Cal Am sues water management district
Coastal Commission staff wants more answers on revised desal project bid
California American Water has sued the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District challenging the environmental review of the district’s potential public takeover bid of the company’s local water system.
At the same time, Cal Am’s oft- delayed desalination project suffered another setback when California Coastal Commission staff declared a revised application submitted last month is incomplete, asking a series of questions and for additional information that could delay the proposal by several more months.
In a lawsuit filed Nov. 25 in Monterey County Superior Court, Cal Am requested the court order the water district to vacate and set aside its public ownership environmental impact report because it “sidestepped any analysis” of the proposed takeover by assuming and declaring the district would operate the Montereyarea system exactly the same way the company currently does. Cal Am called that assumption a “ploy” to avoid “any meaningful assessment” of potential environmental impacts and argued that the district’s own proposed public takeover operations plan contemplates a number of changes that would result in a “significant impact” on the environment, but the report failed to consider them.
Cal Am also asked the court to order the district to stop any fur
ther progress on the public takeover attempt until conducting a full environmental review.
On Oct. 29, the water district board voted 6-1 to certify the environmental impact report despite criticism from some board members, including former board member Gary Hoffmann who cast the lone dissenting vote, then decided to only consider a draft operations plan rather than approve a final plan as recommended by district General Manager Dave Stoldt.
Cal Am argued in its lawsuit that some board members agreed a public takeover would result in operational changes including with regard to water supply and rates but staff made no changes to the environmental impact report in response, and that district officials argued the district’s own draft operations plan is irrelevant to environmental review.
Stoldt said the suit was expected and is “part of the investor- owned utility playbook in these buyout situations.”
Under voter- approved Measure J, the water district has been pursuing a potential public acquisition and operation of Cal Am’s local water system, which the company has declared is not for sale meaning the district will likely need to seek a forced acquisition through eminent domain.
The district is required as part of the proposed public takeover to seek Local Agency Formation Commission approval to exercise its latent powers to produce water and distribute it to local customers, and district officials decided to pursue a full environmental impact report as part of that process.
Mea nwhile, C oa st a l Commission official Tom Luster sent Cal Am a Dec. 3 notice of incomplete coastal development permit application for the company’s desal project. Cal Am submitted a revised project permit application on Nov. 6 after withdrawing an earlier permit application in September.
Luster lists a number of reasons for the Cal Am desal project application being incomplete ranging from the administrative, such as missing documents, required approvals, and a list of interested parties, to the project description, such as project components in coastal waters, current and proposed well locations, water pipelines, and proposed modifications to the earlier project, and the effects on coastal resources including protection of area wetlands.
Cal Am spokeswoman Catherine Stedman said company officials are “in the process now of reviewing and evaluating” commission staff’s request for more information, and plan to respond while acknowledging it will take time to do so. Stedman noted that only when staff considers the application complete does the 180-day deadline for reviewing and considering the project kick in.
Project critic Jonas Minton of the Planning and Conservation League argued it will likely take six months to a year to submit the requested information, meaning several months or even years more of delay followed by a commission rejection, and said that means the proposed Pure Water Monterey expansion is the “only viable option the Monterey Peninsula has for increasing its water supply.”
Stoldt said the commission notice is “certainly a setback for the ( project) timeline.”
The water district on Monday postponed taking a position on the revised desal project application at the commission.
The Peninsula is now just over a year away from the state’s Carmel River pumping cutback order deadline set to take full effect at the end of 2021, and no new water supply project capable of meeting the local demand is on track for completion by then while there is also no sign of meaningful talks about extending the deadline, which has already been extended by five years.
That means the Peninsula is facing another missed Cal Am desal project milestone in September next year and the potential loss of another 1,000 acrefeet of river water following the current 1,000-acrefoot penalty from last September’s missed milestone that Cal Am declined to contest, and then the larger cutback at the end of next year.
Water district officials are considering asking the state water board to argue for retaining this year’s 1,000-acre-foot penalty, rejecting Cal Am’s argument that the water district might be considered responsible for the desal project delay due to its opposition at the commission. A letter to the state water board is expected to be considered later after a proposed letter was considered by the district board on Monday.
At the same time, local water officials have argued the Peninsula has reduced water use so much in recent years that it is less than 100 acre-feet per year from being able to comply with the 3,376- acre-foot river diversion limit under the order.
Cal Am argues that the desal project is needed to provide an adequate future water supply, including economic recovery, housing and other development, and Seaside basin recharge, but critics have argued that the Pure Water Monterey expansion would be finished sooner and cheaper, and would provide enough water for projected future needs for more than a quarter- century.
The core Pure Water Monterey project is already operating and has promised to eventually provide 3,500 acre-feet of recycled drinking water for the Peninsula as part of a water supply “portfolio” while acknowledging it needs additional injection well capacity to meet that goal.
On Monday, the water district board approved a cost-sharing agreement with Monterey One Water to cover the $10.8 million cost of two more deep injection wells for the project.