Tomorrow, June 26, the California Public Utilities Commission was scheduled to adopt a proposed decision regarding the Monterey Peninsula’s current water supply and forecasted demand by 2050.
And after already being rescheduled from the June 12 CPUC meeting by Commissioner Darcie Houck, who’s presiding over the matter, on June 24 Houck pulled it from the agenda again and rescheduled it until July 24, the CPUC’s next meeting.
Also on June 24, Cal Am filed a notice to report that eight people—six Cal Am employees and two Cal Am consultants—met over Webex with staff of four of the five CPUC commissioners (Houck’s Chief of Staff Victor Smith among them) for 30 minutes each, two on June 19 and two on June 20.
The talking points discussed were a rehashing of Cal Am’s disagreement with the proposed decision, which projected a 2050 water demand of 13,732 acre-feet per year—the number Cal Am had been pushing for, and far higher than five outside estimates—and a current water supply of 11,204 acre-feet per year, which Cal Am thinks is too high. Cal Am officials also reiterated why they think the demand numbers are correct.
Water demand on the Peninsula last year dipped below 9,000 acre-feet, the lowest level in decades, and the proposed decision presumes it will increase more than 4,500 acre-feet over the next 25 years.
Dave Stoldt, general manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, is frustrated by all the delay, because he wants to start working on a strategy to appeal to the State Water Board to lift the cease-and-desist order against Cal Am.
“I do need a decision with some numbers in it so I can figure out what it means, because that’s what the State Water Board needs,” Stoldt says. “As long as the CPUC doesn’t reverse course, I can work with the proposed decision. Do I think it’s wrong? Yes, but I can work with it.”
So stay tuned.
(2) comments
Right on Bill LIpe. And Thanks to Dave Schmalz. I didn't realize that a bad decision by the CPUP is better than no decision in terms of lifting the CDO with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Regardless of projections, it doesn't make too much sense. If the Peninsula is now under 9000 acre feet per year (afy) and will be producing 25% more than that (12,000afy) and storing the excess in the Seaside Aquifer then the SWRCB should lift the CDO regardless of the CPUC determinination.
The fact that CalAM has ex parte communications with 4 of 5 commisioners just points to the unequal playing field and extreme injustice of the problem. Cal Am has paid lobbyists who interact often and have offices in San Francisco, while the ratepayers pay for those lobbyist to advocate against their interests, while having no lobbyists of their own.
Glad tjat John Laird wrote a letter of support which may have been the reason the decision was pulled from the consent agenda and delayed again. Perhaps he is lobbying for us, but who knows.
The ongoing delays by the CPUC over Cal Am’s inflated demand projections have made one thing perfectly clear: Sacramento regulators don’t understand Monterey County’s water challenges—and don’t seem to care. We have real, local water agencies already tackling our region’s water crisis, from SVBGSA and Monterey One Water, to MCWRA and MPWMD. These are publicly accountable agencies working together to halt seawater intrusion, restore our aquifers, and secure a drought-resilient water supply.
It’s time we stopped waiting on the CPUC’s endless deliberations and Cal Am’s endless pursuit of profits. We already have local solutions for local problems. Let’s cut Cal Am loose, keep water decisions in local hands, and finally get this right.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.