HomeMy WebLinkAbout30 - Proposed MOU - Wetland Water Supply ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
COUNCIL AGENDA
N0._,30
BY THE CITY COUNCIL
May 13, 1996 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Proposed MOU
Wetland Water Supply Project
I have attached a copy of the most recent draft of the proposed MOU between the
City, IRWD and OCWD. I have also attached a copy of a summary of the pertinent
provisions of the proposed MOU. Our report will be given to the Council when this
matter comes up for discussion on May 13, 199
zz ,.
R RT H. BURNHAM
Qty Attorney
RHB:de
de\ccmou.mem
SUMMARY OF MOU BETWEEN
IRWD, OCWD AND THE CITY
REGARDING THE INTEGRATED REUSE PROJECT
A. COMPONENTS OF THE INTEGRATED REUSE PROJECT (IRP)
1. Construction of Green Acres Phase II;
2. Construction of Intertie between IRWD Water
Reclamation Plant and Green Acres Phase II;
3. OCWD's commitment to accept 7.8 mgd. of reclaimed water from
IRWD from 10-1 through 3-31;
4. Construction of permanent diversion structure in San Diego Creek;
5. Issuance of permit for demonstration phase of Wetland Water
Supply Project;
6. Execution of Agreement between City and reclaimed water users.
B. PHASING DEADLINES/DEFERRALS
1. Initial discharge component of demonstration phase deferred to 10-
1-97, and dates in 2. through 5. below, if City obtains end User
Agreements on or before 10-1-96;
2. No discharge of reclaimed water if IRP fully implemented on 10-1-
97;
3. Initial six month discharge of reclaimed water pursuant to
demonstration phase at reduced rate (3.2 mgd vs. 5 mgd) if IRP not
fully implemented by 10-1-97 but OCWD has capability of accepting
4.6 mgd;
4. No further discharge if IRP fully implemented on 10-1-98 -- second
six month discharge phase at 3.2 mgd if not implemented;
5. If IRP not fully implemented prior to March 31, 1999, (or March 31,
1998 if City doesn't obtain end user agreements), then IRWD can
proceed with efforts to obtain permit for permanent discharge;
C. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
1. IRP contemplates no discharge of reclaimed water into any creek or
river if excess Reclaimed Water can be accepted by CSDOC outfall
facility;
2. City designated as lead agency for construction of San Diego Creek
diversion facility and primarily responsible for obtaining CSDOC
agreement to accept excess flows in outfall facility;
3. OCWD pays for Green Acres Phase II;
4. IRWD pays for Intertie and will share an unfunded cost of diversion
structures;
5. IRWD agrees to transmit water to OCWD for reduced cost.
6. Provisions of MOU are specifically enforceable by court order.
D. ADVANTAGES TO PROPOSED MOU
1. Will prevent discharge of reclaimed water into Newport Bay if IRP
fully implemented on 10-1-97;
2. No discharge of reclaimed water so long as IRP fully implemented;
3. Will facilitate implementation of Green Acres Phase II -- accelerate
beneficial use of reclaimed water in Newport Beach;
4. Will improve bay water quality by diverting San Diego Creek flow
into the duck ponds and marsh during the entire year -- not just the
summer -- with potentially greater winter time diversions to further
reduce nutrients;
5. Avoid litigation between public entities and the consequential
expenditures of taxpayer funds;
6. Creates possible frame work for creation of group to work
cooperativelx to improve bay water quality and the San Joaquin
Marsh.
de\mousum.mem
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Irvine Ranch
Water District (IRWD), and the City of Newport Beach (City) have
entered into this Memorandum of Understanding on the day of
, 1996, based upon the following:
A. The Parties support all projects which beneficially use
Reclaimed Water (for purposes of this MOU, the term "Reclaimed
Water" generally means water which fully satisfies Title 22
Standards as presently
constituted, or subsequently amended)—
altheidgh the -tei- .Reelai eCTWLter is used differently
"".'pends"ff
idpen the—eentemt in this MG without adversely impacting the
environment and which are cost effective or have positive cost
benefit ratios;
B. The Parties recognize that IRWD is a leader in reclaiming
wastewater and produces Reclaimed Water of the highest standards;
C. IRWD is the proponent of the Wetland Water Supply Project
WWSP which consists of a two year Demonstration Phase
(Demonstration Phase) and a subsequent Permanent Phase (Permanent
Phase) which would require further action and approval by the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) subsequent to
the successful completion of the Demonstration Phase. The
Demonstration Phase and the Permanent Phase each contemplate the
discharge of a maximum of five (5) million gallons per day (mgd.)
of Reclaimed Water into the penda duck ponds and waterfowl habitat
.(Habitat) for a seven day detention period with subsequent
discharge into San Diego Creek. The WWSP also involves a
1
summertime San Diego Creek "low flow" diversion component which
contemplates the diversion of approximately 3.25 mgd. (or five (5)
cubic feet per second (cfs.) ) flow from San Diego Creek into the
pends Habitat and/or adjacent marsh;
D. The Parties acknowledge the objectives of IRWD in
proposing WWSP include the creation of ._•...terf..w Habitat using
Reclaimed Water and an overall reduction in nutrients entering
Newport Bay when measured on an annual basis (Project Objectives);
E. City has been actively seeking measures which would
alleviate public concerns about the WWSP, while achieving Project
Objectives. City has also proposed modifications to the monitoring
program for WWSP;
F. The Parties have identified a series of actions,
projects, and permits (Integrated Reuse Project) which would
achieve, ndi seffie—eases e3Ee =d', Project Objectives such that
implementation of WWSP would not be necessary.
G. The Parties acknowledge that time is of the essence in
processing, obtaining approval of, and, as appropriate,
constructing, each component of the Integrated Reuse Project, that
some of the components of the Integrated Reuse Project require
approval from numerous public entities, and that SARWQCB issuance
of a permit for the Demonstration Phase of the WWSP will ensure
that IRWD is able to achieve Project Objectives to some degree in
the event that the Parties are unable to timely implement some or
all of the components of the Integrated Reuse Project.
H. The Parties intend to adopt a more formal Agreement
2
consistent with this MOU, on or before July 15, 1996, and to
implement the Integrated Reuse Project on or before October 1,
1997.
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOW:
1. COMPONENTS OF THE INTEGRATED REUSE PROJECT:
The Integrated Reuse Project contains the following
components:
A. The construction of Phase II of the Green Acres
Project (GAP II) by OCWD with a capacity of at least 7.8 mgd.;
B. The construction of a pipeline (Intertie) between
the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) and GAP II with a
minimum capacity of 7.8 mgd. per the ASL Study described in
Subsection 4 (B). The connection of the Intertie to GAP II shall
generally be in the vicinity of Jamboree and University;
C. OCWD's commitment to accept from IRWD, during the
period from October 1 through March 31, at least 4.6 mgd. of
Reclaimed Water and OCWD's further commitment to accept an
additional 3.2 mgd. of Reclaimed Water from IRWD during the period
from October 1 through March 31, (the additional 3.2 mgd. of
Reclaimed Water is sometimes referred to as "excess flows") with
the understanding that:
(i) OCWD's commitment to accept at least 4.6 mgd.
of Reclaimed Water during the period from October 1 through March
31 is subject to the execution of a written agreement between the
County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC) and OCWD
3
pursuant to which CSDOC commits to accept from OCWD at least 4.2
mgd. of Reclaimed Water during the period from October 1 through
March 31 for a period of fifteen (15) years, and to pay OCWD for
the Reclaimed Water at a rate per acre foot equal to OCWD's cost to
treat secondary water to a tertiary standard. OCWD shall use its
best efforts to obtain written commitments by CSDOC consistent with
this Subparagraph on or before October 1, 1996.
(ii) OCWD's commitment to accept an additional 3.2
mgd. of Reclaimed Water from IRWD during the period from October 1
through March 31 is contingent on City's preparation of, and
payment for, all necessary environmental documents, the processing
and approval of all necessary permits, and the design and
construction of any physical facility necessary to discharge, and
all costs related to the discharge or transmission of, that portion
of the 3.2 mgd. of Reclaimed Water that OCWD is unable to
beneficially use. City shall use its best efforts to obtain
approval from CSDOC for the discharge of any excess flow directly
into the CSDOC outfall facility. In the event that direct
discharge into the CSDOC outfall facility is infeasible, City shall
pursue other lawful means of disposing of the additional 3.2 mgd.
of the Reclaimed Water.
(iii) OCWD's commitment is also contingent on
IRWD's agreement to sell 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed Water to OCWD for no
more than 50 percent of the price CSDOC pays OCWD for the Reclaimed
Water, and IRWD's commitment to receive no consideration for any
Reclaimed Water in excess of 4.6 mgd., except to the extent that
4
OCWD receives consideration for the sale of some or all of the
excess flows to any third party and, in such event, IRWD's
consideration shall be determined by agreement between OCWD and
IRWD;
D. Approval of the Demonstration Phase of WWSP by
SARWQCB (except as such conditions may be modified pursuant to
Section 2 of this MOU), with implementation of the Demonstration
Phase to be discontinued or modified contingent upon satisfaction
of phasing requirements as specified in Section 2;
E. Approval and installation of an interim low flow
diversion structure or facility sufficient to remove 3.25 mgd. (5
cfs.) of flow from San Diego Creek during the period from April 1st
through September 30th, the approval and construction of a
permanent San Diego Creek diversion structure capable of diverting
up to 10 cfs. on a year-round basis, and the construction of
related facilities including a settling basin and connecting
pipeline from the temporary and permanent diversion facilities to
the WWSP didek pe Habitat. The Parties acknowledge that a
permanentT-l-,e diversion structure shall be capable of diverting 10
cfs. on a year round basis capable of supplying water sufficient
to maintain the Habitat in accordance with detention
times contemplated in the WWSP design as well as supplying water to
irrigate the Mitigation Areas described in the Grant Deed from The
Irvine Company to IRWD, recorded on December 28, 1995 (Grant Deed);
F. The execution of end user agreements by six Major
Purchasers of Reclaimed Water within the corporate limits of City.
5
(Big Canyon Country Club, Newport Beach Country Club, the Bluffs
Community Association, Newport Mesa Unified School District, the
City and the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, are considered the
"Major Purchasers").
2. PHASING/PLAN CONTINGENCIES:
The Parties acknowledge that WWSP Project Objectives will not
be fully satisfied by the Integrated Reuse Project unless all
components are in place and t=hat deferral of the initial discharge
period of the Demonstration Phase should proceed (as modified by
provisions of this Section) if all components are not in place on
or before October 1, 1997. In addition, OCWD is unable to commit
to the completion of GAP II on a timely basis unless end user
agreements are in place on or before October 1, 1996. To ensure
IRWD is able to achieve Project Objectives through the Integrated
Reuse Project, the Parties agree to the following phasing plan:
A. City shall agree to support removal of the condition
from the proposed NPDES permit to be issued by SARWQCB that
summertime low flow diversion from San Diego Creek precede the
initial six month discharge period of the Demonstration Phase , and
to allow IRWD additional time to complete the Demonstration Phase
as speeified in t=his Seetien with the BeffienstaFatien Phase liffil
t e -t- e-diseharge-e f 33 .2 rftgd . e f re elaime d water int e theywild-€ems
habitat -and -San PTegsC= ek . In the event SARWQCB approves the
Demonstration Phase without a prerequisite for summertime low flow
diversion from San Diego Creek to precede the initial six month
wintertime component of the Demonstration Phase, IRWD shall conduct
0
baseline monitoring from June 1, 1996, to October 1, 1996, and
defer commencement of the Demonstration Phase of WWSP to October 1,
1996, subject to additional deferral as specified in B., C., and
D.;
B. Commencement of the Demonstration Phase shall be
deferred from October 1, 1996, to April 1, 1997, in the event City
has obtained fully executed end user agreements from the Major
Purchasers on or before October 1, 1996. The summertime low flow
diversion shall commence on April 1, 1997, at a flow of
approximately 3.25 mgd. In the event end user agreements from the
six Major Purchasers are not fully executed on or before October 1,
1996, the initial six month discharge period of the Demonstration
Phase shall commence on October 1, 1996, at a flow of 3.2 mgd. with
monitoring in accordance with the provisions of the permit issued
by SARWQCB;
C. The following describes the various discharge
scenarios that would be applicable as of October 1, 1997:
(i) In the event that all components of the
Integrated Reuse Project are implemented on or before October 1,
1997, (All components of the Integrated Reuse Project shall be
considered implemented when IRWD has the right to transmit up to
7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed Water from October 1 through March 31, OCWD
has the ability to use or lawfully dispose of all Reclaimed Water
transmitted by IRWD, and the permanent San Diego Creek diversion
structure is in place and operational), then the Demonstration
Phase shall be discontinued, and IRWD shall take no action relative
7
to the permit for WWSP _(and otherwise comply with the provisions of
Section 6) so long as all components of the Integrated Reuse
Project are implemented i-emai ns ful' • r -atie _a
(ii) In the event that all components of the
Integrated Reuse Project are fully implemented on October 1, 1997,
b,c�except OCWD does not have the ability or legal right to use or
otherwise lawfully dispose of Reclaimed Water in excess of 4.6
mgd..
(a) The initial six month discharge component
of the Demonstration Phase will commence on October 1, 1997, at a
flow of 3.2 mgd. until March 31, 1998, or until OCWD has the
authority to lawfully dispose of Reclaimed Water up to 7.8 mgd.,
whichever occurs first;
(b) In the event IRWD proceeded with the
initial six month discharge component of the Demonstration Phase
(City did not obtain necessary end user agreements), the second six
month discharge period of the Demonstration Phase will Reel ime-
Wates—diseharge eefflpenent shall commence on October 1, 1997, and
continue until March 31, 1998, or until OCWD has the legal
authority to dispose of 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed Water, whichever
occurs first;
(c) In the event the Integrated Reuse Project
are not implemented such that OCWD has the capability to accept at
least 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed Water, the provisions of Semon
G. '; i) (a` er (b` shall b pp ; ='�'_=NPDES Permit for the
-rr---
Demonstration Phase shall be fully applicable until OCWD has the
L
legal authority to dispose of 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed Water, in which
event the Demonstration Phase shall be discontinued or until OCWD
has the capability to accept at 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed Water in
which event the Demonstration Phase flow shall be reduced to 3.2
mgd.;
(D) The following describes the various discharge scenarios
that would applicable as of October 1, 1988.1nthe—event h��
integrated Reuse Prejeet was net fully iffilglefaented en er befe e
April 1, !998, the fellewng—seenaries shall be--amplieable—as of
Geteber 1, 1994:
(i) In the event that all components of the Integrated
Reuse Project are implemented on or before October 1, 1998,
has tzr«-tetransfa t -up to 7.8-fRgd.-ef ReelaifRed W t
Geteb eiaTthieltg h M a i eh31, G GW ) has the eapability o f us
divei-sien ±B in plaee--end eperatrena-lam then the
Demonstration Phase, if not complete, shall be discontinued, and
IRWD shall take no action relative to the permit for WWSP and
otherwise comply with Section 6) so long as the Integrated Reuse
Project __ __.pis fully of =_= }'____alimplemented;
(ii) In the event that all components of the Integrated
Reuse Project are fully implemented on October 1, 1998, but OCWD
does not have the capability of using, or otherwise lawfully
disposing of, Reclaimed Water in excess of 4.6 mgd. (This assumes
OCWD does not have the capability of using or discharging 7.8 mad
P]
on October 1, 1998, or thereafter, and IRWD completed the initial
six month discharge component of the Demonstration Phase,--:--
the
hase y
t ire eftensticatien
Phase, the
initial tial si
m ffie nt h diseharg
^
o f the Beffienstratze
n Phase will
e e n,,,,e
n e e ear -G e t
eb!, !998,—at--a
flew —ef 3.2
ffig`a •-,+- i l Maree31,
4999,
er iantil
GGWD
has - c
i
efleeelalffied
Water up te7.8
Fflgd. , whieheveweeeurs—fli-st;
i
the second six month discharge component shall commence on October
1, 1998, and continue until March 31, 1999, or until OCWD has the
capability to use, or the legal authority to dispose of, 7.8 mgd.
of Reclaimed Water, whichever occurs first;
(iii) In the event that the Integrated Reuse Project
is not fully implemented on or before the completion of the
Demonstration Phase of the WWSP IRWD shall have the right to
proceed with its application to SAROWCB before permit authorizing
the Permanent Phase of WWSP, provided, however, IRWD shall not
discharge more than 3.2 mad. pursuant to any permit for the
Permanent Phase so long as the Integrated Reuse Project is fully
implemented except for OCWD's ability to beneficially use or
lawfully dispose of, excess flows.
10
t eSARQWGB f e r a pest}'itc- autherizing the —perfnanentdis urg e
e f .
(E) In the event the deadline for completing any component of
the Integrated Reuse Project is initially satisfied, but
subsequently lost, revoked or otherwise terminated other than as
result of the actions or omissions of IRWD, (e.g. loss of
permission to operate permanent diversion structure or OCWD's
inability to use or dispose of the requisite quantity of Reclaimed
Water), the applicable discharge scenario may proceed or resume as
though such requirement had not been met, and continue for the
applicable time periods as specified in this Section.
3. FUNDING OPTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS:
The following are the obligations of the Parties regarding the
funding of, and the options that may be available to fund,
components of the Integrated Reuse Project. Any funding option to
be pursued by one or more of the Parties shall be in place a
sufficient time in advance of financing requirements so that
construction or implementation is completed on or before the
phasing deadline(s) in Section 2.
A. City shall commit $500,000 in cash, or the
equivalent in the form of agreements with end users to waive or
reduce the reimbursement obligations of OCWD relative to GAP II, on
or before October 1, 1996 (the Parties anticipate these commitments
will increase the cost benefit ratio of GAP II). In addition to
City's funding commitments, IRWD will sell Reclaimed Water to OCWD
11
for 50 percent of the price received by OCWD from CSDOC.( The
Parties anticipate this differential between price and cost,
together with City's funding commitments, will increase the cost
benefit ratio of the GAP II Project to at least 1.5.) OCWD shall
have no obligation to pay IRWD for any Reclaimed Water in excess of
4.6 mgd. unless some or all of those excess flows are sold by OCWD
to third parties, and, in such event, provision of Section
1(C)(iii) shall apply. In consideration of City's funding
commitments, OCWD shall approve amendments to the Green Acres
Agreement authorizing City sale of Reclaimed Water above the
existing price ceiling.
B. The City shall be the lead agency relative to the
preparation of environmental documents that are prerequisites to
obtaining permits for, or constructing, the permanent San Diego
Creek diversion structure. City and IRWD shall share equally in any
unfunded cost related to the design of, the preparation of
environmental documents for, or the processing of applications and
permits necessary to construct, the permanent San Diego Creek
diversion structure. City and IRWD shall contribute to the
unfunded cost, if any, of constructing the permanent San Diego
Creek diversion structure. The Parties shall use then- best
effer-ts—cooperate in efforts to secure funding for environmental
documentation, permitting, design, and construction of the
diversion structure through active pursuit of all possible funding
options including the following options:
(i) The existing IRWD Grant application submitted
12
to EPA;
(ii) The possible sale of mitigation rights or
credits for nitrogen removal relative to the dewatering facility to
be constructed by the Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency at the
junction of the East Transportation Corridor Agency and the 115"
freeway;
(iii) A Grant or loan application(s) as
applicable submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation or other Federal
or State agency and—Fleeod Centre -1;
C. OCWD shall fund all costs associated with the design
of, permitting for, and construction of GAP II.
D. IRWD shall fund the entire cost of designing,
permitting, and constructing the Intertie, subject to the
provisions of Section 4.B, with the exception of the ASL
feasibility study which shall be funded entirely by City.
E. IRWD and City shall share the unfunded cost of
constructing the permanent San Diego Creek Diversion Structure.
IRWD and City shall reach agreement on equitable sharing of the
unfunded operation and maintenance costs of wintertime and
summertime San Diego Creek diversions, previded, hewego=ems— City
d
F. City may retain an engineering consultant (approved
by City, OCWD, and IRWD) who shall act as a Project Manager to
13
implement and coordinate the timely completion of all components of
the Integrated Reuse Project. City, OCWD, and IRWD shall pay one-
third of the consideration paid to the engineering consultant,
provided, however, the Agreement between the City and engineering
consultant shall limit consideration to $150,000.
4. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
The Parties acknowledge that implementation of the Integrated
Reuse Project involves the resolution of certain issues in a timely
manner including the following:
A. Flow commitments.
OCWD has indicated a willingness to accept all of
IRWD's excess Reclaimed Water (approximately 7.8 mgd during certain
periods from October 1st through March 31st) subject to the ability
to beneficially use excess flows, discharge excess flows into the
CSDOC outfall facility, or otherwise lawfully discharge or dispose
of excess flows. IRWD is willing to transmit at least 4.6 mgd
during all or a portion of this period with the understanding that
it is actively engaged in efforts to increase the demand for
Reclaimed Water in its service area during winter and spring.
Moreover, IRWD is committed to irrigate Mitigation Areas (other
than the water few! —hHabitat created by the WWSP) in the marsh
adjacent to MWRP pursuant to the Grant Deed, and may occasionally
need to irrigate with Reclaimed Water. IRWD and OCWD shall use
their best efforts to reach agreement regarding flow commitments
that satisfy the needs of both Parties. IRWD may amend its
consolidated use NPDES permit to seek authorization to use
14
Reclaimed Water to satisfy its obligation to irrigate mitigation
areas pursuant to the Grant Deed provided however, IRWD shall not
use Reclaimed Water to irrigate the Mitigation Areas or wotei- fewl-
-hHabitat when supplies of groundwater, pumped from below MWRP,
and/or stream flows diverted from San Diego Creek are adequate to
satisfy IRWD's irrigation obligations pursuant to the Grant Deed,
and, provided further, that any water discharged into San Diego
Creek from the Mitigation Areas (other than the WWSP duek
pends'.Habitat discharge which is subject to the applicable
provisions of this MOU) shall be equal to, or less than, the total
of irrigation flows from non-Reclaimed Water sources (MWRP
groundwater, diverted creek flows, run-off, etc.).
B. Construction of Intertie.
IRWD has committed to construction of the Intertie
and expressed its indieated r intent to fund entire cost of
construction of the Intertie. However, IRWD is unable to make a
firm commitment on funding all of the construction costs until the
actual cost and timing of construction are known n,.tr,•etie.,
eannet--rbce-fRade until ests and tiffling of eenstruetiozr-are knewn cora
FWD is eenfident that PaFej eet j eetives--6a will be satisfied by t4e-
integrated
City has retained Alderman, Swift, and
Lewis (ASL) to conduct a feasibility study. ASL will prepare an
analysis of estimated construction costs, the timing of
construction, and other factors relative to construction. City
shall pay the cost of the ASL study. The Parties agree that OCWD
will be designated as the lead agency for the construction of GAP
15
II and the Intertie. The Parties agree to cooperate to resolve any
issue related, directly and specifically, to the construction of
the Intertie or GAP II.
C. Construction of Flow Diversion Structure in San
Diego Creek.
IRWD shall initially install a pump facility to
divert approximately 3.25 mgd from San Diego Creek during the
period from April 1, 1997, through September 30, 1997. The City
and IRWD shall work cooperatively to maximize the removal of
organic and inorganic nitrogen from flows diverted into the duck
ponds and Mitigation Area ultimately discharged into San Diego
Creek. City and IRWD shall work cooperatively to devise a
diversion structure and related facilities that maximize the
potential for diversions to improve water quality in Newport Bay.
5. CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTION OF MOU:
A. The Parties acknowledge that opposition to, or
interference with, implementation of this MOU, the WWSP, or any
permit or approval required to implement either, could prevent IRWD
from achieving Project Objectives. The Parties acknowledge that
the City is in the best position to assure the maximum level of
cooperation on the part of its residents and groups comprised, in
whole or in part, of Newport Beach residents.
B. City shall withdraw its opposition to IRWD's application
for an NPDES permit for the Demonstration Phase, the 11404" permit
required from the Army Corps. of Engineers, the Streambed
16
Alteration Agreement required with the Department of Fish and Game
and any other permit required to implement the Demonstration Phase:
C. City shall support approval of the Marsh Enhancement Plan
Project and certification of the Marsh Enhancement Plan EIR. City
shall support modifications to the consolidated use NPDES permit
fethe ;4;FSP-that would authorize the use of Reclaimed Water
consistent with the provisions of Section 4(A).
D. City shall not initiate any litigation or administrative
appeal challenging any action or decision of IRWD necessary to
implement the Demonstration Phase of the WWSP.
E. City shall not oppose, file any appeal of, or litigate or
support, or pay for any legal challenge to, settlement of ACL
Complaint 96-27, as currently proposed or approved by SARWQCB.
F. City shall withdraw AB 3344 from consideration during the
current legislative session, and shall not in the future introduce
legislation which would prohibit discharge of Reclaimed Water in
Newport Bay, and shall oppose any such legislation if introduced.
City may modify AB 3344 or seek passage of legislation which would
facilitate the discharge of excess flows into the Santa Ana River
or any other lawful means of discharge.
G. For purposes of this Subsection, the term "Citizen
Opponents" shall mean any resident of the City of Newport Beach,
any group that includes one or more residents of Newport Beach, and
any agent, attorney, representative, or individual acting on behalf
of a Citizen Opponent. The term "third party" shall mean any by
individual, group, association, or any entity other than a Citizen
17
Opponent.
In the event that any Citizen Opponent takes any
action contrary to the commitments of the City in this Section, or
otherwise opposes or interferes with the implementation of any
Integrated Reuse Project component other than as provided in (iii)
below, IRWD shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this MOU
unless the City, within 10 days of the initiation of the action,
notifies IRWD in writing of its intent to defend or respond to the
action at the City's expense;
In the event any Third Party takes any action
contrary to the commitments of the City as specified in this
Section, or otherwise opposes or interferes with the implementation
of any Integrated Reuse Project component other than as provided in
(iii) below, IRWD shall have the right to unilaterally terminate
this MOU unless the City, within 10 days of the initiation of the
action, notifies IRWD in writing of its intent to pay 50 percent of
the cost of any defense or response to the action.
(iii) . In the event of any citizen opposition or third
party opposition to the discharge of excess flows into the CSDOC
outfall facility of the Santa Ana River or other lawful means of
discharge, City may elect to defend against, or respond to, that
opposition, or pursue another option at its election.
(iv). The deadlines for completion of the various
components of the Integrated Reuse Project shall not be extended by
virtue of any litigation, administrative action, or other reason,
regardless of whether such litigation, administrative action, or
H
other reason is beyond the control of any of the Parties to this
MOU.
6. COMMITMENTS OF IRWD:
IRWD agrees not to exercise its rights to discharge Reclaimed
Water into San Diego Creek pursuant to the NPDES permit issued by
SARWQCB pursuant to the application currently on file, or any other
permit issued before or after the effective date of this MOU, so
long as IRWD has the legal right to transmit 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed
Water to OCWD during the period from October 1 through March 31,
and OCWD has the legal right to use, or otherwise lawfully dispose
of, at least 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed Water during the period from
October 1 through March 31 and a permanent diversion structure has
been installed and is operational in San Diego Creek with the
capacity to divert 10 cfs. to property owned by IRWD.
7. FORMAL AGREEMENT:
The Parties shall prepare a formal agreement consistent with
this MOU for submittal to, and approval by, the legislative bodies
of each of the Parties on or before July 15, 1996. The Parties
acknowledge that time is of the essence in preparing and obtaining
approval of the Formal Agreement.
8. DUTY TO COOPERATE:
The Parties have a duty to cooperate with one another relative
to the preparation, approval, and execution of a Formal Agreement
19
consistent with this MOU, to cooperate with one another in the
implementation of the various components of the Integrated Reuse
Project, that the City and IRWD shall cooperate with the City of
Irvine, and The Irvine Company with respect to the implementation
of the Marsh Enhancement Plan, and the Grant Deed. The Parties will
consider the formation of a committee or group comprised of some or
all of the Parties, and other interested public entities, private
entities and persons, and environmental organizations which will be
devoted to the improvement of water quality in Upper Newport Bay,
the enhancement of the San Joaquin Marsh, the preservation or
enhancement of habitat in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
9. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
The provisions of this MOU are intended to be binding on each
of the Parties. Each of the Parties acknowledges that, in the event
of any breach of this MOU, any of the non -breaching parties shall
have the right to obtain an order of specific performance, court of
competent jurisdiction, directing the breaching party to fully
comply with that Party's obligations pursuant to the provisions of
this MOU. The Parties acknowledge that certain rights will be
given up or waived between the date of approval of this MOU and the
execution of a Formal Agreement, and the non -breaching party would
not have an adequate remedy at law absent this provision for
specific performance.
20
Dated:
Dated:
Approved as to Form:
M
I'M
M
Clark F. Ide, General Counsel
Orange County Water District
21
Orange County Water District
President, Board of Directors
General Manager
wb\agr\ocwd.mou (May 13th)
WILLIAM HOUSE, M.D. TEL:714-631-2030 May 13'96 16:12 No.009 P.01
William F. House, M.D. Hearing Associates
City Council of Newport Beach
Mayor John Hedges ,
John Cox
Jan Debay RECEIVED
Thomas EdwardssMaY 13' 1996
Norma Glover CITY CLERK
Dennis O'Neil \A NEWPORT BEACH
jean Watt
May 13, 1996
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED ' -_ 30
Dear Honored Members of the Newport City Council;
Dr. House and I understand that tonight you will discuss the
K
of allowing reclaimed sewerage water to be dumped into
Newport Bay.
We implore you to put a stop to this for everyone's sake. If you
have seen the L.A.Times the past few days and read about the vast
amount of pollution already surrounding us who wants more?
When we look out on what was once clear water of the bay and see
not much but green muck and white soap -like fuzz we want to cry.
Ask most of the old time fisherman about their feelings on the safety
of eating fish caught in the bay and you will soon agree we must
start a cleanup campaign NOT an add more garbage in the bay.
It is totally frustrating to write to the people in the water district and
get back letters that as much say "That's too bad how you feel about
this matter, we are going to do it anyway and you can't stop us"!!!
Who has more right than the people who live here and see the
changes and pay the taxes to try to repair needless contamination?
"merly,
Dr. and Mrs. iam House
1212 past Balboa Blvd. -
Newport Beach, Ca 92661
Newport Lido Medical Ccntor, Suite 327, 361 Hospital Road, Newport Bcach, CA 92663
(714) 631 -43271631 -NEAR] • TDD: 631-2530 . IFAX:'631-2039
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 14, 1996
TO: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk
FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney
RE: IRWD - Memorandum of Understanding Motion
Attached is the MOU Motion for your minutes. Please be advised Norma Glover's
motion encompassed all provisions with the exception of 4(d) which was added by Tom
Edwards pursuant to a friendly amendment. ,
RO " Fr MRNHAM
City Attorney
RHB:de
de%LHmounem
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
MOTION
I would like to make the following motion relative to the
proposed MOU between the City, IRWD, and OCWD
1. The City Council supports the concept of an MOU and
subsequent formal agreement between the parties;
2. The City Council believes that concerns expressed about
the issuance of a permit prior to final action on the formal
agreement are valid in light of the limited opportunity for public
review of the proposed MOU, the complexity of the MOU, and the
large number of public and private entities interested in the
issues. Accordingly, the City Council could not support
unconditional issuance of a permit by the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board prior to execution of a formal binding
agreement among the parties;
3. The City Council is comfortable with many aspects of the
current draft of the MOU including the following:
a. The desire of the parties to work to achieve the
objectives of the Wetland Water Supply Project;
b. The financial and other commitments of the City
necessary to facilitate completion of Phase II of Green Acres
C. The financial and other commitments of the City
necessary to ensure that OCWD has the capability to use or lawfully
dispose of all of IRWD's excess reclaimed water;
d. Establishing reasonable deadlines for completion of
the Intertie and Green Acres Phase II;
e. Supporting the concept of a permanent San Diego Creek
diversion structure as a means of irrigating the waterfowl habitat
and mitigation areas, with the understanding that every reasonable
effort should be made by IRWD and the City to protect the interests
of nearby property owners;
f. Supporting the concept of allowing reclaimed water to
used to irrigate the marsh to the extent other sources are
inadequate so long as discharges into San Diego Creek and the Bay
are limited to sources other than reclaimed water
Ad
g. Supporting the Marsh Enhancement Plan and the City of
Irvine's efforts in that regard consistent with this motion;
h. Working cooperatively with IRWD, OCWD and all other
interested parties to improve the marsh, enhance water quality in
Newport Bay and to protect the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve;
i. Paying all costs and expenses associated with any
legal challenge to those components for which the City is solely
responsible;
4. The City Council is not currently supportive of certain
provisions in the MOU including the following:
a. The requirement that a permanent diversion structure
be in place and operational as a condition to deferral of reclaimed
water discharges;
b. The requirement that the City be the lead agency for
the structure and the current uncertainty regarding our funding
commitments in that regard.
C. The requirement that the City pay for all or a
portion of attorney fees and costs occasioned by lawsuits or
administrative challenges by Newport Beach residents, groups or
third parties over which the City has no control;
d. The requirement that the City withdraw support for AB
3344.
S. Finally, a direction to staff -o meet with iRWD and OCWD
representatives in an effort to resolve these issues prior to May
20th.
O
E!4
-�- 614 �, M
kn00
O O
O p N a
� � a
00 if)
66 666!3 N
N -Moll E�460) Vel
� C�4 � 614 614
rA
tL
a o ArA
Negotiating Strengths of Newport vs. IRWD
1. Economics of Green Acres - Green Acres with the Ocean Outfall earns them more money than
dumping into the Bay. Additionally, since it poses less risks, its intangible value is also greater.
As the project will be built with tax dollars, it is subject to governmental scrutiny.
2. Brewer Bill - IRWD has been told by the assembly committee to negotiate. They risk losing their
$3.3 M investment in the Ponds if they start construction and the bill passes. However if they
wait to see if it passes or not, they lose $2.8 M per year by not avoiding CSDOC charges.
3. Impact of Lawsuits and/or CRWQCB appeals by City or Defend Our Bay - Appeals will stretch
out the timeframe. IRWD may lose. Even if not, every delay will cost them $2.8 M per year.
4. - An injunction against dumping could be reasonably be obtained as a prelude to hearing an
appeal on the full set of environmental issues. Delays will cost IRWD $2.8 M per year.
5. - IRWD could lose all or part of their $3.3 M investment in the Ponds if they lose a legal suit. If
an injunction fails, they still are at risk in the event they lose the suit. If they delay construction to
await the outcome of the suit, they lose $2.8 M per year by not avoiding CSDOC charges.
6. - Legal costs. If sued, they will have to spend $100,000 to $500,000 to defend themselves. Of
course we would like to avoid legal costs also. It is a tradeoff vs. what we have committed to
give them now.
7. Loss of potential business in Newport Beach - They would like to sell their reclaimed water in
Harbor View and Corona del Mar.
Newport Coast - They will become a major water utility within the City if and when Newport
Coast is annexed. They will be battling a hostile voting public and city Government. They will
alienate the Irvine Company whose business interests would be enhanced by a smooth
annexation.
9. Risk that Pond Nitrogen removal performance will fail during tests or initial operation - They will
be out all or a part of their $3.3 M investment in the Ponds. This is particularly relevant if
environmental consultants suggestions as to measurement of all forms of nitrogen is included in
their use permit conditions and one considers that their program is based upon the limited testing
of one scientist.
10. The Pringle Bill - This would provide some local justification of the need for utility consolidation.
11. Community Ill Will - Bad community relations are not good business.
12. Risk of City of Irvine Takeover - There have been some statements that this type of action was
being contemplated. Creating this type of adversarial community relationship can provide cause
to appeal to the City of Irvine to look into IRWD operations and provide some additional
justification to take over their operations.
ALL IN ALL, THIS IS AN OVERWHELMING SET OF NEGOTIATING POINTS. THE IRWD
PROJECT IS UNECONOMIC IF THESE BUSINESS RISKS ARE CONSIDERED. THEIR
ANNUAL SAVINGS OF $2.8 M IN AVOIDED CSDOC CHARGES DWARFS MINOR
CONCERNS ABOUT THE COSTS OF GREEN ACRES.
Note that IRWD seems to agree as they have negotiated most of these away.
Strengtl.doc 1 5/13/96
Comments on Proposed MOU dated March(sic) 20,1996 (dated May 10)
These comments apply to the subject document. While detailed, they still require a
discussion to be adequately understood and a basis for decisions to be made.
Prepared by Philip Arst 5/12/96
Force Majeure
Section 5 G. (iv) permits IRWD to discharge if we cannot meet all of our obligations due
to conditions beyond our control such as earthquakes, floods, etc.
This is unreasonable and a show stopper. Under commercial practice, the parties cannot be
held to the detailed schedule and multiple conditions of the MOU and be responsible for
conditions beyond their control. A Force Majeure clause is needed. It protects both
parties. An example of a typical commercial industry clause is contained below.
"The Parties shall not be responsible for delays in the installation of the IRP or
its operation caused by conditions beyond their reasonable control, including without
limitation such conditions as acts of God, civil insurrections, wars, sabotage, fires,
floods, and weather related outages, labor disputes, requirements of government
authorities (except as specifically called out in the body of the MOU), and other
conditions beyond their reasonable control. In the event of delay due to any such
condition, the performance schedule shall be adjusted equitably. "
Missing References
As the Grant Deed for the Irvine Company is referenced as a key condition, the MOU
review cannot be completed until copies are furnished to reviewing parties.
A copy of ACL complaint 96-27.which is referenced on page 16 is needed in order to
properly review this MOU.
IRWD Commitments
Insert somewhere a statement to the effect that if IRWD fails to meet any of its obligations
in the implementation of the ISP that it will immediately cease any activities on its WWSP
demonstration and final project until such conditions are corrected.
Moucomnt.doc 1 5/13/96
Introduction Section of MOU
D.
Is nutrients the right word? Replace with "forms of nitrogen" Check with Caustin &
Skinners!)
Add at end "and the Parties understand that the project will be terminated if the objectives
cannot be met."
E.
Cite at end of paragraph where modifications to the monitoring program are defined
F.
"provided that it can be shown that the Demonstration Phase will not be harm the
ecologically sensitive environment of the Newport Back Bay."
Section 1. THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOW (change to plural)
1. C. I
insert after March 31 is subject to ": (1)"
Add at end of this paragraph "Should CSDOC not agree to accept the subject water then
OCWD's obligations under this paragraph will be satisfied if the CSDOC Ocean Outfall or
other lawful means of disposal are available to accept the 4.6 mgd as an alternative."
I.D.
We cannot guarantee that SARWQCB will accept their project nor can the City bind its
residents not to oppose it.
Normally I would recommend striking this paragraph. However, two interpretations are
possible. If IRWD is turned down by the SARWQCB, and this MOU is then null and void,
then the Cities position is materially stronger in a renegotiation of terms because IRWD
would have no other alternative. This needs to be discussed internally.
1. F
It would be better to set a goal for the total equivalent reclaimed water usage of the six
major purchasers and not name them. One of then may hold out for some inexplicable
reason!
Moucomnt.doc 2 5/13/96
2. PHASING/PLAN CONTINGENCIES:
First paragraph
"deferral" is an incorrect word. Probably should be "commencement" however since this
error operates to the possible detriment of IRWD, suggest you not volunteer this change.
2.A
The City should not support removal of the condition ... that summertime low flow
diversion into San Diego Creek precede the initial six months discharge. This violates the
initial intent of the SARWQCB to insure that the diversion project was in place. The time
period gained should be used to increase the insufficient period of time allocated for
baseline monitoring.
Add after ending date of baseline monitoring of October 1, 1996 "or such later date
established for the commencement of Demonstration Phase as specified in B., C., and D.:'
C. i
Insert after "IRWD has the" in the first parenthetical sentence "obligation to meet its flow
commitments per par. 4. A." This will ensure a supply of water to CSDOC to operate its
cooling towers. An interruption in this supply could cause damage to CSDOC!
Why would the IRP not be fully operational other than Force Majeure events which are
covered elsewhere? Place period after WWSP in next to last line and remove all after.
D. (i)
Why would the IRP not be fully operational other than acts of God which will be covered
elsewhere? Place period after WWSP in next to last line and remove all after.
F.
Add after "subsequently lost, revoked or otherwise terminated" , "except for operations of
the permanent diversion structure" and delete "loss of permission to operate permanent
diversion structure" from parenthetical phrase immediately following.
IRWD should not be allowed to dump reclaimed water in the Bay if its diversion project,
which is under its general operational control, fails for any reason.
FUNDING OPTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
3.B
Change funding to be "the sole responsibility of IRWD" IRWD will build this capability
entirely on their own if they we doing the WWSP on their own. They save money in
operational and capital costs by going to Green Acres. They should pay as they already
have these amounts budgeted.
Moucomntdoc 3 5/13/96
Newport Beach can retain lead agency status if it chooses recognizing the extra cost
burden of personnel to run this project. Again, If IRWD were doing the WWSP project on
their own, they would pay for this function themselves.
In any event, if the City chooses to fund this item, there is a big problem in that IRWD will
charge the City for its internal construction and operations It is also undefined how much
IRWD overhead or other charges will apply to the costs included in this section.. This can
get out of control. A limitation of say $500,000 should be placed on Newport Beach
contributions.
3.E
Change funding to be "the sole responsibility of IRWD" IRWD will build this capability
entirely on their own if they we doing the WWSP on their own. They save money in
operational and capital costs by going to Green Acres. They should pay as they already
have these amounts budgeted.
In any event, if the City chooses to fund this item, there is a big problem in that IRWD
calculates the costs of its operation of the ponds, diversion, etc. This can get out of
control. A limitation of say $50,000 per year plus inflation as measured by the PPI should
be placed on Newport Beach contributions.
X
5. CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTION OF MOU
C.
Delete this paragraph. The City is on record as opposing the WWSP and would be telling
the world that it lied on its previous statements to the SARWQCB, the press and its
citizens. The City and its citizen organizations should continue to oppose the WWSP.
D.
Change "action or decision" to "lawful action or decision conforming to the terms and
conditions of the Demonstration as established by cognizant governmental reviewing
agencies."
E.
This needs to be defined before any comments can be made.
F.
This sighs away Newport rights leaving too many unknowns open to properly protect the
City.. What if IRWD ships its reclaimed water to another district which then dumps it into
the River? What if the State decides to prohibit reclaimed water dumping in all
Moucomnt.doc 4 5/13/96
ecologically sensitive Bays? Is Newport Beach supposed to stand up and say we want it?
Newport cannot be expected to oppose such legislation if others introduce it!
A reasonable compromise would be to remove the Brewer Bill from consideration unless
this MOU is abrogated for some cause.
G. i
What about cases where IRWD is violating State law, EPA regulations, SARWQCB
conditions or otherwise engaging in unlawful activities? It is unconscionable that the City
would oppose the rights of its citizens to register legitimate dissent. Remove this
paragraph in its entirety.
6 COMMITMENTS OF IRWD
In first sentence delete "Reclaimed". What if IRWD wants to discharge other byproducts
of its operations such as discolored ground (i.e. fresh) water, water containing odors or
chemicals which they might try to persuade the Board were in too low a concentration to
be a threat, etc.
Installation and operation of the permanent diversion structure is not a valid condition.
What if IRWD drags its feet or defaults on its payment commitments or performance in
any manner? It is important that this condition be removed.
G. 00
This opens the City up to the situation that IRWD supports some activity which derails the
IRP. It also means that if we fail because of an earthquake, labor strife or disgruntled
customer bombing IRWD facilities, they get to discharge into the Bay. This is counter to
the Force Majeuere clause which is essential to any business agreement and should be
removed in its entirety.
XX
Term
Add new section of Term containing the statement "This MOU is to remain in force in
perpituity or for the maximum period permitted by applicable State Laws.
Moucomnt.doc 5 5/13/96
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and the City of
Newport Beach (City) have entered into this Memorandum of
Understanding on the day of 1996, based upon the
following:
A. The Parties support all projects which beneficially use
Reclaimed Water (for purposes of this MOU, the term "Reclaimed
Water" generally means water which fully satisfies Title 22
Standards as presently constituted, or subsequently amended),
without adversely impacting the environment and which are cost
effective or have positive cost benefit ratios;
B. The Parties recognize that IRWD is a leader in reclaiming
wastewater and produces Reclaimed Water of the highest standards;
C. IRWD is the proponent of the Wetland Water Supply Project
(WWSP) which consists of a two year Demonstration Phase
(Demonstration Phase) and a subsequent Permanent Phase (Permanent
Phase) which would require further action and approval by the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) subsequent to
the successful completion of the Demonstration Phase. The
Demonstration Phase and the Permanent Phase each contemplate the
wet -season (October 1 through March 31) discharge of a maximum of
five (5) million gallons per day (mgd.) of Reclaimed Water into
WWSP Habitat (Habitat) for a seven day detention period with
subsequent discharge into San Diego Creek. The WWSP also involves
a summertime San Diego Creek "low flow" diversion component which
contemplates the diversion of approximately 3.25 mgd. (or five (5)
1
cubic feet per second (cfs.)) flow from San Diego Creek into the
Habitat and/or adjacent marsh;
D. The Parties acknowledge the objectives of IRWD in
proposing WWSP include the enhancement of the WWSP Habitat, the
supply of water to that Habitat using Reclaimed Water, and an
overall reduction in nutrients entering Newport Bay when measured
on an annual basis (Project Objectives);
E. City has been actively seeking measures which would
alleviate public concerns about the WWSP, while achieving all or
substantially all of the Project Objectives. City has also
proposed modifications to the monitoring program for WWSP;
F. The Parties have identified a series of actions,
projects, and permits (Integrated Reuse Project) which would
achieve Project Objectives such that implementation of WWSP would
not be necessary.
G. The Parties acknowledge that time is of the essence in
processing, obtaining approval of, and, as appropriate,
constructing, each component of the Integrated Reuse Project. The
Parties acknowledge that some of the components of the Integrated
Reuse Project require approval from numerous public entities, and
that SARWQCB issuance of a permit for the Demonstration Phase of
the WWSP will ensure that IRWD is able to achieve Project
Objectives to some degree in the event that the Parties are unable
to timely implement some or all of the components of the Integrated
Reuse Project.
H. The Parties intend to adopt a more formal Agreement,
2
consistent with this MOU, on or before July 15, 1996, and to
implement the Integrated Reuse Project on or before October 1,
1997.
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOW:
1. COMPONENTS OF THE INTEGRATED REUSE PROJECT:
The Integrated Reuse Project contains the following
components:
A. The construction of Phase II of the Green Acres
Project (GAP II) by OCWD with a capacity of at least 7.8 mgd.;
B. The construction of a pipeline (Intertie) between
the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) and GAP II with a
minimum capacity of 7.8 mgd. per the ASL Study described in
Subsection 4 (B). The connection of the Intertie to GAP II shall
generally be in the vicinity of Jamboree and University;
C. OCWD's commitment to accept from IRWD, during the
period from October 1 through March 31, at least 4.6 mgd. of
Reclaimed Water and OCWD's further commitment to accept an
additional 3.2 mgd. of Reclaimed Water from IRWD during the period
from October 1 through March 31, (the additional 3.2 mgd. of
Reclaimed Water is sometimes referred to as "excess flows") with
the understanding that:
(i) OCWD's commitment to accept at least 4.6 mgd.
of Reclaimed Water during the period from October 1 through March
31 is subject to the execution of a written agreement between the
County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC) and OCWD
3
pursuant to which CSDOC commits to accept from OCWD at least 4.2
mgd. of Reclaimed Water during the period from October 1 through
March 31 for a period of fifteen (15) years, and to pay OCWD for
the Reclaimed Water at a rate per acre foot equal to OCWD's cost to
treat secondary water to a tertiary standard. OCWD shall use its
best efforts to obtain written commitments by CSDOC consistent with
this Subparagraph on or before October 1, 1996. OCWD's commitment
is also contingent upon IRWD's commitment to supply required
Reclaimed Water for a period of at least 15 years.
(ii) OCWD's commitment to accept an additional 3.2
mgd. of Reclaimed Water from IRWD during the period from October 1
through March 31 is contingent on City's preparation of, and
payment for, all necessary environmental documents, the processing
and approval of all necessary permits, and the design and
construction of any physical facility necessary to discharge, and
payment by City of all costs related to the discharge or
transmission of, that portion of the 3.2 mgd. of Reclaimed Water
that OCWD is unable to beneficially use. City shall use its best
efforts to obtain approval from CSDOC for the discharge of any
excess flow directly into the CSDOC outfall facility. In the event
that direct discharge into the CSDOC outfall facility is
infeasible, City shall pursue other lawful means of disposing of
the additional 3.2 mgd. of the Reclaimed Water.
(iii) OCWD's commitment to accept Reclaimed Water
from IRWD during the period from October 1 through March 31 is also
contingent on the execution on the formal written contemplated in
4
Section 4.A which contains IRWD's commitment to:
(a) Sell OCWD at least 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed
Water for a fixed period of time;
(b) To sell at least 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed
Water for no more than 50 percent of the price CSDOC pays OCWD for
the Reclaimed Water;
(c) IRWD's commitment to receive no
consideration for any Reclaimed Water in excess of 4.6 mgd. except
to the extent that OCWD receives consideration for the sale of some
or all of the excess flows to any Third Party and, as appropriate,
the framework for determining that consideration; and,
(d) To resolve, in good faith, issues related
to water subsidies for Reclaimed Water, and Reclaimed Water
transmission rates during peak periods of demand.
D. Approval of the Demonstration Phase of WWSP by
SARWQCB as submitted by IRWD, except for the modifications
authorized pursuant to Section 2 of this MOU and any conditions
that may imposed by SARWQCB, with implementation of the
Demonstration Phase to be discontinued or modified contingent upon
satisfaction of phasing requirements as specified in Section 2;
E. Approval and installation of an interim low flow
diversion structure or facility sufficient to remove 3.25 mgd. (5
cfs. ) of flow from San Diego Creek during the period from April 1st
through September 30th. The Parties acknowledge that the interim
low flow diversion structure consists of a concrete pad or other
stabilizing device, a pump, and related pipe or hose sufficient to
9
remove the flow from the Creek and transport the water to WWSP
Habitat;
F. Approval and installation of facilities or systems
capable of supplying water sufficient to maintain the WWSP Habitat
in accordance with detention times contemplated in the WWSP design
and, to the extent feasible, supplying water to irrigate the
Mitigation Areas described in the Grant Deed from The Irvine
Company to IRWD, recorded on December 28, 1995 (Grant Deed). This
component may be satisfied on an interim basis by one or both of
the following alternatives to the extent the Alternatives are
legally and physically feasible:
(i) The use and possible upgrade of the interim low
flow diversion structure to enable it to supply water during the
period from October 1 through March 31, flows equal to, or slightly
less than, required to satisfy the detention times assumed in the
WWSP design. Upgrades could include modifications to support
structures, capacity modifications, and sediment control measures;
(ii) The installation of facilities necessary to
transmit Reclaimed Water from MWRP through the WWSP Habitat and
provide any necessary retreatment prior to recirculation through
the IRWD Reclaimed Water distribution system.
City and IRWD contemplate the ultimate installation of a
permanent San Diego Creek diversion structure (Permanent Diversion
Structure) capable of diverting 10 cfs. on a year round basis. The
Parties acknowledge that a Permanent Diversion Structure with a
capacity to divert 10 cfs. on a year round basis is capable of
L
supplying water sufficient to maintain the Habitat in accordance
with detention times contemplated in the WWSP design as well as
supplying water to irrigate the Mitigation Areas described in the
Grant Deed from The Irvine Company to IRWD, recorded on December
28, 1995 (Grant Deed). While installation of a Permanent Diversion
Structure is a component of the Integrated Reuse Project, and the
Parties contemplate installation within a reasonable time frame,
the Parties acknowledge that this component of the Integrated Reuse
Project is not essential so long as WWSP Habitat is capable of
receiving adequate flows pursuant to (i) or (ii).
G. The execution of end user agreements by six Major
Purchasers of Reclaimed Water within the corporate limits of City.
(Big Canyon Country Club, Newport Beach Country Club, the Bluffs
Community Association, Newport Mesa Unified School District, the
City and the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, are considered the
"Major Purchasers").
2. PHASING/PLAN CONTINGENCIES:
A. The Parties acknowledge that WWSP Project Objectives will
not be fully satisfied by the Integrated Reuse Project unless all
components are in place and the initial discharge period of the
Demonstration Phase should proceed (as modified by provisions of
this Section) if the components identified in this Section are not
in place on or before the date specified in this Section. In
addition, OCWD is unable to commit to the completion of GAP II on
a timely basis unless end user agreements are in place on or before
7
October 1, 1996. To ensure IRWD is able to achieve all or
substantially all, of the Project Objectives through the Integrated
Reuse Project, the Parties agree to the phasing plan specified in
this Section:
B. For purposes of this Section, the term "all
components of the Integrated Reuse Project are implemented" or
similar phrase means:
(i) The Intertie is constructed and operational;
(ii) GAP II is constructed and operational;
(iii) The contingencies to OCWD's obligation to
accept 7.8 mgd. from IRWD have been fully satisfied; and,
(iv) The Permanent Diversion Structure is in place
and operational or the component (s) identified in F. (i) and/or
F.(ii) are implemented and operational, and are capable of
supplying sufficient flow to the WWSP Habitat to satisfy the
detention times assumed in WWSP design. The irrigation alternative
described in Subparagraph F. (ii) shall be considered implemented
and operational so long as City pays, on an annual basis,
$50,000.00, or 50 percent of the operation and maintenance costs,
whichever is less.
(v) End user agreements with major purchasers are
fully effective.
C. City shall agree to support removal of the condition
from the proposed NPDES permit to be issued by SARWQCB that
summertime low flow diversion from San Diego Creek precede the
initial six month discharge period of the Demonstration Phase , and
8
to allow IRWD additional time to complete the Demonstration Phase.
In the event SARWQCB approves the Demonstration Phase without a
prerequisite for summertime low flow diversion from San Diego Creek
to precede the initial six month wintertime component of the
Demonstration Phase, IRWD shall conduct baseline monitoring from
June 1, 1996, to October 1, 1996, and defer commencement of the
Demonstration Phase of WWSP to October 1, 1996, subject to
additional deferral as specified in D., E., and F. City shall use
its best efforts to assist IRWD in complying with the summertime
low flow diversion condition to the Demonstration Phase, if that
condition is not modified by SARQWQCB;
D. Commencement of the Demonstration Phase shall be
deferred from October 1, 1996, to April 1, 1997, in the event City
has obtained fully executed end user agreements from the Major
Purchasers on or before October 1, 1996. The summertime low flow
diversion shall commence on April 1, 1997, at a flow of
approximately 3.25 mgd. In the event end user agreements from the
six Major Purchasers are not fully executed on or before October 1,
1996, the initial six month discharge period of the Demonstration
Phase shall commence on October 1, 1996, at a flow of 3.2 mgd. with
monitoring in accordance with the provisions of the permit issued
by SARWQCB;
E. The following describes the various discharge
scenarios that would be applicable as of October 1, 1997:
(i) In the event that all components of the
Integrated Reuse Project are implemented on or before October 1,
1997, then the Demonstration Phase shall be discontinued, and IRWD
shall take no action relative to the permit for WWSP (and otherwise
comply with the provisions of Section 6);
(ii) In the event that all components of the
Integrated Reuse Project are fully implemented on October 1, 1997,
except OCWD does not have the ability or legal right to use or
otherwise lawfully dispose of Reclaimed Water in excess of 4.6
mgd..
(a) The initial six month discharge component
of the Demonstration Phase will commence on October 1, 1997, at a
flow of 3.2 mgd. until March 31, 1998, or until OCWD has the
authority to lawfully dispose of Reclaimed Water up to 7.8 mgd.,
whichever occurs first;
(b) In the event IRWD proceeded with the
initial six month discharge component of the Demonstration Phase
(City did not obtain necessary end user agreements), the second six
month discharge period of the Demonstration Phase will commence on
October 1, 1997, and continue until March 31, 1998, or until OCWD
has the legal authority to dispose of 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed Water,
whichever occurs first;
(c) In the event the Integrated Reuse Project
is not implemented such that OCWD has the capability to accept at
least 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed Water, the provisions of the NPDES
Permit for the Demonstration Phase shall be fully applicable until
OCWD has the legal authority to dispose of 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed
Water, in which event the Demonstration Phase shall be discontinued
10
or until OCWD has the capability to accept at 4.6 mgd. of Reclaimed
Water in which event the Demonstration Phase flow shall be reduced
to 3.2 mgd.;
F. The following describes the various discharge
scenarios that would be applicable as of October 1, 1998:
(i) In the event that all components of the Integrated
Reuse Project are implemented on or before October 1, 1998, then
the Demonstration Phase, if not complete, shall be discontinued,
and IRWD shall take no action relative to the permit for WWSP and
otherwise comply with Section 6;
(ii) In the event that all components of the Integrated
Reuse Project are fully implemented on October 1, 1998, but OCWD
does not have the capability of using, or otherwise lawfully
disposing of, Reclaimed Water in excess of 4.6 mgd. (This assumes
OCWD does not have the capability of using or discharging 7.8 mgd.
on October 1, 1998, or thereafter, and IRWD completed the initial
six month discharge component of the Demonstration Phase) the
second six month discharge component shall commence on October 1,
1998, and continue until March 31, 1999, or until OCWD has the
capability to use, or the legal authority to dispose of, 7.8 mgd.
of Reclaimed Water, whichever occurs first;
(iii) In the event that the Integrated Reuse Project
is not fully implemented on or before the completion of the
Demonstration Phase of the WWSP, IRWD shall have the right to
proceed with its application to SARQWCB for a permit authorizing
the Permanent Phase of WWSP, provided, however, IRWD shall not
11
discharge more than 3.2 mgd. pursuant to any permit for the
Permanent Phase so long as the Integrated Reuse Project is fully
implemented except for OCWD's ability to beneficially use, or
lawfully dispose of, excess flows.
G. In the event the deadline for completing any
component of the Integrated Reuse Project is initially satisfied,
but subsequently lost, revoked or otherwise terminated other than
as a result of the actions or omissions of IRWD, (e.g. OCWD's
inability to use or dispose of the requisite quantity of Reclaimed
Water), the applicable discharge scenario may proceed or resume as
though such requirement had not been met, and continue for the
applicable time periods as specified in this Section subject to
compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws including a
valid NPDES permit.
H. The Party acting as lead agency shall, with the full
cooperation of the other Parties, use its best efforts to ensure
that all components of the Integrated Reuse Project are constructed
and installed on or before the deadline specified in this Section.
The Parties shall, at a minimum, do the following:
(i) Phase the construction of GAP II such that the
initial portion of the facility to be constructed is the pipeline
from the current terminus of Phase I to the point of connection
with the Intertie (generally at the intersection of University and
Jamboree);
(ii) Consolidate the construction of the Intertie and
GAP II under the same contract, with the same construction
12
management;
(iii) Promptly review and approve or return for
correction all plans submitted by one of the Parties to another;
(iv) Use their best efforts to expedite permit issuance,
permit review, or plan check;
(v) Assign personnel capable and willing to expedite,
review or approve necessary plans or permits.
I. The deadlines for completion of the various components of
the Integrated Reuse Project shall be extended by virtue of any
litigation, administrative action, or other reason, regardless of
whether such litigation, administrative action, or other reason is
beyond the control of the Parties to this MOU, provided, however,
the deadline for completion of any component shall be extended by
any delay in construction that occurs subsequent to the award, the
relevant contract, and is beyond the control of the general
contractor or any relevant subcontractor. In the event of any
delay, the Parties shall support and take all action appropriate to
ensure approval of any extension of the NPDES permit for WWSP.
3. FUNDING OPTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS:
The following are the obligations of the Parties regarding the
funding of, and the options that may be available to fund,
components of the Integrated Reuse Project. Any funding option to
be pursued by one or more of the Parties shall be in place a
sufficient time in advance of financing requirements so that
construction or implementation is completed on or before the
13
phasing deadline(s) in Section 2.
A. City shall commit $500,000 in cash, or the
equivalent in the form of agreements with end users to waive or
reduce the reimbursement obligations of OCWD relative to GAP II, on
or before October 1, 1996 (the Parties anticipate these commitments
will increase the cost benefit ratio of GAP II). In addition to
City's funding commitments, IRWD will sell Reclaimed Water to OCWD
for 50 percent of the price received by OCWD from CSDOC. (The
Parties anticipate this differential between price and cost,
together with City's funding commitments, will increase the cost
benefit ratio of the GAP II Project to at least 1.5.) OCWD shall
have no obligation to pay IRWD for any Reclaimed Water in excess of
4.6 mgd. unless some or all of those excess flows are sold by OCWD
to third parties, and, in such event, provision of Section
1(C)(iii) shall apply. In consideration of City's funding
commitments, OCWD shall approve amendments to the Green Acres
Agreement authorizing City sale of Reclaimed Water above the
existing price ceiling.
B. IRWD shall be the lead agency relative to the
preparation of environmental documents that are prerequisites to
obtaining permits for, or constructing, the permanent San Diego
Creek diversion structure. City and IRWD shall share equally in any
unfunded cost related to the design of, the preparation of
environmental documents for, or the processing of applications and
permits necessary to construct, the permanent diversion structure,
provided, however, the City's share of those costs shall not exceed
14
$75,000.00. IRWD and City shall, in good faith, reach agreement
on equitable sharing of the unfunded cost, if any, of constructing
the Permanent San Diego Diversion Structure contribute to the
unfunded cost, if any, of constructing the permanent San Diego
Creek diversion structure. The Parties shall cooperate in efforts
to secure funding for environmental documentation, permitting,
design, and construction of the diversion structure through active
pursuit of all possible funding options including the following:
(i) The existing IRWD Grant application submitted
to EPA;
(ii) The possible sale of mitigation rights or
credits for nitrogen removal relative to the dewatering facility to
be constructed by the Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency at the
junction of the East Transportation Corridor Agency and the 115"
freeway;
(iii) A Grant or loan application(s) as
applicable submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation or other Federal
or State agency;
IRWD and City shall, in good faith, reach agreement on
equitable sharing of the unfunded operation and maintenance costs
of wintertime and summertime San Diego Creek diversions.
C. OCWD shall fund all costs associated with the design
of, permitting for, and construction of GAP II.
D. IRWD shall fund the entire cost of designing,
permitting, and constructing the Intertie, subject to the
15
provisions of Section 4.B, with the exception of the ASL
feasibility study which shall be funded entirely by City.
E. City may retain an engineering consultant (approved
by City, OCWD, and IRWD) who shall act as a Project Manager to
implement and coordinate the timely completion of all components of
the Integrated Reuse Project. City, OCWD, and IRWD shall pay one-
third of the consideration paid to the engineering consultant,
provided, however, the Agreement between the City and engineering
consultant shall limit consideration to $150,000.
4. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
The Parties acknowledge that implementation of the Integrated
Reuse Project involves the resolution of certain issues in a timely
manner including the following:
A. Flow commitments.
OCWD has indicated a willingness to accept all of
IRWD's excess Reclaimed Water (approximately 7.8 mgd during certain
periods from October 1st through March 31st) subject to the ability
to beneficially use excess flows, discharge excess flows into the
CSDOC outfall facility, or otherwise lawfully discharge or dispose
of excess flows. IRWD is willing to transmit at least 4.6 mgd
during all or a portion of this period with the understanding that
it is actively engaged in efforts to increase the demand for
Reclaimed Water in its service area during winter and spring.
Moreover, IRWD is committed to irrigate Mitigation Areas (other
than the Habitat created by the WWSP) in the marsh adjacent to MWRP
16
pursuant to the Grant Deed, and may need to irrigate Mitigation
Areas with Reclaimed Water (for purposes of this MOU, the use of
Reclaimed Water to irrigate the WWSP Habitat and/or Mitigation
Areas pursuant to Subparagraph 1.D. or the alternative specified in
Subparagraph 1.F. (ii) does not constitute the use of Reclaimed
Water). IRWD and OCWD shall, consistent with their commitments in
this MOU, and as specifically identified in Section 1.C.(iii),
shall enter into a formal written agreement regarding the timing of
Reclaimed Water transmission requirements in consideration that
satisfy the needs of both Parties. IRWD may amend its consolidated
use NPDES permit to seek authorization to use Reclaimed Water to
satisfy its obligation to irrigate mitigation areas pursuant to the
Grant Deed provided however, IRWD shall not use Reclaimed Water to
irrigate the Mitigation Areas or Habitat when supplies of
groundwater, pumped from below MWRP, and/or stream flows diverted
from San Diego Creek are adequate to satisfy IRWD's irrigation
obligations pursuant to the Grant Deed, and, provided further, that
any water discharged into San Diego Creek from the Mitigation Areas
(other than the WWSP Habitat discharge which is subject to the
applicable provisions of this MOU) shall be equal to, or less than,
the total of irrigation flows from non -Reclaimed Water sources
(MWRP groundwater, diverted creek flows, run-off, etc.).
B. Construction of Intertie.
IRWD shall construct the Intertie and is committed
to pay the entire cost of construction consistent with the $2.4
million estimate and the feasibility study conducted by Alderman,
17
Swift, and Lewis (ASL). City and IRWD shall reach agreement on the
equitable sharing of construction costs in excess of $2.4 million.
ASL will continue to analyze estimated construction costs, the
timing of construction, and other factors relative to construction.
City shall pay the cost of the ASL study. The Parties agree that
OCWD will be designated as the lead agency for the construction of
GAP II and the Intertie. The Parties agree to cooperate to resolve
any issue related, directly and specifically, to the construction
of the Intertie or GAP II.
C. Construction of Flow Diversion Structure in San
Diego Creek.
(i) IRWD shall initially install a pump facility to
divert approximately 3.25 mgd from San Diego Creek during the
period from April 1, 1997, through September 30, 1997, and
thereafter as appropriate subject to approval by all relevant
agencies. City and IRWD shall work cooperatively to devise a
diversion structure and related facilities that maximize the
potential for diversions to improve water quality in Newport Bay.
(ii) Permanent Flow Diversion Structure. City and
IRWD each support the concept of a Permanent San Diego Creek
Diversion Structure and, assuming appropriate maintenance and
operation, agree that diversion of San Diego Creek flows into WWSP
Habitat and adjacent Marsh will improve water quality in Newport
Bay. However, the City and IRWD also acknowledge that construction
of the Permanent Diversion Structure requires permits from various
agencies, that certain property owners in the vicinity of the
18
Marsh, as wells as other individuals, have expressed opposition to
the Permanent Diversion Structure, that construction may require
riparian/wetland mitigation, and that construction of the Permanent
Diversion Structure may be linked to other projects. City and IRWD
agree that it is desirable for the Permanent Diversion Structure to
be in place and operational on or before October 1, 1997, and will
use their best efforts to do so. City shall support all permit
applications submitted by IRWD for the Permanent Diversion
Structure, and support any project linked to the Permanent
Diversion Structure so long as there is no substantial evidence
that the Permanent Diversion Structure would adversely impact water
quality. Subsequent to the effective date of this MOU, City and
IRWD shall continue to discuss components of the Permanent
Diversion Structure so that the respective duties of City and IRWD,
relative to that structure, are more fully described in the formal
agreement.
(D) City and IRWD shall work cooperatively to maximize the
removal of organic and inorganic nitrogen from any Reclaimed Water
and creek flows discharged into San Diego Creek. IRWD agrees that
City may request additional monitoring or operational modifications
to WWSP provided, however, City shall be solely responsible for any
cost associated with requested monitoring or modifications..
5. CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTION OF MOU:
A. City shall withdraw its opposition to IRWD's application
for an NPDES permit for the Demonstration Phase, the 11404" permit
19
required from the Army Corps. of Engineers, the Streambed
Alteration Agreement required with the Department of Fish and Game
and any other permit required to implement the Demonstration Phase.
B. City shall support approval of the Marsh Enhancement Plan
Project and certification of the Marsh Enhancement Plan EIR. City
shall support modifications to the consolidated use NPDES permit
that would authorize the use of Reclaimed Water consistent with the
provisions of Section 4(A).
C. City shall not initiate any litigation or administrative
appeal challenging any action or decision of IRWD necessary to
implement the Demonstration Phase of the WWSP.
D. City shall not oppose, file any appeal of, or litigate or
support, or pay for any legal challenge to, settlement of ACL
Complaint 96-27, as currently proposed or approved by SARWQCB.
E. City shall request the author of AB 3344 to withdraw that
bill from consideration during the current legislative session, and
shall not introduce or support legislation which would in any way
interfere with, or impede, implementation of the Demonstration
Phase to the extent permitted by this MOU and any subsequent formal
agreement or prohibit discharge of Reclaimed Water into Newport Bay
other than from any subsequent phase of the WWSP.
F. For purposes of this Subsection, the term "Citizen
Opponents" shall mean any resident of the City of Newport Beach,
any group that includes one or more residents of Newport Beach, and
any agent, attorney, representative, or individual acting on behalf
of a Citizen Opponent. The term "Third Party" shall mean any
20
individual, group, association, or any entity other than a Citizen
Opponent.
In the event that any Citizen Opponent or Third
Party files any legal action or administrative challenge to the
implementation of any component of the Integrated Reuse Project
(other than issuance of the NPDES permit or the supply of water to
the Habitat), IRWD shall have the right to unilaterally terminate
this MOU unless the City, within 10 days of the initiation of the
action, notifies IRWD in writing of its intent to defend or respond
to the action at the City's expense;
(ii). In the event any Citizen Opponent files any
lawsuit challenging the issuance of the NPDES permit for WWSP, or
irrigation of the Habitat. IRWD shall have the right to
unilaterally terminate this MOU unless the City, within 10 days of
the initiation of the action, notifies IRWD in writing of its
intent to pay the entire cost of any defense;
(iii) . In the event of any citizen opposition or Third
Party opposition to the discharge of excess flows into the CSDOC
outfall facility of the Santa Ana River or other lawful means of
discharge, City may elect to defend against, or respond to, that
opposition, or pursue another option at its election.
(iv). IRWD shall be solely responsible for defending
City and OCWD against any lawsuit, legal action, or administrative
appeal, other than those identified in Subsection (i) through
(iii) .
21
6. COMMITMENTS OF IRWD:
IRWD agrees not to exercise its rights to discharge Reclaimed
Water into San Diego Creek pursuant to the NPDES permit issued by
SARWQCB pursuant to the application currently on file, or any other
permit issued before or after the effective date of this MOU, so
long as IRWD has the legal right to transmit 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed
Water to OCWD during the period from October 1 through March 31,
and OCWD has the legal right to use, or otherwise lawfully dispose
of, at least 7.8 mgd. of Reclaimed Water during the period from
October 1 through March 31 and a Permanent Diversion Structure has
been installed and is operational in San Diego Creek with the
capacity to divert 10 cfs. to property owned by IRWD.
7. FORMAL AGREEMENT:
The Parties shall prepare a formal agreement consistent with
this MOU for submittal to, and approval by, the legislative bodies
of each of the Parties on or before July 15, 1996. The Parties
acknowledge that time is of the essence in preparing and obtaining
approval of the Formal Agreement.
8. DUTY TO COOPERATE:
The Parties have a duty to cooperate with one another relative
to the preparation, approval, and execution of a Formal Agreement
consistent with this MOU, to cooperate with one another in the
implementation of the various components of the Integrated Reuse
Project, that the City and IRWD shall cooperate with the City of
22
Irvine, and The Irvine Company with respect to the implementation
of the Marsh Enhancement Plan, and the Grant Deed. The Parties will
consider the formation of a committee or group comprised of some or
all of the Parties, and other interested public entities, private
entities and persons, and environmental organizations which will be
devoted to the improvement of water quality in Upper Newport Bay,
the enhancement of the San Joaquin Marsh, the preservation or
enhancement of habitat in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
9. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
The provisions of this MOU are intended to be binding on each
of the Parties. Each of the Parties acknowledges that, in the event
of any breach of this MOU, any of the non -breaching parties shall
have the right to obtain an order of specific performance, court of
competent jurisdiction, directing the breaching party to fully
comply with that Party's obligations pursuant to the provisions of
this MOU. The Parties acknowledge that certain rights will be
given up or waived between the date of approval of this MOU and the
execution of a Formal Agreement, and the non -breaching party would
not have an adequate remedy at law absent this provision for
specific performance.
Dated: , 1996
Approved as to Form:
By
General Counsel
Irvine Ranch Water District
23
Irvine Ranch Water District
By
President, Board of Directors
Approved as to Form:
By
Robert H. Burnham
City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
0
General Counsel
Orange County Water District
wb\agr\ocwd.mou
24
City of Newport Beach
By
John Hedges, Mayor
Orange County Water District
By
(May 16th:#2)