ASR Pump Station on General Jim Moore Boulevard.

26,000 feet, 30-inch diameter Monterey Pipeline, on the same alignment as theRegional Projects Monterey Pipeline, from the old Eardley Pump Station to the

intersection of Del Monte Boulevard and Broadway Avenue.

9,000 feet, 30-inch diameter Seaside Pipeline, proceeding from the intersection of DelMonte Boulevard and Broadway Ave along Broadway Avenue and then to Yosemite

Street and then to the east end of the Seaside Pipeline alignment as proposed for the

Regional Project;

3 mgd Valley Greens Pump Station, same as proposed for the Regional Project; 6 MG Terminal Reservoir, same as proposed for the Regional Project; 20 mgd, 800 hp ASR Pump Station, located at the northwest corner of the intersection


2 ASR extraction wells at Fitch Park, each at 4.3 mgd extraction, same as proposed forthe Regional Project, (the existing ASR wells at Seaside Middle School and Santa

Margarita would be used for extraction only);

1 ASR extraction well (4.3 mgd capacity) located along GJM between the Fitch ParkWells and the Seaside Middle School ASR extraction well;

11 ASR injection wells, each with 2.1 mgd injection capacity, at various locations northof the existing Santa Margarita ASR wells;

35,500 feet of 16-inch, 30-inch, and 36-inch diameter pipeline for ASR wellsupply/extraction and backflushing;



for this alternative are shown in Table 2. In Alternative 8, the desalination plant would be operated

year round at approximately 5 mgd, producing 5600 afy. BIRP would be operated at an average of 8.3


19/27

14 | P a g e

mgd during the 6-month wet season, with 6 mgd (3300 AF in 6 months) being delivered to customers,

and a long term 6-month average of approximately 2.3 mgd (1300 AF) being sent to the ASR Pump

Station via the Segunda/Crest/Carlton Pipeline route. The LCVIRP would be operated during the 6-

month wet season, if excess Carmel River water is available, at an assumed long term average of 5.8

mgd, and a maximum of 20 mgd, to produce 3250 AFY which would be sent directly to the ASR system

for injection. The ASRPS and ASR injection wells would operate at an average of 8.1 mgd (range of 0

mgd to 20 mgd) during the 6-month wet season, and the ASR wells would operate in extraction mode at

6 mgd to 17 mgd (long term average of 8.0 mgd) during the 6 month dry season.

It should be noted that the assumed operation of this alternative is slightly different than the operation

of Alternative 7. System demand during the 6-month wet season would be met by operating BIRP at a

constant rate of 6 mgd, the Sand City desalination plant at 0.3 mgd, and the new Monterey desalination

plant at a constant rate of 5 mgd. If demand exceeds 11.3 mgd, the difference would be supplied from

the Seaside wells, so that excess Carmel River Water produced at BIRP could continue to flow to the

injection wells. Excess Carmel River water would also be treated at the new Carmel Valley Iron Removal

Plant and routed directly to the ASR injection wells, and no portion of this excess water would be served

directly to customers.

During the 6-month dry season, demand would normally first be met by constant supplies ofapproximately 5.0 mgd of desalinated water, 0.3 mgd from the Sand City Plant, and 1.9 mgd from the

Seaside Wells. The difference between this combined base supply (7.2 mgd) and demand (up to 24

mgd) would be met with the ASR extraction wells.

Alternative 9 Salinas River Filtration Plant (SRFP)

Description. This alternative, shown schematically on Figure 6, features a seasonally operated 35 mgd

surface water filtration plant fed by a diversion from the Salinas River.

The SRFP is similar in concept to a surface water treatment plant (SWTP) that was discussed in the

Coastal Water Project EIR for Phase 2 of the Regional Project. The EIR discusses a 14 mgd membrane

filtration SWTP that would operate seasonally to produce a long term average of 2,980 AFY. The EIRs

concept was that the SWTP would have provided seasonal augmentation to the supply from the 10 mgd

desalination plant constructed in Phase 1. Since the EIRs SWTP plant would operate during the winter,

in conjunction with the desalination plant as well as seasonal operation of CAWs BIRP system, all of the

production from the EIRs SWTP would be injected in CAWs ASR system. The EIR also indicates that the

long term seasonal average capacity of the SWTP could be expanded to 5,800 AFY with expansion of the

capacity of the Salinas River Diversion Facility (SRDF) from 36 cfs to 60 cfs, and construction of a perched

aquifer storage system for storage of 3,000 AF of Salinas River water.

The SRFP examined in this analysis would be the primary supply, not a supplement to a desalination

plant. The capacity of the diversion facilities and the plant would need to be approximately 35 mgd (54

cfs) in order to capture more water during periods of high river flow and to produce a long term average

of approximately 8,900 AFY. For this reason, this alternative includes a separate intake and pumping

station located at the SRDF Inflatable Dam, and 4,000 feet of 48-inch diameter pipeline to convey raw

water to the SRDF.

In addition to the diversion system described above, this alternative also includes the following new

facilities:

35 mgd membrane filtration plant, on 6 acres at the same general location as the EIRsSWTP, with pretreatment ( coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation), pressure ultra-


20/27


21/27

15 | P a g e

filtration (UF) system, UV and chlorination disinfection, 3.5 MG clear well, membrane

backwash supply system, waste backwash recovery, solids processing and handling ,

chemical building, and O&M building;

35 mgd, 3,000 hp treated water pump station on the SRFP site; 43,000 feet, 42-inch diameter Transfer Pipeline, in same alignment as proposed for the

Regional Project;

10,000 feet, 42-inch diameter Seaside Pipeline, in same alignment as proposed for theRegional Project;

29,000 feet, 36-inch diameter Monterey Pipeline, same as proposed for the RegionalProject;

3 mgd Valley Greens Pump Station, same as proposed for the Regional Project; 6 MG Terminal Reservoir, same as proposed for the Regional Project; 40 mgd, 1400 hp ASR Pump Station, located at the northwest corner of the intersection


2 ASR wells at Fitch Park, each at 2.1 mgd injection/4.3 mgd extraction, same asproposed for the Regional Project;

2 ASR wells located along GJM, each at 2.1 mgd injection/4.3 mgd extraction; 12 ASR injection wells, each with 2.1 mgd injection capacity, at various locations north

of the existing Santa Margarita ASR wells;

57,000 feet of 16-inch and 30 inch diameter pipeline for ASR well supply/extraction,recirculation, and backflushing;



for this alternative are shown in Table 2.

The SRFP would be operated during the 6-month wet season at an average rate of 15.8 mgd, to produce

a long term average of approximately 8,870 AFY, of which approximately 5620 AFY would be injected

into the ASR wells. At the same time, BIRP would be operating. Together, the two plants would

produce water to meet demand during the 6-month wet season (estimated at 6700 AF) and to also

capture a long term average of approximately 6,920 AF that would be injected into ASR wells. The SRFP

and the BIRP would not be operated during the summer. The ASR wells, supplemented by the Seaside

wells and the Sand City desalination plant, would be used to meet demand during the 6-month dryseason (May through October). The ASR system would provide a long term average supply of

approximately 6,850 AFY.

The assumed average demand during the 6-month wet season is 12 mgd (range of 9 mgd to 14 mgd).

For this 6-month period, the assumed operation for Alternative 9 is as follows:

Operate SRFP at an average of 15.8 mgd (range of 5 mgd to 35 mgd, depending on riverflow);


22/27

16 | P a g e

Operate the BIRP at an average of 8.2 mgd (range of 6 mgd to 16 mgd, depending on riverflow), with 6 mgd (3300 AF in 6 months) being delivered to customers, and a long term 6-

month average of approximately 2.3 mgd (1300 AF) would be sent to the ASR Pump Station

via the Segunda/Crest/Carlton Pipeline route.;

Operate the Sand City desalination plant continuously at approximately 0.3 mgd; Operate the ASRPS and ASR wells in injection mode at an average of 12.3 mgd (range of 0

mgd to 40 mgd);

Operate the Seaside wells to meet any daily shortfalls caused by demand exceeding thecombined output of the SRFP, BIRP, and Sand City desalination plant;

Turn off the Valley Greens Pump Station; and Operate the Segunda Pump Station at an average of approximately 3 mgd (range of 1 mgd

to 10 mgd).

The assumed average demand during the 6-month dry season (May through October) is 15.2 mgd (range

of 12 mgd to 21 mgd). For this 6-month period, the assumed operation for Alternative 9 is as follows:

Turn off the SRFP and BIRP; Operate the Sand City desalination plant continuously at approximately 0.3 mgd; Operate the ASR wells in extraction mode at 8 mgd to 21 mgd, and an average of 12.2 mgd; Operate the Seaside wells at 2 mgd to 6 mgd, and an average of approximately 2.7 mgd; Operate the Valley Greens Pump Station at approximately 3 mgd in order to maintain

Segunda Tank levels, Crest Pipeline flow, and supply to upper Carmel Valley;

Operate the Segunda Pump Station at approximately 1.5 mgd to maintain flow in the CrestPipeline.

Alternative 10

Deep Water Desalination (DWD) Project

Description. This alternative includes a 10 mgd desalination facility located about 1 mile north of the

Moss Landing power plant, north of Elkhorn Slough. The desalination and conveyance facilities include

the following, and the rest of the system is similar to the Regional Project:

Intake, intake pump station, outfall, and pier structure on the north side of the harbor outlet; 4,500 feet, 54-inch diameter feedwater pipeline to the desalination facility; 4,500 feet, 36-inch diameter brine pipeline to the outfall; 10 mgd desalination plant including flocculation and UF membrane filtration pretreatment with

partial second pass;

3.0 MG clearwell at the desalination plant site; 10 mgd, 1,800 hp desalinated water pump station at the desalination plant site; 98,500 feet of 36-inch pipeline and 10,000 feet of 30-inch pipeline to convey desalinated water

from the desalination plant to the Terminal Reservoir; and

Monterey pipeline, Terminal Reservoir, ASR system, and Valley Greens pump station identical tothe Regional Project.


for this alternative are shown in Table 2. The desalination plant would be operated to at an average of

8.7 mgd in the 6-month dry period and 7.1 mgd in the 6-month wet period to produce a long term


23/27

17 | P a g e

average of 8800 afy. Desalinated water return flow to the Marina Coast Water District system would

not be required. All other aspects ofthis alternatives operation would be identical to operation of

Alternative 1.

Alternative 11 5 MGD Desalination Project with GWR and Conservation

Description. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that the desalination plant would be

reduced to a capacity 5.0 mgd. A more aggressive water conservation program would be implemented

to further reduce demand by approximately 1500 AFY. A potential variation of this alternative would be

to obtain additional Table 13 direct diversion rights in lieu of additional conservation.

Operation. In this alternative, it is assumed that the CAW system demand would be reduced by 1500

AFY to 13,800 AFY, as a result of more aggressive water conservation. The desalination plant would be

operated year round at 5 mgd, producing 5600 AFY (4700 AFY to CAW, and 900 AFY returned to Salinas

Valley users). The Salinas Valley return would be split seasonally, with 150 AFY being delivered during

the 6-month wet season, and 750 AFY being delivered during the 6-month dry season. BIRP would be

operated to produce a long term average of approximately 4600 AFY of Carmel River water, of which

2700 AFY would be injected in the ASR system as dilution water to match the amount of recharge waterreceived from MPWPCA (required by regulation). It is assumed that CAW would then recover the total

recharge amount (AWT effluent plus dilution water) at ASR extraction wells. This would require

operation of the Seaside wells during the injection season, and they would not be operated during the

6-month dry-season . The ASR wells would be operated in extraction mode during the 6-month dry

season at an average rate of 9.6 mgd, to recover 5400 AFY.

Cost Comparison

Capital Cost

Table 3 provides a comparison of the capital costs of Alternative 1 and the other alternatives.

Compared to the $404 million estimated capital cost for the Regional Project, the capital cost for the

alternatives range from $277 million (Alternative 1) to $583 million (Alternative 10). Base construction

costs are essentially the same for Alternatives 3 and 9, but land acquisition costs would be expected to

be higher for Alternative 3 in order to acquire property in Carmel Valley for new supply wells and the

filtration plant. However, this higher land acquisition cost disadvantage of Alternative 3 is offset by its

cost advantage in financing costs.

For Alternative 10, a cost estimate of $38,500,000 was received from DWD for the intake, outfall and

pier systems. It was assumed that this cost included the feedwater and brine pipelines to and from the

desalination plant, and also an intake pump station. It was also assumed that this cost was expressed in

2012 dollars, and that it includes construction costs and contingency and accuracy allowances, but does

not include project implementation (permitting, environmental mitigation, engineering, project

management) or right-of-way acquisition costs. RBF estimated these costs and included them in the

$42.9 million cost shown for this line item in Table 3. RBF generated the capital cost estimate for the

desalination plant and conveyance system, using the same estimating approach as was used for the

other alternatives, in order to allow direct comparison to the other alternatives


24/27

18 | P a g e

O&M/Annual Cost

Table 4 compares the estimated annual cost for operation and maintenance (O&M) and other annual

costs for Alternative 1 ($13.2 M) to estimated O&M/annual costs of the other alternatives (ranging from

$5.2 M for Alternative 3 to $17.6 M for Alternative 2). The O&M cost estimates were prepared for an

assumed total CAW demand of 15,200 AFY. If demand is less, then O&M costs would be less, but the

reduction in O&M costs would not be proportional to the reduction in demand, primarily due to theeffect of fixed costs for labor and repair and maintenance.

As expected, Alternatives 5, 6 and 9 have lower O&M/annual costs than Alternative 1, primarily due to

the reduced amount of desalinated water produced by each alternative, and the resulting reduction in

power costs. Alternative 9 has higher treatment chemical costs than Alternative 3, because it would

treat water diverted directly from the Salinas River, with highly variable turbidity and organic carbon

content, whereas Alternative 3 would be treating water pumped from alluvial wells. The estimated

O&M/annual cost for Alternatives 5, 7, and 8 are similar ($10.8 M, $10M, and $10.9 M, respectively) and

are the highest of the non-GWR alternatives because they would have higher energy costs to produce

more desalinated water and they would have significantly higher labor costs due to the requirement to

staff two treatment plants.

Unit Costs

Table 5 compares the unit costs for water for Alternative 1 to the unit costs of water for the other

alternatives. The unit cost for Alternative 1 is estimated at $3970/AF, compared to the unit costs for

the other alternatives which range from $4160/AF for Alternative 2 to $6280/AF for Alternative 7.

CAWs annualized capital costs were calculated at a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.093 (8.5% interest

rate, 30 year term). For sake of discussion, a calculation of annualized capital costs was prepared at a

CRF of 0.051 (3% interest rate, 30 year term) so as to determine the effect of financing cost on the

overall cost. For Alternative 10, the annualized capital costs DWDs portion of the project were

calculated using a CRF of 0.057 (4%, 30 years) per DWDs draft analysis.

Also, the unit costs were calculated by dividing the total annualized costs by the total water productionof all project facilities, and this total production is the amount of project production received by CAW

(10,100 AFY) plus the amount of desalinated water that is produced and returned to Salinas Valley users

in order to avoid exportation of Salinas Valley groundwater. For the Regional Project and Alternative 1,

the amount of desalinated water to be returned to MCWD would be 1700 AFY, and the total project

production would be 11,800 AFY. For Alternative 2, the amount of desalinated water to be returned

would be 1200 AFY, and the total project production would be 11,300 AFY. If the total annualized costs

are divided by 10,100 AFY (the amount received by CAW), the unit costs of Alternative 1 would be

$4640/AF, and the unit cost of Alternative 2 would be $4650/AF. Similarly, if the total annualized costs

of Alternative 5 are divided by 10,100 AFY, the unit costs would be $5580/AF.


25/27

19 | P a g e

TABLE 3

CAPITAL COST COMPARISON (2012 Dollars in Millions)

Capital Cost CategoriesAlt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

5

Alt

6

Alt

7

Alt

8

Alt

9

Alt

10

Alt

11

Owned by Others

Raw Water & Brine Facilities $50.2M

Treatment Facility $221M

Conveyance Facilities

Total Facilities $271M

TOTAL Owned by Others $271M

CAW

Raw Water and Brine Facilities $56.3M $49.4M $27M $20.1M $42.9M $43.8M $68.1M $71.5M $13.5M $42.9M

Treatment Plants $173M $139M $186M $145M $172M $202M $243M $172M $187M $0.8M $113M

Conveyance Facilities $83.7M $70.6M $88.7M $82.6M $102M $89.1M $89.3M $72.3M $86.5M $138M $64.5M

Terminal Reservoir $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M $24.1M

ASR System $25.3M $32.3M $149M $110M $149M $149M $149 M $171M $149M $149M $32.3M

TOTAL CAW $362M $316M $475M $382M $490M $508M $573M $511M $461M $312M $277M

TOTAL PROJECT $362M $316M $475M $382M $490M $508M $573M $511M $461M $583M $277M

TABLE 4

O&M/ANNUAL COST COMPARISON (2012 Dollars)

Annual Cost CategoriesAlt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

5

Alt

6

Alt

7

Alt

8

Alt

9

Alt

10

Alt

11

Power $5.66M $4.38M $1.54M $1.36M $3.34M $1.90M $3 .33M $4.31M $1.51M $6.00M $3.50M

Chemicals $1.07M $0.78M $0.16M $0.16M $0.51M $0.22M $0 .46M $0.63M $0.51M $1.33M $0.61M

Membrane/Media Replacement $0.57M $0.46M $0.36M $0.29M $0.54M $0.42M $0 .53M $0.30M $0.36M $0.95M $0.30M

Equipment Repair and Replacement $1.77M $1.44M $1.40M $1.07M $2.28M $1.50M $2 .15M $2.10M $1.52M $1.91M $0.80MLabor and Miscellaneous Costs $3.11M $3.02M $1.71M $1.64M $3.41M $1.97M $3 .38M $3.36M $1.67M $3.48M $2.97M

Total Annual O&M Cost $12.2M $9.8M $5.2M $4.5M $10.0M $6.04M $9.9M $10.7M $5.6M $13.7M $8.2M

Outfall User Charge & Annual Inspection $0.45M $0.45M $0 $0 $0.25M $0.06M $0.20M $0.20M $0 $0 $0.45M

Groundwater Monitoring Program $0.55M $0.55M $0 $0 $0.55M $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.55M

Recharge Water Purchases $6.8M $6.8M $6.8M

Total Other Annual Cost $1.0M $7.8M $0 $6.8M $0.8M $0.06M $0.16M $0.20M $0 $0 $7.8M

TOTAL O&M /OTHER ANNUAL COST $13.2M $17.6M $5.2M $11.3M $10.8M $6.1M $10.1M $10.9M $5.6M $13.7M $16.0M


26/27

20|P a g e

TABLE5UNITCOSTCOMPARISON

CostCategories Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 Alt6 Alt7 Alt8 Alt9 Alt10 Alt11ProjectProduction(AFY) 11,800 11,300 10,100 10,100 10,700 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 8,600

CAWCapitalCost($M)$362 $316 $475 $382 $490 $508 $573 $511 $461 $312 $277

OtherCapitalCost($M) $271

OtherAnnualized

CapitalCost

@CRF=0.057($M/yr)

$15.4

TotalO&M&Other

AnnualCosts($M/yr)$13.2 $17.6 $5.2 $11.3 $10.8 $6.1 $10.1 $10.9 $5.6 $13.7 $16.0

CAWAnnualized

CapitalCost

@CRF=0.093($M/yr)

$33.7 $29.4 $44.2 $35.5 $45.6 $47.2 $53.3 $47.5 $42.9 $29.0 $25.8

TotalAnnualizedCost

w/CAWCRF=0.093

($M/yr)

$46.9 $47.0 $49.4 $46.8 $56.4 $53.3 $63.4 $58.4 $48.5 $58.6 $41.8

UnitCost,[email protected]

($/AF) $3,970 $4,160 $4,890 $4,640 $5,270 $5,280 $6,280 $5,780 $4,800 $5,760 $4,860CAWAnnualizedCapital

Cost@CRF=0.051$18.5 $16.1 $24.2 $19.5 $25.0 $25.9 $29.2 $26.1 $23.5 $15.9 $14.1

TotalAnnualizedCost

w/CAWCRF=0.051

($M/yr)

$31.7 $33.7 $29.4 $30.8 $35.8 $32.0 $39.3 $37.0 $29.1 $45.1 $30.1

UnitCost,[email protected]

($/AF) $2,680 $2,980 $2,910 $3,050 $3,340 $3,170 $3,890 $3,660 $2,880 $4,460 $3,500

PerTable5,theleastexpensivecostperAFregardlessonthefinancingrateisAlternate1.

OtherConsiderationsOftheelevenalternativesdiscussedabove,onlyonewasconsideredinCPUCsCoastalWaterProjectEIR

(Alternative1,whichwaspreviouslycalledtheNorthMarinaAlternative). Implementationofanyofthe

otheralternativeswouldrequireadditionalenvironmentalimpactanalysis,recertificationoftheEIR,

amendmentandreapplicationfortheCPCN,andamendmentoftheapplicationtotheCaliforniaCoastal

Commission.

Thesere

permitting

costs

are

not

specifically

estimated

in

the

cost

estimates

in

this

technicalmemorandum,althoughitcouldbearguedthattheyareincludedunderprojectcontingency.

Moreimportantly,repermittingoftheprojectwoulddelayimplementationwellbeyondtheOctober

2012midpointofconstructionthatisthebasisofestimatingcapitalcostsinthismemorandum,andthe

resultingimpactsofinflationonprojectcostsarenotreflectedinthiscostanalysis.

Alternatives3through9arebasedonanassumptionthatwaterrightscouldbeobtainedtodivert

significantamountsofwaterfromeithertheCarmelRiverortheSalinasRiverwithattendantrightsto


27/27

deliversomeofthedivertedwaterdirectlytocustomersand/ortostoresomeorallofthediverted

waterintheSeasideGroundwaterBasin. Eveniftheserightscouldbesecured,transitionalrightswould

needtobenegotiated,overaperiodcoveringseveralyearsofinitialoperation,toallowsomeminimum

levelofdiversionfromtheSalinasRiverand/orfromtheCarmelRiver(above3,376AFY).These

transitionalconditionswouldneedtobeineffectuntilsuchtimeassufficientwaterhasbeenstoredin

theASRsystemtoprovidesupplyduringamultiyeardrought.

SinceAlternatives5,7,8and11allhaveasignificantdesalinationplanttofurnishayearroundbase

supply,thetransitionperiodwouldbeshorterthaninAlternatives3,4,and6,withlessimpactto

CarmelRiverflows. Also,Alternatives5,7,8and11wouldbeabletoprovidealargerminimumamount

ofsupplyintheeventofadroughtintheinitialyearsoftheproject,beforeanASRreservehasbeen

established. Forexample,inAlternative8,thetotalCAWsupplyavailableintheyear2020withoutASR

wouldbeapproximately10,900AFY,orapproximately2/3ofthe15,200AFYdemandthathasbeen

assumedforthisanalysis.

ImplementationofAlternative9alsopresumesthatSalinasRiverwaterisofsuitablequalitythatitwill

bepossibletomeetdrinkingwaterstandardswithmembranefiltrationtreatment,i.e.,nanofiltrationor

reverseosmosiswillnotberequired. Anothernecessaryassumptionisthatregulatoryorpublic

concernsover

water

quality

issues

do

not

prevent

Salinas

River

water

from

being

stored

in

the

Seaside

GroundwaterBasin.

Aswithallotherscenariosthathavebeenconsideredoverthelastsevenyears,thecostestimatedoes

notincludeanycostsforupgradingtheBIRPtocomplywiththeSurfaceWaterTreatmentRule.

However,sinceAlternatives3through7doinvolveimplementationofanewlargetreatmentplantusing

CarmelRiverWater,theopportunitytoabandontheBIRPandincreasethesizeoftheLCVFP(to50+

mgd)wouldpresentitself,andthiswouldincreasetheimplementationcostsofthisalternative.

ImplementationofAlternative8isbasedonASRinjectionofCarmelRiverwaterproducedbytheLCVIRP

thathasnotbeentreatedtomeettheSurfaceWaterTreatmentRule. Theassumptionisthatthe

resultingsupplyofwaterproducedfromseparateASRextractionwellswillnotbeclassifiedas

groundwaterundertheinfluenceofsurfacewater,andwillthusbeexemptfromtheSurfaceWater

TreatmentRule.

ThealternativesthatinvolveaLowerCarmelValleyFiltrationPlantarepremisedonanassumptionthat

landandROWcouldbesecuredintheLowerCarmelValleyinreasonabletimeframes,atlandpricesof

$750,000peracreforacquisition,and$75,000peracreforeasements. Atthistime,itisnotknownif

thesearereasonableassumptions.

Itisnotfullyknownifthe1500AFYofconservationcanbeachievedforAlternative11;however,the

needforthislevelofconservationmaybesomewhatreducedpriortotheyear2021whentheamount

ofwateravailablefromtheSeasidegroundwaterbasinwillbegreaterthanthe1500AFYthatwas

assumedforthisanalysis. Additionally,changestotheTable13directdiversionmaybeabletoreduce

theamountofconservationneededforthisalternate.

SummaryWehavereviewedpossiblephysicalsolutionstothepeninsulaswatersupplyshortageonanequal

basis. Thenextstepistocompleteanassessmentofthepermittingandscheduleimpactforeach

alternative. Thiswillbepresentedinasubsequenttechnicalmemorandumatwhichpointafinal

recommendationastothemostattractivealternateoralternatescanbedetermined.

Documents

Technical Memorandum RBF Consulting