Nader Agha prevails in mediation, will keep Moss Landing property for now.

Nader Agha’s desalination dreams are still kicking, as it became public in court today that his Moss Landing Commercial Park—which has been the center of a foreclosure battle for more than a year—will remain in his possession for at least the next several months.

The foreclosure litigation began in August 2014 when Bank of the Sierra, the lead bank on Agha’s $18 million debt, sued to reclaim the property.

Other debtors on the property (which include Agha, who owns some of his own debt) have argued over the last year that by holding 58 percent of the total debt, they represent the majority, and they are unilaterally opposed to a foreclosure.

A mediation took place early this month that was presided over by retired Judge Nat Agliano, who sent his ruling to the parties last Friday: Agliano sided with Agha and the other debtors, and ruled Bank of the Sierra could not foreclose on the property in the next four months.

The outcome of the mediation became public this morning in Monterey Superior Court, where Agha’s attorneys Andrew Swartz and Paul Hart presented the news to Judge Thomas Wills. Swartz and Hart did not disclose details of Agliano’s ruling, other than to say he sided with the majority of debtors and ordered an injunction on foreclosure for at least four more months.

Hart said the two sides would need two more weeks to work out the implementation schedule of the mediation agreement.

It’s not the only news of late that bodes well for Agha’s proposed desalination plant at the Moss Landing site: this past August, an independent scientific report was published under the auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources, LLC, a company that was hoping to build a desal plant at Huntington Beach in southern California.

The report focused on feasibility of intake sources, comparing different subsurface options to open ocean intake.

Significantly, the report found that none of the subsurface options were economically feasible, and that the most viable subsurface option—a seafloor infiltration gallery—would create such costly water that there would be no market demand for it until at least 2033, or in some scenarios, 2058.

“The report does show a willingness, from the Coastal Commission side, to look at feasibility from a realistic perspective,” says Dave Stoldt, general manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. “That to me is the biggest take away.

“The report basically said that even if you could build it, the economics are such that you probably shouldn’t build it. That is an interesting take,” he says. “They have honed in on what feasibility means.”

As to whether that type of interpretation will hold up with the State Water Control Resources Board—which earlier this year expressed an explicit preference for subsurface intake sources—remains to be seen.

“Is that going to affect policy at [SWCRB] level? I’m not sure it’s going to, but it’s definitely going to start some conversation,” Stoldt says, while emphasizing the report was site-specific.

David Balch, one of Agha’s attorneys, is bullish on what the report might mean for Agha’s project.

“People are wondering how the word feasibility is going to get defined,” Balch says. “This suggests it’s the same factors we’ve been using.

“It bodes well.”