MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING - Municipal Water ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Minutes August 4, 2004the issues before proceeding with a JPA. He also pointed out that if the Tri-Tunnelconcept adds cost to the CPAP, he would not recommend moving forward (with Tri-Tunnel concept). Mr. Hunt commented that he would confer with MET staff regardingthe technical issues and subsequently provide a briefing to the MWDOC Board on theissues. Discussion ensued regarding the tunnel, it’s location, and the delivery point forwater.Mr. Gastelum also reported on Pipeline 6, advising that he issued a staffrecommendation to move forward with Pipeline 6, at least to the county-line. Headvised that San Diego County <strong>Water</strong> Authority (SDCWA) issued a study whichindicated that Pipeline 6 would be needed eventually (possibly as far out at 2025); andthat additional studies are underway (or expected within the next couple of years) as aresult of recent seawater desalination development in the Carlsbad area, (to reevaluatewhen Pipeline 6 will likely be needed. He stated that in accordance with METphilosophy (water reliability planning to avoid emergency planning) MET staff believesthat Pipeline 6 will be needed and is, therefore, necessary. He stated that there is acurrent dispute on whether MET is obligated to construct Pipeline 6 beyond the countyline;he advised that the MET Board has not yet determined its position on this issue.Dispute resolution discussions are underway between MET and SDCWA regarding thisissue.President Barbre commented on the vulnerability of South Orange County reliability andthe need for alternative supplies to South Orange County. He suggested a multi-usepipeline “looping” between South Orange County and North San Diego County (throughCamp Pendleton) would be beneficial to both areas.Director Bakall expressed concern with proceeding with Pipeline 6 at this point, notingthat such construction would rule-out discussions for a coastal connection betweenSouth Orange County and North San Diego County. He further commented thatpursuant to the SDCWA study which states that SDCWA will pursue desalination, andforecasts Pipeline 6 may not be needed until 2025, he believed there were morepressing projects which will be required before 2025 such as the Central PoolAugmentation Project (which studies indicate will be needed by 2016) and a possiblecoastal connection. He also encouraged MET to purchase the balance of capacity inthe South County Pipeline.Mr. Gastelum indicated that MET would be holding a Board workshop to address thisissue sometime in the fall.Director Finnegan commented that it was MWDOC’s highest priority for adequate watersupplies to South Orange County.The Board thanked Mr. Gastelum for his presentation and received and filed theinformation as presented.DISCUSSION REGARDING MET LOCAL RESOURCES PROGRAM (LRP)SECTION 7 LANGUAGE4
Minutes August 4, 2004General Manager Hunt updated the Board on the current negotiations regarding MET’sLRP Section 7 language, noting discussions were proceeding positively. It was notedthat the Board previously authorized the General Manager to execute the LocalResources Program Agreement between Metropolitan, OCWD, and MWDOC, for theGroundwater Replenishment System Seawater Barrier Project, contingent upon thedevelopment of acceptable wording for Section 7.RECESS/RECONVENEAt 10:10 a.m. President Barbre announced that the Board would adjourn for a fiveminuterecess. The Board reconvened at 10:20 a.m.METROPOLITAN BOARD AND COMMITTEE AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMSSummary Regarding July Met Board MeetingAssociate General Manager Stone stated the summary of actions taken at the July METBoard meeting was included in the packet for the Board's information.The Board received and filed the information.Review items of significance for the August Met Board and CommitteeAgendasMr. Stone stated the August MET Board agenda was not yet available for review (due tothe date change of the MET Board meeting). He advised that an Assessed ValuationReport would be issued in late August.The Board received and filed the information as discussed.MET Director Key ObjectivesMr. Stone advised that the MET Director Key Objectives matrix was included in theBoard packet for the Board’s information.Responding to an inquiry by Director Hinman, Mr. Stone advised that MET formed aPerchlorate Task Force to coordinate and share information on the clean-up ofperchlorate, and monitor and develop regulatory requirements. The Board requestedreports of the Task Force activities.The Board received and filed the information.DesalinationGeneral Manager Hunt reported on the recent discussions on desalination activities,noting that he and staff participated in several meetings reviewing the possibilities forsecuring the three desalination locations (San Onofre, Dana Point, and Huntington5
Page 1 and 2: MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETI
Page 6: Minutes August 4, 2004Beach). It wa

MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING - Municipal Water ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?