Katie Rodriguez here, reporting that the long-awaited and contentious eminent domain case between the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and California-American Water Company officially kicked off yesterday, Monday, Oct. 19.
The trial will determine whether the district has the legal authority to take over Cal Am’s water system. The private utility provides water to roughly 100,000 people with a network of more than 680 miles of pipeline and over 100 storage tanks, regularly touted by Cal Am as one of the most complex water systems in California.
Opening statements were delivered by Edward Schexnayder, an attorney representing the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and David Moran, an attorney representing Cal Am. The statements were followed promptly by testimony from Cal Am employees as the company began presenting its case for why it should continue operating the water system.
Some background: The fight over public ownership of the water system has been years in the making, accelerated with Measure J, which passed in 2018. Voters, frustrated with water bills which continued to rise and what appeared to be a higher than average rate, voted in favor of public ownership of the water system—provided the acquisition was determined to be feasible.
After the measure passed, a long string of hearings before the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, ensued. Those proceedings addressed a slightly different set of questions than the eminent domain case: whether the district could activate its latent authority to provide retail water service and whether parcels could be annexed into the district’s boundaries.
After LAFCO denied the district’s requests, the district filed an eminent domain lawsuit in December 2023. The case now before the Superior Court raises a broader question of whether the district has the legal authority to acquire Cal Am’s water system through eminent domain.
The LAFCO proceedings have since become a key part of the eminent domain case, with Cal Am pointing to the commission’s denial in support of its argument that the district lacks the legal authority to take over the system. Cal Am also questions whether the district has the capacity to operate a public water system serving households, schools and businesses.
In response, the district is expected to point to its existing role in managing public water supplies; the trial may even revisit broader disagreements over water management, including Cal Am’s proposed desalination plant and projections of future water demand.
The trial is scheduled to continue throughout the week. But even if the district ultimately acquires the system, one key question will remain: whether public ownership would result in significantly lower water rates for customers.