What’s in a word? When it comes to water supply, everything.

Sara Rubin here, with words on my mind. I think about words a lot—unfair advantage, I’m a writer and editor—but it was a surprise when members of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board of directors found themselves deeply embroiled in a conversation about vocabulary when they met last week on Jan. 27. 

The issue at hand was whether to adopt Ordinance No. 197, establishing how much water will be allocated to each jurisdiction within MPWMD’s area once more recycled water is produced. (Specifically, this is water projected from the expansion of Pure Water Monterey, a project anticipated to be completed by the end of this year.)

An ordinance requires two readings; the MPWMD board had already done a first reading in December. That’s usually where the sausage is made—deliberations may be heated as issues are sorted and questions are answered. A second reading is in general more of a perfunctory matter. 

But in this case, that was not to be. Enter new MPWMD board member Kate Daniels, who was sworn in as a county supervisor and appointed to rep the county on various boards and commissions at the start of 2025. And she had some questions. 

Primarily, she amplified a question that another county agency was asking. Ara Azhderian is general manager of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, and he wrote a letter asking MPWMD to rethink one word in the ordinance.

“The [Monterey County Water Resources Agency] protests the characterization of the proposed allocation as a ‘permanent replacement water supply…’

“We are concerned that jurisdictions of the District will make irreversible land use decisions that increase and harden water demand based upon the promise of an anticipated supply that is variable and subject to interruption and alternative use.” 

While there is no specific alternative use proposed today, MCWRA’s beef is that someday there might be. The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, for instance, is at work on a plan due in 2027 that may incorporate recycled water into supply. What if, in the long-range future, another entity wants to lay claim to this water but it’s already spoken for, on a “permanent” basis?

Daniels was insistent on addressing Azhderian’s concern. “My question: Can you remove the word “permanent” and still have this ordinance, and vote on it tonight?”

Seems simple enough, but in the water world, nothing is simple. There is a desire by MPWMD to persuade the State Water Board that recycled water is sufficient to lift the cease-and-desist order that prohibits the installation of new water meters. 

Board members were attached to keeping the “permanent” despite Daniels’ hesitation. “I think the issue of permanence is semantics more than projecting events out into the future,” board chair George Riley said. Then a few minutes later, frustrated: “Are we supposed to be Merriam-Webster, defining a word?”

Board member Karen Paull was first to come around to Daniels’ side, and noted that when it comes to the big picture—do we or don’t we need a desalination plant, should or shouldn’t the state board lift the order—the water district cannot will it into being simply by saying it’s true. “In reality, the state water board is going to make up its own mind, whether we call it permanent or not,” she said. 

Most others came around, some begrudgingly. (Alvin Edwards chalked up the opposition to “permanent” as a pro-desalination argument in disguise. “It just upsets me that we go through this every time,” he said.)

Amy Anderson wanted the district to maintain consistency about the promise of Pure Water Monterey. “That has been our message to the public. I don’t see why we would change our message after calling it a permanent supply,” she said. 

In the end, Riley amended his own motion to strike the word “permanent” from the ordinance. The board voted 6-1, with Anderson dissenting, to approve the allocations. 

The board might have saved its relationship with a key partner. And that matters more than the word. As the state board itself has indicated, consensus among local stakeholders is part of what they want to see in order to lift the cease-and-desist order.