TAC MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 11-04-13.pdf

8/14/2019 TAC MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 11-04-13.pdf

1/18

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Regular Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, November 4, 2013Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regional Treatment Plant

14811 Del Monte Blvd, Marina 93933

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ADJOURN TO FIELD TRIP

1. Tour of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regional Treatment Plant

at 14811 Del Monte Blvd, Marina 93933

RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

PUBLIC COMMENTSPUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on anysubject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA TAC and which is not on the agenda. Anyperson or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the TAC may do so by addressing theCommittee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA TAC,Attn: MPRWA Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2. August 19, 2013

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report, Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Ground WaterReplenishment Project Bifurcation, including timeline and process for cost comparison andother project criteria (Burnett)

4. Receive Report, Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Ground Water

Replenishment Project Schedule and Areas where the Water Authority Can Assist inEvaluating and Moving the Project Forward (Israel)

5. Discuss, Provide Staff Direction in Identifying Information Necessary to Evaluate theGround Water Replenishment Project (Cullem)

ADJOURNMENT


2/18

Created date 11/01/2013 9:42 AM Monday, November 4, 2013

2

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all ofits services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California RelayService (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of theAuthority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend ameeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Authority Clerk at 440 HarcourtAve, Seaside, CA 93955. This agenda is posted in compliance with California GovernmentCode Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/18

r_ 4-Way StopJ - = = f =

Regional WastewaterTreatment Facility

TCrol

Salinas iver

Del Monte Blvd.Exits 412

Monterey RegionalEnvironmental ParkSign

DMelvd

RNMONTEREY REGION L W TERPOLLUTION CONTROL GENCY

Directions to theRegional Treatment Facility

From Hwy 101:From Hwy 101 @ Prunedale takeHwy 156 Exit. Hwy 156 turns intoHwy 1 South @ Castroville.(Continue directions from Hwy 1South.)

From Del Monte Blvd:

From Hwy 1 South:Go 3 miles south past Castroville.Immediately after crossing theSalinas R. bridge take the DelMonte Blvd Exit 412 & turn leftover Hwy 1. Continue withdirections below.

From Monterey (Hwy 1 NorthOn Hwy 1 go 2 miles past MarinaTake the Del Monte Blvd Exit 412Turn right onto Del Monte Blvd.Continue with directions below.

When on Del Monte Blvd turn left after the railroad tracks at theRegional Environmental Park sign onto Charlie Benson Lane. Turnright at four way stop. Continue on road through the chain link gate.Take the second left into the parking lot. {Note: for the bus turn-around, take the third left turn and head to the flag pole.)

Call (831) 883-1118 ifurther directions ar

needed


4/18


5/18

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, August 19, 2013COUNCIL CHAMBER

580 PACIFIC STREETMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Huss, Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Burnett,

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Executive Director, Clerk

CALL TO ORDERChair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Executive Director Cullem reported on the Authority field trip to the Poseidon desalinationfacility in San Diego, CA and indicated future tours are possible if other members areinterested. Member Israel indicated he would be attending a conference in Southern Californiaand anticipates attending a presentation from Poseidon.

Chair Burnett reported on meetings with the Coastal Commission and thanked all parties

involved for their efforts during the California Public Utilities Commission settlement agreement.He then reported that commissioners from the CPUC were in Carmel and met with staff todiscuss water issues.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Tom Rowley spoke expressing concern there were no written reports to coincide with theagenda and then spoke about the topic of public outreach discussed at the Directors meeting.He requested that the Authority improve efforts at communicating a complete background ofwhy our community is in this situation, educating about the whole scope of the potential impactsif we dont have water and clarifying that there are no easy solutions.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. July 15, 2013Action: Approved

On motion, the TAC approved the Minutes of July 15, 2013 as presented. 6-0-0-1 RileyAbstained.


6/18

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, August 19, 2013

2

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Public Funding OpportunitiesAction: Received Report and Discussed

TAC Member Stoldt presented the report noting this was an informational item. He walked theTAC members through a series of handouts detailed public funding opportunities for waterprojects. Opportunities included State Revolving Loans, Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fundand Proposition13 planning grants and loans. He indicated the projects that would be mostbeneficial would be the bi-annual state water bond, as well as Propositions 50 and 84 monies,some of which is awarded based on geographic region. Member Stoldt answered questionsfrom the TAC.

The item was opened for public comment. Nelson Vega requested clarification for what projectsare eligible for specific bond monies and if there were any for desal specifically. Having nofurther requests to speak, public comment was closed. Member Stoldt spoke to Mr. Vegas

question, indicating the water is split for allocation for different types of water projects. Regionalmonies are supposed to be distributed to the region, which there will always be, and thedesignations are not known for the additional categories at this time.

The TAC discussed ways the Authority and local agencies could leverage efforts tocommunicate the community needs at the state level. The TAC agreed this item should berevisited, put on the priority list and recommended that the Authority assist with lobbying forstate funds.

3. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Regarding Progress of the Ground WaterReplenishment ProjectAction: Received Update and Discussed

TAC Member Israel reported as General Manager of the Monterey Regional Water PollutionControl Agency to provided an update on the Ground Water Replenishment project proposedby the MRWPCA. He spoke to the progress of the project in terms of technical activities, CEQAfeasibility studies, outreach activities including source water tours, policy activities and otherupcoming activities. He listed and spoke to three potential sources of water and a potentialcollaborative effort with the Marina Coast Water District. He reported that the feasibility study,is being finalized for release in the near future. The TAC discussed the proposed GWRschedule and any potential slippage. Mr. Israel noted the goal is to have an operation facilitywithin 1.5 years after proposal is accepted.

Mr. Israel outlined the following upcoming activities:

Meet with CPUC environmental consultants to coordinate CEQA Facilitate Additional source water meeting tours Consider bids for leased equipment for pilot treatment testing

Develop proposed project definition through ac opponent screening analysis.


7/18

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, August 19, 2013

3

The item was opened to public comment. Nelson Vega questioned if the peninsula had a rightto use the water in the agricultural wash ponds. Mr. Israel indicated he has a meetingscheduled to determine that question but that Salinas Valley would likely have first right of thewater and any extra water would be available for the Peninsula but in the future, it could bedifferent. Sue McCloud spoke to the need to inform the public about proper disposal andpractices for things like pharmaceuticals. She then spoke to a documentary regarding the

Potomac that has parallels to local water issues and could be useful. Having no furtherrequests to speak, public comment was closed.

The TAC then discussed the water rights and the changes in water usage demands due toproduce operating facilities operating year round. This item was for information only and noaction was taken.

4. Receive Update on Local Efforts for Storm Water Mitigation (Information Only) - CullemAction: Received Update and Discussed

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item and the significance of Areas of BiologicalSignificance (ASBS) in our area. Recent meetings have been about thinking of storm water as

feed water and determinations are underway to find out if there is enough capacity in theMPRPCA to process all storm water as waste water. Storm water is an issue all peninsula citieswill need to address. Mr. Israel spoke to the flows and the facility capacity and is advocating foran integrated plan. If successful, it could be a model for other cities in the future. The item wasopened to public comment and there were no requests to speak.

5. Approve Amendment to Meeting ScheduleAction: Approved

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the need to adjust the meeting time to facilitateadministrative changes and ensure efficient meeting schedules.

On motion by Member Narigi and Seconded by Member Riley and passed by the followingvote, the TAC approved the changes to the meeting schedule as proposed, moving themeeting time to 10:30 a.m. on the first and third Monday of each month, with the secondmeeting as an optional meeting. 7-0-0-0

ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Committee Clerk Jason Burnett, TAC Chair


8/18


9/18

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityAgenda Report

Date: November 04, 2013

Item No: 3.

06/12

FROM: TAC Chair Jason Burnett

SUBJECT: Ground Water Replenishment Project Bifurcation, Timelines, Cost Comparison

Process and Other Project Criteria

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the TAC receive an updated briefing on GWR bifurcation, timelines and

schedules, cost comparison process, and other project criteria as agreed to by the settling

parties to the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement.

DISCUSSION:

Attached is an extract from the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement which considers the

Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR).

Sections 4.1 and 4.3(a) discuss the bifurcation issue, section 4.2(a)(vi), 4.2 (b), 4.3(c)(ii) and

4.3(c)(iv) address cost issues, section 4.2(a)(ix) and 4.3(c)(v) address revenue issues, section

4.4(a)addresses debt equivalence, and section 4.2 outlines the project criteria.

ATTACHMENT:

Extract of Comprehensive Settlement Agreement


10/185

4. GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT

4.1 Separate Phasing of Groundwater Replenishment Project

(a) The Parties agree that the Commission shall decide whether to

authorize California American Water to build, as part of the MPWSP, a smaller desalination

plant to accommodate the WPA for the product water of the separate GWR Project or,

alternatively, build a larger desalination plant without a WPA for the GWR product water (theGWR Decision), based on findings related to schedule, cost, benefits, and feasibility. The

parties agree that the decision whether these findings are or will be made requires additional

information that is currently not available, including more detailed information regarding theschedules and designs of the GWR Project and MPWSP desalination plant, as well as

agreements for source and product water for the GWR Project. Accordingly, the parties agree

that the GWR Decision should be made in a separate phase of this proceeding after the partieshave developed necessary information.

(b) The Parties have developed and set forth in this section certain criteria

for consideration by the Commission to facilitate its adopting findings necessary to makingthe GWR Decision after evidentiary hearings in this separate phase.

(c) The Parties agree to file and support a Motion for Bifurcation of the

GWR Decision into a separate phase. Such motion will:

(i) Identify GWR Decision criteria to be addressed in the separate

phase as outlined in Section 4.2 below;

(ii) Seek such additional amendments in the scope of this proceedingas may be necessary; and

(iii) Present an agreed-upon procedural schedule and scope asidentified in Section 4.3 below, including the possibility that an advice letter process may be

used to demonstrate fulfillment of some criteria after the Commission decision in the bifurcated

phase.

4.2 Findings for GWR Decision

(a) After careful consideration and negotiations, the Parties agree the

Commission should make the GWR Decision based upon the findings set forth below and/orinformation supplied pursuant to the advice letter process in Section 4.3(f). If all of the

findings are made or addressed through the advice letter process, then California American

Water shall be ordered to enter into a WPA and build the smaller desalination plant. If theyare not made or addressed through the advice letter process, then California American Water

shall proceed with the larger desalination plant. On that basis, the Parties recommend that the

Commissions primary focus be on the findings set forth below in the separate phase where itmakes the GWR Decision. The findings are as follows:


11/18

(i) MRWPCA has approved the GWR Project pursuant to a certified

Final EIR; and no CEQA suit has been filed within 30 days of a Notice of Determination

("NOD"), or if a CEQA suit is filed, no stay of the GWR Project has been granted;

(ii) The status of required permits is consistent with the publishedproject schedule, and for any required permits not yet obtained, the weight of the evidence in the

record does not show that any of the required permits for the GWR Project are unlikely to be

obtained in a timeframe consistent the published project schedule;

(iii) There is sufficient legal certainty as to agreements or other

determinations in place to secure delivery of source water(s) necessary to produce between 3,000to 3,500 acre feet per year of GWR product water for the recommended project.1

(1) The parties acknowledge that MCWRA and MRWPCA are

the parties to that certain Agreement Between The Monterey County Water Resources Agency

and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency For Construction and Operation of a

Tertiary Treatment System dated June 16, 1992, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on May 30,

1995, Amendment No. 2 on February 16, 1998, and Amendment No. 3 executed by MRWPCAon May 10, 2002 and MCWRA on May 29, 2002 (all collectively hereinafter referred to as

Tertiary Treatment Agreement) and that MCWRA and MRWPCA disagree as to the amountsof tertiary treated water, as that term is defined in Section 2 of aforementioned Amendment

No. 3 to the Tertiary Treatment Agreement, to which each is entitled under the Tertiary

Treatment Agreement. With respect to the availability of such tertiary treated water from theTertiary Treatment Agreement for the GWR Project in an amount that would support a

Commission finding of sufficient legal certainty, such availability shall be determined pursuant

to the dispute resolution provisions in the Tertiary Treatment Agreement and shall not be

determined through action by this Commission. Therefore, the parties agree that with respect toany product water(s) to be conveyed by MRWPCA to implement the GWR Project that are

provided pursuant to rights to such tertiary treated water under the Tertiary TreatmentAgreement, for the purposes of this Settlement Agreement, no Party shall request either theCommission or the Governance Committee to interpret, rule on, or provide any opinion as to

contract rights under the Tertiary Treatment Agreement, and further agree that neither the

Commission nor the Governance Committee should so interpret, rule on, or provide any opinionas to any such contract rights;

(iv) The weight of the evidence in the record does not show that theCalifornia Department of Health or the Regional Water Quality Control Board will decline to

accept or approve the GWR extraction or GWR treatment and injection processes, respectively;

1The Parties recognize that based upon the expected number of trains needed for the desalination plant, the

desalination plant could be optimally sized to accommodate certain discrete capacities of 3,000 or 3,500 acre feet

per year of GWR product water in order to produce a certain combined capacity from the desalination plant and the

GWR Project. California American Water and MRWPCA recognize that cost optimization may not occur at certain

discrete capacities for the GWR Project and desalination plant based on the configuration, size and number of the

trains. Certain parties have entered into a settlement agreement regarding the sizing of the desalination facilities for

purposes of planning and engineering, which provides for the possible combined capacity of the desalination plant

and the GWR Project.


12/187

(v) The GWR Project is on schedule, as verified by a report issued by

an engineer licensed in California, to be operable,2 on or before the later of (a) the then-effective

date of the Cease and Desist Order of the SWRCB or such other date as the SWRCB states inwriting is acceptable, or (b) the date the MPWSP desalination project is scheduled to become

operable. The Parties acknowledge that the actual date of operation for the GWR Project and the

desalination project could vary from the operation date projected in the schedules, and thereforeagree to a range of up to an additional four months from the projected date of operation, before

the GWR Project schedule would no longer be considered on an acceptable schedule;

(vi) Preliminary design for the GWR Project is at least at the 10%

level, represented by a basis of design report (so that an accurate project cost estimate can be

generated) or is at a level similar to or more advanced than the level of design for thedesalination project portion of the MPWSP;

(vii) A GWR Project funding plan, sufficient in detail to be accepted as

an application for a State Revolving Fund loan, is in place;

(viii) California American Water, MPWMD, and MRWPCA haveagreed on a WPA whose terms are just and reasonable; and

(ix) The revenue requirement for the combination of the GWR Project

and the smaller desalination project, including the projected debt equivalence for the GWRProject, if any, determined pursuant to Section 4.4, is just and reasonable when compared to the

revenue requirement for a larger desalination project alone.

(b) The parties agree that a revenue requirement premium for the

combination of the GWR Project and a smaller MPWSP desalination project may be

determined just and reasonable, for some, but not necessarily all of the following reasons, if

the combined GWR/smaller desalination project affords significant net benefits in comparisonto a larger desalination project alone upon a consideration of all positive and negative

externalities associated with the GWR Project. Significant positive benefits that could supportthe Commissions approval of such a premium, include, but are not limited to, the following:

(i) a material schedule advantage in that the GWR Project is anticipated to be operable sooner

than the desalination plant; (ii) water supply resilience and reliability (benefit of the portfolio

approach); and (iii) other positive externalities of the GWR Project, including, but not limitedto reduced atmospheric carbon emissions, reduced brine discharge, and the implementation

and encouragement of State policies regarding water recycling through early adoption of a

water reuse project. The Parties anticipate that the evidentiary hearings in the separate phasewill support findings by the Commission of an upper range of reasonableness for the price of

GWR Project water for inclusion in the WPA based upon consideration of all positive andnegative externalities associated with the GWR Project.

2The operable date of the GWR Project is the date when extractions may first be made by California American

Water from the Seaside Groundwater Basin as the result of the injection and storage of GWR Project recycled water.


13/18

4.3 Procedural Schedule and Scope

(a) The Parties agree to file a Motion to Bifurcate or Otherwise Resolve

GWR Decision consistent with this Settlement Agreement promptly after the filing of this

Settlement Agreement. The bifurcated schedule is intended to allow determination of theGWR Decision by the Commission prior to the time when California American Water is at the

necessary decision point relative to the sizing of the desalination facilities.

(b) The Parties agree to request, as part of the aforementioned motion, that

the Commission establish the following procedural schedule, designed to achieve a timely

determination of the GWR Decision:

(i) Testimony of Interested Parties December 2014

(ii) Settlement commencing in January 2015

(iii) Concurrent Rebuttal Testimony January 2015

(iv) Evidentiary Hearings February 2015

(v) Briefing March 2015

(vi) Proposed Decision June 2015

(vii) Final Decision July 2015

(c) The Parties acknowledge that this schedule is intended to provide timefor the following:

(i) finalization of source water agreements and determinations;

(ii) refinement of the design of the GWR and MPWSP desalinationprojects to support accurate cost comparisons;

(iii) agreement on the form and terms of a WPA, as evidenced by an

executed agreement between the parties to the WPA;

(iv) assessment of the benefits of the GWR Project that may reflect a

revenue requirement premium that is just and reasonable;

(v) estimation of the revenue requirement adjustment, if any, the

Commission determines necessary for the WPA pursuant to Section 4.4; and

(vi) completion of other GWR Project milestones prior to testimony

and hearings.

(d) The Parties agree that: (i) the Governance Committee, as described inAppendix 1 to this Agreement, is comprised of representatives of local public agencies that

are directly accountable to the public that will be served with water from the MPWSP; (ii) that


14/18

the Governance Committee provides an appropriate means for expression of community

preferences concerning the MPWSP; (iii) the GWR Decision will impact the size of the

MPWSP desalination plant; and (iv) for this reason, the Governance Committees opinion onany one or more of the findings for the GWR Decision set forth above should be provided to

the Commission for the Commissions consideration. Therefore, should the Governance

Committee issue a written statement concerning any one or more of the findings set forthabove on or before the date set forth above in Paragraph 4.3(b) for submission of testimony or

evidentiary hearings, California American Water shall file said written statement with the

Commission within ten days of receipt for the Commissions consideration.

(e) The Parties agree that the Commission should be able to adopt findings

supporting its GWR Decision at the end of the GWR Decision Phase outlined above, butacknowledge that certain necessary actions may not have occurred by that time. With respect

to those actions, the Parties agree that the Commission may direct California American Water

to file an advice letter with the Commission demonstrating that the remaining actions haveoccurred. Issues which may be resolved by advice letter could include, but are not limited to,

MRWPCAs approval of the GWR Project.

4.4 Debt Equivalence for the GWR Project

(a) The Parties acknowledge that a WPA is a contractual obligation of a

significant amount of California American Waters future cash flows. If the obligation must

be capitalized by, and is an obligation of, California American Water under GenerallyAccepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) standards then in effect, it would have a significant

impact on the amount of debt and capital assets California American Water records on its

financials and could potentially adversely impact California American Water's debt ratios. If it

is not required to be capitalized, the rating agencies could nonetheless impute debt for theWPA, which could have a negative impact on the credit rating of California American Water

as a stand-alone entity. The Parties therefore agree that the Commission shall determinewhether adjustments to the California American Water revenue requirement for the MontereyCounty District are required to address the debt equivalence impact resulting from the WPA

for the GWR Project or for the capitalized obligation of the WPA in a separate phase of this

proceeding before the Commission (as described in Section 4.3). California American Watershall consider in good faith any reasonable terms and conditions of a WPA advanced by the

public agencies intended to address the debt equivalence issue for the GWR Project.

5. HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY

5.1 California American Waters hydrologist and technical team will work with

SVWCs hydrologist and technical team, and other technical experts designated by CaliforniaAmerican Water and the SVWC (collectively, the Technical Group), to develop a written workplan for the proposed source water intake sites consistent with the study recommendations

presented in SWRCBs May 22, 2013 Draft Review of the MPWSP. The primary purpose of the

work plan is to reach agreement among the Technical Group about the studies, well tests, field

work, modeling, monitoring, and other data analyses most appropriate to assess and characterizewhether and to what extent the proposed operation of the MPWSP may adversely affect the

SRGB and the water supply available to legal water users thereof (Hydrogeologic Study). The


15/18



Item No: 4.

06/12

FROM: Authority Clerk

SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Ground Water

Replenishment Project Schedule and Areas where the Water Authority Can

Assist in Evaluating and Moving the Project Forward (Israel)

DISCUSSION:

An oral discussion will take place at the meeting about the attached schedule.

ATTACHMENT:

Adopted Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement - GWR Project


16/18

Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement

GWR

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes

File Motion for

Bifurcation of theGWR Decision

August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted

Board Actions toApprove Revised

Governance CommitteeAgreement

October 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA,County, & Cal-Am

To be Completed inOctober

Executed Agreementsfor GWR Source Water

and/or DeclaratoryRelief

June 2014MRWPCA Meet & Confer in

Progress

Draft WPAMar 2014

MPWMD & MRWPCA

Obtain Representationsfrom DPH re Use ofExtracted GWR Water

Oct 2014 MRWPCA

Obtain Representationsfrom RWQCB re Use ofExtracted GWR Water

Oct 2014MRWPCA

Storage Agreementwith Seaside Basin

WatermasterJul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

GWR Basis of DesignComplete with At Least

10% DesignJul 2014

MRWPCA

GWR Financing PlanSufficient for SRF

FundingAug 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Agreement on Terms ofWPA May 2014

Cal-Am, MRWPCA,&MPWMD

Perform RevenueRequirement Analysis

Including Any DebtEquivalency Effect

Jul 2014MRWPCA & MPWMD

Perform Assessment ofGWR Positive and

Negative Externalitiesfor Any Premium

Showing

June 2014 MRWPCA & MPWMD

DEIR Circulated July 2014 MRWPCADilution WaterRequirements

July-October 2014 MRWPCA

Project Approved andFEIR

October 2014 MRWPCA

All Permits for GWRConstruction Obtained ???

MRWPCA


17/18



Item No: 5.

06/12

FROM: Authority Clerk

SUBJECT: Discuss, Provide Staff Direction in Identifying Information Necessary to

Evaluate the Ground Water Replenishment Project (Cullem)

DISCUSSION:

There is no report for this item. An oral report and discussion will take place at the meeting.


18/18

TAC MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 11-04-13.pdf

Documents