A CONSULTANT tasked with analyzing the three water project proposals for the Monterey Peninsula found that none of them would be able to meet a crucial 2016 deadline, although California American Water’s plan could be up and running the quickest.

A 60-page report by consultant Separation Processes Inc. released Tuesday indicates Cal Am’s proposed water project could be operating by the fourth quarter of 2017.

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, a group composed of the six Peninsula mayors to find the most feasible water project for the Peninsula, commissioned the detailed analysis.

A deepwater desal operation north of Elkhorn Slough in Moss Landing couldn’t be operational until the third quarter of 2018, while another desal plant in Moss Landing proposed by developer Nader Agha, called the People’s Moss Landing Water Desal Project, couldn’t be operational until the third quarter of 2019, according to SPI.

The consultant evaluated each proposal in terms of “project purpose, customers identified, adequacy of treatment approach, residuals handling, feed water characterization, quality of project information and any omissions or fatal flaws.” None of the projects was fatally flawed, according to SPI.

Cal Am spokeswoman Catherine Bowie said the company is still reviewing the lengthy document, but said it appeared to be “very fair and thorough.”

“There was a lot of effort to do an apples-to-apples comparison, and we appreciate that,” Bowie said.

In October 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board imposed a deadline of Dec. 31, 2016, to secure an alternative water supply source to the Carmel River, the Peninsula’s primary water source. After that, water supplies could be sharply curtailed, or fines imposed.

Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett, who sits on the mayors’ water group, said the group’s technical advisory committee will discuss the SPI report next week, including the ramifications of missing the state’s deadline.

“How much of a premium should we put on the project that is more likely to get built sooner?” Burnett asked.

Cost of projects

In terms of cost, SPI found that Cal Am’s capital cost would be around $207 million for a 9 million-gallon-per-day plant or $175 million for a smaller 5.5 million-gallon-per-day operation.

Agha’s project would be the second highest at $190 million for the larger plant or $161 million for the smaller one. Agha has boasted the project would cost $129 million.

George Schroeder, a partner in Agha’s project, said he took a quick look at the report but hasn’t yet read it thoroughly. “Probably in a couple of days we will have digested it and figured how they came to their conclusions,” Schroeder said.

DeepWater Desal came in at the lowest estimated capital costs at $160 million for the larger plant or $134 million for a smaller one.

Bowie said Cal Am estimated higher PG&E electricity costs for its project. The company is looking at options to reduce those costs, she said.

“It does show ours is the highest,” Bowie said. “But if you make that substitution of electricity cost, we will be the lowest. We are taking very conservative estimates on power costs, and the other two [projects] are using the best case scenario.”

Overall, SPI found that the final production costs of water for the three projects “are fairly equivalent.” The cost per acre-foot (about 327,000 gallons) for the larger desal project option would be about $3,250 with Cal Am’s project, $3,120 for DeepWater’s project and $2,980 per acre-foot for Agha’s proposal. Agha has said his project could produce an acre- foot of water for about $1,349.

The yearly cost to maintain and operate each plant was also found to be in the same ballpark, although Agha’s project would be the lowest at $10.1 million. It would cost about $12.3 million per year for DeepWater Desal’s larger operation and $11 million for Cal Am’s, according to SPI.

SPI said Cal Am produced the most detailed information for its plan, followed by DeepWater desal, which “prepared a fair amount of predesign data on their system along with active environmental investigations for their intake.”

DeepWater Desal CEO Brent Constantz said his project is bound by confidentiality agreements with its partners, and therefore, he was “not able to share a couple a key aspects of our project, both of which affect the timeline and cost.”

SPI found Agha’s project “is at a more preliminary level of engineering and planning in comparison.”

While Cal Am has a “very well defined” implementation path, sticky bits with the project include uncertainty in the use of slant wells for the project and the complexities of obtaining a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.

“Moreover, there are a number of legal uncertainties related to the path of development” for Cal Am’s project “that can be assessed but not resolved at this time,” SPI found.

“There are conceptual advantages to public ownership” of Cal Am’s project, “which may significantly enhance the prospects for political and legal approvals necessary for the project to succeed,” according to SPI.

The consultant also found that “the simplicity of the commercial agreements when Cal Am owns all facilities creates schedule advantages,” but the “ownership structure creates contingent risk and political opposition to the project which could delay ultimate approval.”

DeepWater Desal’s proposal displays a “sophisticated understanding” of the process and pitfalls associated in completing environmental review and obtaining permits for the project, according to SPI.

But the consultant also determined that “given the level of controversy” with DeepWater Desal’s proposed new seawater intake system involving a “screened open ocean intake” — which would draw water from about 60 feet below the surface — it’s likely that scoping hearings, preparation of a draft environmental document and other factors would take much longer than the company expects.

Constantz told The Pine Cone there were “some obvious mistakes” in the SPI analysis, “like water temperature, confusion on financials, etc.,” but that he was confident they would be corrected.

Though Agha claims his desal plant would substantially reduce potential environmental impacts from brine discharge, the consultant said Agha’s team did not describe how that would work. “It is thus not possible to independently assess potential impacts from the proposed discharge of brine,” according to the report. “This leads to a great deal of uncertainty with respect to our assessment of [Agha’s] plan for implementation.”

As more details about Agha’s project emerge and environmental assessments are completed, SPI found, “controversial issues will arise that will require re-assessments and analyses which will delay processing of the environmental compliance documents and major permits.”

In contrast, according to SPI, those issues in Cal Am’s proposal are “well understood,” and the “potential areas for controversy are well documented.”

The Monterey Peninsula Water Authority’s technical advisory committee will meet to discuss the report Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. at Monterey City Hall, 580 Pacific St.