Necy Sumait
Arkenol, Inc.
27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Re: Conditional Will Serve Letter
Dear Ms. Sumait:
You have inquired if the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District (District) is willing to serve water to a proposed Arkenol Ethanol Plant (Plant) located within the boundaries of the District. Since the Plant would be within the District service area, the District has the responsibility and the authority to serve the Plant. Further, the possible construction of the Plant was reviewed by the District Board of Directors with regard to possible water service at its noticed special meeting of June 4, 1999.
This is a conditional will serve letter. An actual will serve letter
will not be issued until the following preconditions have been accomplished:
1. Regulatory approval by the California Energy Commission, if necessary;The details of service requirements would be determined at an appropriate time during the regulatory approval process. However, the District has the following preliminary understanding:2. Regulatory approval by the County Board of Supervisors, if necessary;
3. An executed Developer Contract entered into by the District and Arkenol for the capital projects necessary to serve water to the plant, including: (a)the deposit of money required under the Developer Contract; and ( b)the completion of any preconditions prior to construction of the capital projects necessary to serve the plant with water such as bonding and surety.
4. The payment for and. the completion of the appropriate CEQA documentation; and
5. Other conditions that have not been identified which may arise due to various regulatory approval or CEQA processes.
1. The Plant would require 1,000 gallons of water per minute 24 hours per day;The District looks forward to working with you on this project.2. The Plant would have water quality requirement of a maximum of 250 parts per million of total dissolved solids;
3. Process wastewater from the Plant will be discharged to the East Main Drain or percolation ponds pursuant to appropriate regulatory permits and domestic sewage will be discharged either to a public sewer or an onsite treatment system pursuant to appropriate regulatory permits; and
4. The California Energy Commission will certify an appropriate CEQA document from which the District will tier its CEQA documentation for specific facilities.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Phelan
General Manager
cc: Board of Directors
Virginia Cahill, General Counsel
Lance Shaw, Siting Project Manager
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street MS 15
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
RE: Identification of Major Issues of Concern on Rio Linda/Elverta
Power Project Application for Certification
Dear Mr. Shaw:
The Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District has identified the following
major issues of concern regarding the Rio Linda/Elverta Power Project Application
for Certification:
1. Water Supply and Quality. The water supply and quality issues are addressed in Section 5.4 and the environmental effects of providing groundwater to the site in quantities sufficient for this Project were addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Plan (State Clearinghouse No: 96012016) and subsequent Negative Declaration on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Master Plan (which tiered off the FEIR). However, the District recognizes that certain localized effects on groundwater depth may affect adjacent private wells. Further, ongoing investigations into toxic groundwater pollution under McClellan AFB may result in future discovery that impacts from additional pumping currently identified as less-than-significant were not properly categorized. Therefore, the District does intend to assure the availability of funding from the Project (and other new development activities within its boundaries) for necessary monitoring and conjunctive use activities to protect the groundwater supply. Finally, a zero-discharge of process wastewater is assumed in this Project and should be a condition any approval.The District will continue to be an active Agency participant in the review process and appreciates the opportunity for early input.2. Air Quality. The District has concerns about local effects on air quality from the Project. While the District recognizes that the Project must conform to air quality regulations, the local area is subject frequent temperature inversions and dense fog conditions which may be exacerbated by the volumes of steam generated by the Project contributing to serious localized health and safety problems.
3. Noise. The District is concerned about noise impacts because the Project will result in continuous noise generation.
4. Traffic. The District is concerned about traffic impacts to the extent that access from Elverta Road and from Elkhorn Boulevard should be facilitated with road widening, turn movement lanes, and traffic signals funded by the Project. Further, the District believes that local access for employees in the Operation Phase should be assured at or near the U Street/West 6th Street intersection in order to encourage employees to reside within the community which would reduce the length of trips.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Phelan
General Manager
Cc: Board of Directors
Tim O’Laughlin on behalf of Project applicant
Lance Shaw, Siting Project Manager
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street MS 15
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
RE: Rio Linda/Elverta Power Project Application for Certification
Will Serve Letter
Dear Mr. Shaw:
It has been brought to my attention that the March 13, 2000 “will serve” letter issued by me on behalf of the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District as contained in Appendix M of the above referenced Application for Certification (AFC) was addressed to someone other than the current applicant.
Please be advised that the letter was intended to offer service to whomever the developer will be at the site described in Section 3 of the AFC based upon the terms contained in the letter. Should there be any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Phelan
General Manager
Cc: Tim O’Laughlin
BY HAND DELIVERY
Robert L. Therkelsen, Deputy Director
Energy Facilities Siting & Environmental Protection Division
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street, MS-15
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Rio Linda Elverta Power Plant Project
Docket No. 01-AFC-01
Dear Mr. Therkelsen:
By letter dated February 13, 2001, the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) requested the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District (the “District”) to participate in the review and analysis of the Rio Linda/Elverta Power Project (“RLEPP”) Application for Certification (“AFC”) pursuant to Public Resources Code §25519. According to the letter, the District’s participation in the proceeding is “encouraged and will consist of identifying and …resolv[ing] issues of concern to [the District].” The letter further indicated that there might be “specific requests for agency review and comment during the proceeding.”
The District submitted minimal comments by letter dated February 28, 2001 indicating that it had identified major issues of concern regarding the RLEPP. The major issues of concern included water supply and quality issues addressed in the Applicant’s AFC, the environmental effects of providing a sufficient supply of groundwater to the proposed site, localized affects on groundwater depth that may affect adjacent private wells, and investigations into toxic groundwater pollution [McClellan Plume] under the McClellan Business Park, formerly known as McClellan Air Force Base.
Pursuant to 20 CCR § 1715, the District submits the following scope of work and budget to analyze and investigate the issues previously identified by the District.
SCOPE OF WORK
I. CONDUCT REGIONAL GROUNDWATER MODELING
A regional water resources planning and management model for Sacramento County and Placer County – the Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (IGSM) – was developed through the American River Water Resources Investigation (ARWRI), the Sacramento Area Water Forum, and the American River Basin Cooperating Agencies Regional Water Master Plan (RWMP) efforts. The IGSM is the only existing water resources planning and management tool for evaluating conjunctive use programs in the Sacramento area such as those described above that is accepted by the essential stakeholder groups in the region.
Establish “Baseline Condition” - A “Static Run/Incremental Impact” approach will be utilized for this work. With the static run approach, model parameters related to land use and water demand are set to certain values anticipated to prevail at some point in time. For modeling purposes, these anticipated levels of land use and water demand are assumed to occur in the first year of the groundwater simulation and in every subsequent year (that is, land use and water demand are held “static”). There is no “phasing” of water demand or changes in land use.
After water demand and land use parameters have been set, the simulation model is executed through the historical 70-year hydrologic record for the region. Approximately the first 10 to 20 years of the simulation are characterized by declining groundwater levels as the model of the groundwater system achieves a quasi-equilibrium state in which the groundwater system is no longer affected by the initial conditions. Subsequent to the equilibration period, groundwater levels in the model continue to fluctuate, but do so primarily in response to changing hydrologic conditions and associated conjunctive use operations. The range of groundwater elevations within which the groundwater basin fluctuates prescribes the estimated long-term response of the groundwater system to the assumed land use, water demand, and conjunctive use operations through the historical 70-year hydrologic sequence.
For purposes of this work, groundwater impacts will be defined as the incremental changes between groundwater conditions corresponding to a “baseline” that does not include a proposed project alternative and groundwater conditions resulting after the proposed project alternative has been implemented. As is discussed below, there are two separate but complementary approaches to defining a “baseline.”
As the term is typically used for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), “baseline” is generally equated with the existing conditions in an area in which a project is proposed. For other planning purposes, a baseline can be defined as conditions that can reasonably be expected to occur in the future absent implementation of the proposed project. In CEQA parlance, this second approach to defining a baseline is commonly referred to as “cumulative without project” analysis, in that it predicts what the future would look like without the project. The first, more conventional CEQA baseline, in contrast, predicts what the future would look like if the project were implemented immediately. Both types of baseline analyses provide useful information to the public and decision-makers, though the first baseline is normally used to assess the significance of project impacts.
Consistent with the general discussion above, two baselines are of interest in this work: 1) existing groundwater conditions (i.e., the CEQA baseline), and 2) projected year 2030 groundwater conditions without the proposed project (i.e., a “cumulative without project” analysis). Notably, as is discussed in more detail below, the year 2030 baseline builds upon the extensive environmental and technical analyses prepared as part of the environmental review for the Water Forum Plan. For that reason, this future baseline information provides very valuable planning information.
The existing groundwater conditions baseline, although somewhat self-explanatory, requires definition. It is, of course, representative of current groundwater conditions throughout northern Sacramento County. However, it also is representative of how the groundwater basin is projected to respond under current land use and levels of water demand under the historical 70-year hydrologic record. It is important to note the groundwater basin will fluctuate in response to changing hydrologic conditions even if current land use and levels of water demand remain unchanged. Although for conventional land use projects, an inflexible “snapshot in time” approach to baseline conditions is typical, projects involving water supply typically take a different approach in order to account for the variability of hydrological conditions in California, in which periods of limited precipitation are often followed by periods of greater than normal precipitation. The 1990 IGSM will be used to evaluate impacts on current conditions.
The year 2030 baseline condition will also be evaluated. Specifically,
this baseline condition corresponds to the groundwater elevation variations
expected to result from implementation of the Water Forum Plan in all areas
of Sacramento County other than within the RL/ECWD service area.
This baseline condition was selected for two principle reasons:
In the year 2030 baseline condition, all planned development in
the Sacramento County General Plan to the year 2030 is assumed to occur
with the exception of the RL/ECWD service area. Development in this
area is held at existing conditions in the baseline condition. The
year 2030 baseline condition also assumes that water demand in all areas
other than the RL/ECWD service area are met in a manner consistent with
the Water Forum Plan (that is, with a combination of groundwater and surface
water). Existing water demand in the RL/ECWD is met exclusively by
groundwater. The 2030 IGSM will be used to evaluate the “cumulative without
project” condition.
II. ESTIMATE LOCAL GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
The IGSM modeling discussed above will provide an estimate of the regional groundwater impacts of the proposed project under the “static run” approach. CEC Staff has requested additional analyses be conducted to evaluate local impacts of the proposed alternatives on private wells and to evaluate the potential for migration of contaminants at McClellan AFB both under current conditions and throughout the period between 2002 and 2030 using probable scenarios for growth within the RL/ECWD service area. Such growth is anticipated to result in increased groundwater extraction, possible use of direct groundwater recharge facilities, in-lieu groundwater recharge, and other possible changes that could impact groundwater conditions. Evaluation of local impacts of the proposed project under current conditions on existing wells and known contaminant plumes requires a different approach.
Analytical methods will be applied to provide an estimate of local impacts resulting from draw down at specific well sites under current conditions. Additionally, if necessary, the model grid will be refined in areas of interest to provide a more detailed look at groundwater impacts in and around the RL/ECWD service area and the McClellan AFB [Note: Either the IGSM model grid will be refined or another model application developed.]
A “dynamic model” approach is needed to evaluate the impact of proposed project as conditions change on a real-time basis. Dynamic modeling is complicated by not knowing the timing of land use changes or variations in hydrologic conditions. To overcome the land use and hydrologic uncertainties, an approach similar to that taken in the Water Forum Plan is proposed. Changes in land use will be made based on 5-year increments from today to 2030. The various project alternative extraction and recharge amounts will be applied the first year and held constant while extractions from expected development will increase gradually over the modeling period. Variations in hydrologic conditions will be accounted for by using three, 30-year sequences from the total 70 years of historical hydrology to represent dry, wet, and average conditions. The first year of each 30-year sequence represents 2002, the second year 2003, and so on. The result of running all three sequences will be a range of possible groundwater conditions likely to occur over the 30-year period.
III. EVALUATE PROJECT’S PROPOSED FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS
The surface water and groundwater facilities required to support the RLEPP are not in place. Conceptual facilities and operations plans will be developed and refined as necessary to support the IGSM modeling. Estimates of probable facilities and operations costs will be provided for capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, treatment costs, and energy costs.
IV. PREPARE SUMMARY REPORT
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the technical work described above will be summarized in a report.
V. ATTEND BRIEFINGS AND MEETING AS NEEDED
Subsequent to the completion of the technical work, a series of briefings/meetings may be necessary to discuss the results of the work.
VI. HEARING AND DECISION PHASES
The scope of work for this section will be dependent on the issues that remain at the conclusion of the discovery phase of the proceeding. A revised scope of work and budget will be prepared and forwarded when the issues are properly framed.
VII. ALTERNATIVES
At this time, CEC has not requested the District to review and/or analyze any specific alternatives except the possibility of using water from McClellan Air Force Base. However, many alternatives exist including the following:
Alternative A: Extract groundwater at or near the RLEPP site without
mitigation – Under this alternative, groundwater in sufficient quantities
to meet the demands of the RLEPP plant would be extracted with no effort
made to mitigate the resulting impact on the groundwater basin. Two
“sub-alternatives” exist for this alternative: A.1 - extraction of groundwater
at wells onsite (i.e., at the RLEPP plant) or on adjacent sites, or A.2
– extraction of groundwater at wells distributed throughout the RL/ECWD
service area. These alternatives would likely define the maximum
impact to the groundwater basin.
Alternative B: Deliver surface water directly to the RLEPP site
– Under this alternative, surface water would be delivered to the RLEPP
site through an extension of the Northridge Transmission Pipeline (NTP).
The source of supply would likely be a portion of the Placer County Water
Agency (PCWA) water transfer to the Northridge Water District (Northridge).
Central Valley Project (CVP) supplies could also potentially be made available
through a CVP contract entitlement or through a purchase of Section 215
water. The RL/ECWD would purchase treated surface water on a wholesale
basis from Northridge. A complexity of this alternative is that PCWA/Northridge
transfer supplies are estimated to be available in about 65% of the years
due to constraints placed upon the transfer by the Water Forum Plan.
Consequently, the surface water supply would have to be augmented with
groundwater in certain years (perhaps through a surface water banking and
groundwater recovery program operated by RL/ECWD).
Alternative C: Northridge (and/or others) bank surface water through
in-lieu operations and the RLEPP extracts groundwater at or near its plant
site - Under this alternative, groundwater in sufficient quantities
to meet the demands of the RLEPP plant would be extracted for use at the
plant. In contrast to Alternative A, impacts to the groundwater basin
would be mitigated by in-lieu deliveries of surface water to Northridge.
Two “sub-alternatives” exist for this alternative: C.1 - extraction of
groundwater at wells onsite (i.e., at the RLEPP plant) or on adjacent sites,
or C.2 – extraction of groundwater by the RL/ECWD at wells distributed
throughout its service area.
Alternative D: Natomas Mutual Water Company (Natomas) banks surface
water through in-lieu operations and groundwater is extracted within Natomas
for delivery to the plant – Under this alternative, Natomas would extend
its surface water delivery system to serve lands in the eastern portion
of its service area that have historically extracted groundwater for irrigation
purposes. Once surface water deliveries have begun, a like amount
of groundwater would be extracted by wells within Natomas no longer needed
to provide irrigation supplies for delivery to the RLEPP plant site.
The RL/ECWD would purchase groundwater on a wholesale basis from Natomas.
An advantage of this alternative (relative to Alternative C) is the proximity
of the surface water deliveries required to mitigate impacts to the groundwater
basin to the area of groundwater extraction.
Alternative E: Natomas Mutual Water Company banks surface water
through in-lieu operations and groundwater is extracted in RL/ECWD -
Under this alternative, Natomas would extend its surface water delivery
system to serve lands in the eastern portion of its service area that have
historically extracted groundwater for irrigation purposes. In contrast
to Alternative D, groundwater would be extracted within the RL/ECWD service
area (rather than within Natomas). Two “sub-alternatives” exist for
this alternative: E.1 - extraction of groundwater at wells onsite (i.e.,
at the RLEPP plant) or on adjacent sites, or E.2 – extraction of groundwater
by the RL/ECWD at wells distributed throughout its service area.
Alternative F (Identified by CEC Staff): Contaminated water
from under McClellan Air Force Base (AFB) is extracted from new or existing
wells, appropriately treated, and delivered to RLEPP in a dedicated pipeline,
all pursuant to contractual arrangements between SNAGMA, RL/ECWD, and the
McClellan remediation program - Under this alternative, using either new
or existing wells, contaminated water under McClellan AFB would be delivered
to the RLEPP in a dedicated pipeline, appropriately treated in conformance
to all regulatory guidelines, and utilized by RLEPP. This would require
complex contractual arrangements between the parties that would establish
legal responsibilities and financial liability for any failures in the
system.
VIII. PROPOSED BUDGET
| Task Total Cost | |
| 1 Conduct Regional Groundwater Modeling· Establish “Baseline Condition” | $10,040.00 |
| 2 Estimate Local Groundwater Impacts· Estimate Impacts with analytical methods· Conduct “dynamic” modeling analysis | $52,880.00 |
| 3 Evaluate Projects Proposed Facilities & Operations· Evaluate required facilities and operations· Prepare “Opinions of Probable Costs” | $15,890.00 |
| 4 Prepare Reports· Prepare draft and final reports | $57,292.00 |
| 5 Attend Briefings & Meetings· Prepare materials for meetings and briefings· Attend meetings and briefings· Prepare summary minutes of briefings | $30,352.00 |
| 6 Prepare testimony for CEC· Prepare testimony· Attend hearings | To be provided at a later date |
| 7 Water Supply Alternatives· Prepare detailed descriptions of alternatives· Refine alternatives as necessary· Evaluate estimated regional impacts of alternatives· Model alternatives· Evaluate local impacts of alternatives | $96,561.00 |
| Total | $263,015.00 |
IX. ANTICIPATED LEGAL FEES
Phase I: Discovery and Staff Assessment
During Phase I, legal representatives from Livingston & Mattesich will assist the District with conducting an analysis of the Applicant’s AFC, determining inadequate impact analysis and potential noncompliance with Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS), propounding data requests; work with environmental and other professional consultants hired by the District to conduct necessary modeling and analysis, attending all CEC hearings, workshops and meetings, and consulting and coordinating with other agencies, interested parties and representatives of Florida Power & Light. Such services are estimated based on time spent on each issue. Costs associated with these serves are not included in this budget. Legal services for this phase is estimated at $61,000.00.
Phase II: Hearing Phase
Legal services and costs associated with Phase II will depend upon the issues present at close of Phase I. An analysis and budget will be based on various options and will be submitted at close of Phase I. The total costs could vary significantly based upon the level of the District’s participation. An estimate of total fees ranges from $20,000.00 to $100,000.00, depending on the complexity of the remaining issues.
Phase III: Decision Phase
Legal services will consists of the analysis of the proposed decision, submittal of written and oral testimony based on direct impacts to the District and its jurisdictional territory. An estimate of fees varies with the degree to which issues still remain and the complexity of such issues. The estimate of total fees for this phase ranges from $5,000.00 to $30,000.00.
Pursuant to 20 CCR §1715(c)(5)(3), the District will take not commence any work until the budget is approved and the District is informed by the CEC on the scope of work to be performed.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
//s\\
EMILIO E. VARANINI
EEV/hn
cc: Lance Shaw, Project Manager, California Energy Commission
Lorraine White, Staff, California Energy Commission
Caryn Holmes, Counsel, California Energy Commission
Tim O’Laughlin, Counsel, Florida Power & Light
Jocelyn Thompson, Counsel, Florida Power & Light
VIA US MAIL & E-MAIL
Mr. Tim O’Laughlin
Mr. Bill Paris
O’Laughlin & Paris
870 Manzanita Court, Suite B
Chico, California 95926
Re: Rio Linda Elverta Power Plant
01-AFC-01
Dear Messers. O’Laughlin and Paris:
Pursuant to our June 28, 2001 meeting and as memorialized in your letter of July 16, 2001, the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District [District] has had its engineers perform hydraulic modeling to determine what facilities improvements would be required to meet your service needs as indicated; more specifically, 1,500 gallons per minute to the FPL facility from the District system. As discussed, the District would have to construct one of the wells planned in the Master Plan to improve its system capacity. The attached schematic drawing indicates the well site (as shown on the District Master Plan) with the required distribution system improvements.
The estimated costs would be as follows:
One well constructed to District standards:
$1,000.000.00
12-inch pipeline (9,600 lf @ $110/ft):
$1,056,000.00
8-inch pipeline (2,500 lf @ $70/ft):
$ 175,000.00
It would be beneficial if you could meet with Mr. Phelan and me to discuss these terms as well as the recently submitted Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Groundwater Investigation report. Please call me at your convenience to schedule a time that is suitable for you.
Very truly yours,
EMILIO E. VARANINI
cc: Stacey Sheston, General
Counsel, RL/ECWD
Jocelyn Thompson, Counsel, Florida Power & Light
Lance Shaw, Project Manager, California Energy Commission
i:\76543-001\olaughlin081601l.doc
BY HAND DELIVERY
Lance Shaw, Project Manager
Energy Facilities Siting & Environmental Protection Division
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street, MS-15
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Rio Linda Elverta Power Plant
Project
Docket No. 01-AFC-01
Dear Mr. Shaw:
Enclosed for filing are five (5) copies of the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District [District] Groundwater Investigation report . The District submits this report as an interested agency in the above referenced matter.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
EMILIO E. VARANINI
Enclosures
cc: Service List (w/o enclosure)
O’Laughlin & Paris, Counsel for Florida Power & Light (w/enclosure)
Jocelyn Thompson, Counsel for Florida Power & Light (w/enclosure)
i:\76543-001\shaw081701l.doc
VIA E-Mail & First Class Mail
Tim O’Laughlin
O’Laughlin & Paris
870 Manzanita Court, Suite B
Chico, CA 95926
Re: Rio Linda Elverta Power Plant – Docket No. 01-AFC-1
FPL’s Proposed Water Supply
Dear Mr. O’Laughlin:
At the Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District board meeting of September 10, 2001, FPL presented to the board a new proposal for supplying water to FPL’s proposed power plant. The proposal is to use existing wells on property owned by Mr. Jack Dewitt and pipe water to the power plant. A backup well is proposed to be placed on FPL’s property for use in emergencies. The stated goal of this proposal is no net increase in groundwater pumping.
After reviewing FPL’s proposal the board indicated that the concept merits consideration but indicated that there was insufficient information to make any type of decision with respect to the proposal. The board indicated that questions would be forwarded to FPL requesting information to assist the board in reviewing this proposal.
In order to assist the board in its review, please provide the following information:
1. Information relating to the wells to be used to provide water to the proposed plant. This information includes the location, size, and depth of each of the wells.
2. Operational profiles for each well; including seasonal and annual
usage.
3. All information, data and calculations used to determine that there
would be no net increase in groundwater pumping as a result of this proposal.
4. A description of all analytical modeling conducted and to be conducted to determine any regional and localized impacts of the groundwater usage. This would include an analysis of the change from using the water on the Dewitt property to a 100% consumptive use offsite.
5. Specific details of the back up pump to be located on FPL’s parcel including, well location, size, anticipated operational profile, and proposed construction details.
6. Details on proposed operations and monitoring that would assure pumping would not exceed historical usage.
7. All agreements relating to use of the Dewitt property and specifically all restrictions on the use of the groundwater, requirements for fallowing the property, and conditions relating to further agricultural uses of the property.
8. Information relating to impacts associated with the discontinuation of the Dewitt property for farming and in particular the effects of discontinued flooding and associated run off.
9. The district has several concerns regarding the legal implications of the proposal. In particular, the effect of severing the overlying rights to groundwater from the property for use in another water district must be addressed. Also, Mr. DeWitt’s ability under the Public Utilities Code and/or Water Code to be a purveyor of water must be addressed. Please provide any information regarding the legality of the proposal.
10. Any other information that will assist the board in reviewing
this proposal.
As indicated during the board meeting, this additional information is deemed necessary in order for the district to comply with its obligations under CEQA. Even though the California Energy Commission is the lead agency, the district is a responsible agency under the Warren Alquist Act and is required to submit comments to the CEC as part of the certification process. Thus, the sooner the information is provided, the sooner the district will be able to provide comments to the CEC.
Upon receipt of the requested information, the information will be submitted to the board, which at that time will determine how to proceed with respect to this proposal.
Should you have any questions or comments please free to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
/original signed/
TERRY A. GERMAN
TAG: hdm
cc: Jocelyn Thompson
John Cross
i:\76543-001\olaughlin091701l.doc