Ventana Chapter - Conservation Issues

Playing Politics with the Carmel River

October 2011

by Keith Vandevere and Julie Engell

Twenty-three years of controversy over the Carmel River has taught us an unfortunate truth. No government agency, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), can be counted on to look after the interests of the river or the ratepayers. If we want a healthy river and a sensible water production and delivery system, more of us than ever are going to have to start working for those goals. There is no other way.

Peninsula ratepayers will have no say in how the desal plant is operated and no way to question costs.

Repeatedly, customers of California American Water (Cal-Am) have been told that they must accept bad water projects, regardless of cost or environmental consequences, or the "State Water Resources Control Board will cut off our water and bring our economy to its knees."

The current proposed "fix" is the Regional Desalination Project, a project that is supposed to replace water illegally diverted from the Carmel River. Under the project's current operating agreements, the Marina Coast Water District will build a $400 million desal plant, with Peninsula ratepayers paying not only the high cost of the desalinated water actually delivered to them, but also nearly the entire cost of the water delivered to Marina Coast's customers. This arrangement leaves Marina Coast no real incentive to prevent costs from spiraling out of control. Peninsula ratepayers will have no say in how the plant is operated and no way to question costs. The project may not benefit the Carmel River and is likely to damage the Salinas River Basin, the source of the brackish water for the desal plant. Worst of all, water rights problems may prevent the project from delivering the full amount of water needed to offset illegal diversions from the Carmel River.

How we got here
A review of the history reveals that the State Water Board took an active role in creating the current crisis.

Back in 1973, Cal-Am asked the PUC for permission to increase its pumping in Carmel Valley, from a rate of about 4,500 acre-feet per year, to 6,000 acre-feet per year. The PUC refused. After reviewing the available evidence, they found that the aquifer could only sustain pumping of 4,500 acre-feet of water per year.

This wasn't the answer that developers or the political leadership of the Monterey Peninsula wanted. They wanted enough water for unconstrained growth, and pumping it out of Carmel Valley was the easiest and cheapest way to get it. They needed help and, less than a year later, the State Department of Water Resources came riding to the rescue. Water Resources released a scientifically dubious report contradicting the PUC's finding and estimating that a whopping 15,000 acre-feet of water per year could be sustainably pumped from Carmel Valley. The PUC quickly capitulated and granted Cal-Am permission to pump more than 11,000 acre-feet per year.

Carmel Valley residents and the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club vigorously disputed the conclusions of the Water Resources report. They opposed increased pumping on the grounds that it would dewater the river, kill steelhead, and lower the water table, killing riparian vegetation. They were ignored.

Pumping proponents argued that the Carmel Valley Aquifer was separate from the river and its underflow. Just as in the recent case of September Ranch, geologic experts were trotted out to theorize about impermeable geologic features forming barriers between the river and aquifer.

But when large-scale pumping actually began, the river, embarrassingly for Cal-Am, started running dry right next to the pumps. This wasn't just an environmental problem; it was also a legal problem. It demonstrated that Cal-Am was capturing river water which they did not have a legal right to divert.

In 1987, the Carmel Valley Steelhead Association filed a formal complaint over the illegal diversions with the State Water Resources Control Board. The Steelhead Association was soon joined in the complaint by the Carmel Valley Residents Water Committee, the Ventana Chapter, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The complaint languished. The SWRCB took no action. They allowed the illegal diversions to continue unhindered for eight long years.

Then, in 1995, the powers that be on the Monterey Peninsula wanted the people to approve an expensive new dam. A dam that would provide water for lots of new development, but still run dry during extended droughts, leaving residents facing worse and longer rationing than would have occurred with no project at all. Just like in 1973, the developers needed some help and, just as before, the state was there to provide it.

Just fixing leaks in Cal-Am's pumps and pipes that deliver water would reduce Cal-Am's current water use by about 10%.

Just a few months before the election, the SWRCB suddenly issued a ruling on the moldering Steelhead Association complaint. Order 95-10 found that all but 1,137 acre-feet per year of Cal-Am's diversions were, in fact, illegal and would have to stop. Order 95-10 was issued simultaneously with Decision 1632, granting the right to divert 24,000 acre-feet to storage behind the proposed dam. This would allow Cal-Am to legalize their diversions, but only if the voters approved the dam!

The political leadership of the Peninsula was quick to explain that this meant that the Peninsula's water supply would be cut off unless the dam were approved. But the voters wisely refused to support a bad project and voted the dam down. And the SWRCB did next to nothing to enforce Order 95-10 for the next 14 years.

A bad deal
In 2009, a coalition of self-interested agencies, public officials, and water consultants needed help promoting their extremely questionable deal to operate the Regional Desal Plant. Once again, the SWRCB was relied upon to provide their all-too-familiar spin. Like Rip Van Winkle arising from a long slumber, the SWRCB issued a Cease and Desist Order declaring that this time the Peninsula would absolutely, positively have to give up its illegal diversions from the Carmel River by December 31, 2016. And this threat of impending doom has been used to pressure Cal-Am ratepayers to accept any water deal without question.

And the deal is truly bad, not only for the reasons summarized above, but also because it was carefully structured to avoid giving Cal-Am ratepayers an opportunity to vote on it. After all, voters called the SWRCB's bluff in 1995 when they voted down a new dam. Why give them a chance to vote on a project that may be even worse?

That is why the "desal deal" was structured to exclude any participation by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the district charged with protecting the Carmel River and augmenting water supply, and whose directors are elected by Cal-Am's ratepayers. Instead, the project would be owned by three entities in partnership. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), which is responsible for the Salinas River Basin, would own source water wells in the Salinas Basin. The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), which provides water to Marina and Fort Ord, would own the desalination plant. Cal-Am would own the $100 million pipeline to transport the desalinated water to Cal-Am ratepayers.

Ironically, the "desal deal" began to unravel when a conflict of interest came to light. It was revealed that one of the project's most vocal proponents, long-time MCWRA board member Steve Collins, was paid $160,000 by water consultant RMC during the year that RMC secured a $28 million contract to manage the desalination project. Both the Monterey County District Attorney and the State Fair Political Practices Commission are conducting investigations. There are conflicting claims among the desal partners about who knew what and when. After much finger pointing and after Monterey County Counsel declared that the project agreements were voided by the conflict of interest, the three ownership entities have begun a dispute resolution process. The peninsula mayors agreed to meet in secret over the next six months to figure out how to resurrect the project. The most recent casualty in the conflict is Curtis Weeks, head of MCWRA, who was forced to resign by a politically embarrassed Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

This August, citing environmental concerns and a desire to avoid being drawn into the quagmire, the California Coastal Commission denied a key permit for the project to drill test wells.

Another solution:
Incremental approach
The Regional Desalination Project is far from a done deal. Moreover, despite claims by project proponents, it's not the only deal in town. There is an incremental approach to solving our water problems that consists of several projects, including a much smaller desalination plant that could be located within Cal-Am ratepayers' own district. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has already implemented and is preparing to expand its Aquifer Storage and Recovery program. Aquifer Storage and Recovery involves diverting excess winter flows from the Carmel River into the Seaside Aquifer so that it can be pumped out when it's needed during the summer. The District plans to receive highly treated recycled water from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency for landscape irrigation and is currently negotiating to expand the recycled water it receives, storing it in the Seaside Aquifer for future use. Just fixing leaks in Cal-Am's pumps and pipes that deliver water would reduce Cal-Am's current water use by about 10%. Taken together, this incremental approach would cut the size of the desal plant by at least half; and the smaller size could bring the plant much closer to home.

The Regional Desalination Project is far from a done deal.

This incremental approach is similar to the Hybrid Regional Plan proposed in 2010 by a coalition of environmental groups including the Ventana Chapter, the Monterey Peninsula League of Women Voters, LandWatch Monterey County, and the Prunedale Neighbors Group. Just as the warnings about over-pumping the Carmel River were dismissed in the 1970s, the Hybrid Regional Plan was dismissed by the same powerful interests. We were right then. We're right now.

Now is the time for everyone who cares about the Carmel River and cares about a sensible water system to vote for the right candidates for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District: Regina Doyle and Kristi Markey. They are committed to protecting the river and to a series of small-to-medium sized projects that actually delivers reasonably priced water to ratepayers.

Now is also the time to bring pressure to bear against the politicians—city, county, state, and federal who remain committed to a huge and disastrous desalination project with no local control.

Hybrid Regional Plan
The Ventana Chapter joined a coalition composed of the League of Women Voters, LandWatch Monterey County, the Carmel Valley Association, and the Prunedale Preservation Alliance to develop and advocate for a modified regional project called the Hybrid Regional Plan. The Hybrid Regional Plan proposed an incremental approach to reducing demand from the Carmel River, using the most easily developed, most sustainable, and least expensive new sources of water first, followed by developing a smaller desalination plant.

Despite our efforts, the Hybrid Regional Plan was dismissed as “too expensive” and “obstructionist” by local political leaders and by desalination plan proponents. The PUC approved the Regional Project without significant amendment in December 2010.

Costs
Project costs skyrocketed between the time the project was proposed and when it was approved. Project proponents estimate the cost of the approved Regional Project to be $500 million or more. That translates to between $4000 - $6000 per acre-foot, and according to the PUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates, could reach $9000 per acre-foot. This contrasts with the original cost estimate of $2000 per acre-foot.

The Ventana Chapter, in concert with its coalition partners, continues to closely monitor the Regional Desalination Project in Monterey County and will continue to advocate for improvements in the project.

< back to all issues