Judge extends Cal Am desal EIR comment period, citing potential conflict of interest.

California American Water's current desalination project is having a very serious moment of deja vu.

A ruling this afternoon by an administrative law judge for the California Public Utilities Commission has extended public comments on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project's draft environmental impact report from July 13 to Sept. 30.

The reason: a potential conflict of interest, which the Weekly first reported on June 17. The deja vu comes into play because Cal Am's last desal proposal, the Regional Desalination Project, collapsed due to a conflict of interest.

In a nutshell: Dennis Williams, president of Geoscience Support Services, has two potential conflicts that call into question the objectivity of his work on the Water Supply Project.

Williams holds several patents for test well technology. He also is part of the Hydrological Working Group that is monitoring Cal Am's desal test well, raising the question of whether he has a financial stake in how the test well performs.

Cal Am Vice President of Operations Richard Svindland has said the test well does not use any of Williams' patented technologies, but his firm, Geoscience, did design the test well. Geoscience also monitors the data collection onsite. 

The PUC contracts with Williams to do the modeling work on the test well, and Cal Am reimburses the PUC for his work.In another role, Williams is one of four hydrogeologists on the project's Hydrological Working Group, representing the PUC, not Cal Am.

Todays ruling says that's gotta stop. Here's most of it:

First: We have learned that one of our sub-contractors, an entity called Geosciences, also has a contractual relationship with Cal-Am, the MPWSP's proponent, and that Geosciences's contract with Cal-Am pertains to the MPWSP; and that the President of Geosciences holds one or more patents related to slant well technology that Cal-Am might or could use in the construction of the MPWSP.

The Commission takes this situation very seriously. As a result of concerns raised by these issues, after transitioning their work product to ESA, Geosciences will not do any more work for the Commission on this project.

The work that Geosciences had done for the Commission in the past relates specifically to that portion of the EIR addressing the MPWSP's impact on local groundwater resources. See MPWSP DEIR, Chapter 4.4. We are now regarding that work as if it had been performed by the proponent, Cal-Am, rather than as the Commission's work product. We are considering options to independently evaluate the accuracy and credibility of that work, including but not limited to entering into a contract with a neutral third party to review that work; and/or opening up that work to review by the parties to this proceeding, or by the public at large.

During the remainder of the Draft EIR comment period, we specifically invite you to comment on the issues raised above, and we solicit your suggestions as to what remedies, if any, we should undertake.

Second: Independent of the possible conflicts addressed above, several parties have submitted comments asking for greater access to the data, models, and assumptions used by Geosciences in the hydrogeology modeling work they have performed. That is not required by CEQA, and ordinarily, the Commission would not make those data, models, or assumptions available to the public. But this is not an ordinary situation. Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to make that information available to the parties…

Third: Independent of the issues raised above, we have received a comment from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) indicating that the Draft EIR should be recirculated as a joint state/federal environmental document under both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Sanctuary has stated that they would be the appropriate NEPA Lead Agency.

Recirculating the MPWSP environmental document as a joint CEQA/NEPA document would allow the Commission to complete its fact-finding into the Geosciences issues discussed above, and would allow the parties an additional opportunity to comment on those issues, as well as any other subjects contained in the joint CEQA/NEPA document. This would also allow the Commission to perform a more detailed analysis of several possible alternatives to the MPWSP, including the People's Moss Landing Water Desalination Project, and the Monterey Bay Regional Water Project (commonly known as the Deepwater Desal project).

Public comments are now due by Sept. 30 and can be emailed to MPWSPEIR@esassoc.com.