MPWMD board votes to initiate eminent domain proceedings to buy out Cal Am’s local system.

It’s not the beginning, or the end – it’s the middle of the middle.

On Tuesday, Oct. 10, scores of Peninsula residents filed into MIIS’s Irvine Auditorium in downtown Monterey for a long-awaited meeting: In 2018, Peninsula voters passed Measure J, which compelled the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to pursue a buyout of Cal Am’s local system, if feasible.

On this night, finally, the board would cast their vote as to whether to move ahead with eminent domain proceedings in court and initiate a winner-takes-all contest for who will own the local water system: A public agency, which is subject to laws regarding transparency and a board that is subject to accountability, or an investor-owned utility subject to the aims of its investors?

The meeting started with MPWMD Director George Riley – who was first elected in 2018 – announcing he would recuse himself from the vote; Riley was a driving force behind Public Water Now, the activist group that brought Measure J. He then left the building.

Doug Dennington, the district’s special counsel, then launched into an explanation of eminent domain law, emphasizing that the board must retain its discretion – just because the public passed the ballot measure, each director was to vote independently, with an open mind, regardless of whether the buyout has been found to be financially feasible. MPWMD General Manager Dave Stoldt added that feasibility, in this case, is not just defined by cost – but also transparency, quality of service and governance, and legality.

Cal Am’s Chris Cook and Evan Jacobs were given 30 minutes to speak, and each attempted to articulate why a buyout is bad for ratepayers. Public comment stretched nearly two hours, and a rough count tallied 38 speakers in favor of a buyout and 20 who were against it.

The board members had their chance to make comments just after 8pm. Director Karen Paull highlighted some of the 83 findings in the district’s report, each backed by evidence with footnotes, that made the case for why a buyout is in the public’s benefit. She added that a publicly owned utility would bring transparency and accountability. “Public agencies, including the district, are a fish bowl,” she said.

Director Marc Eisenhart also made note of the findings, and emphasized every time he mentioned one, “… with evidence.” He said he expected to hear from Cal Am if the district had gotten anything wrong, including when he recently received a 14-page letter from a Cal Am attorney.

“Instead, I get ‘We’re not going to tell you,’” he said. “On footnote 5 on page 11, this is what their lawyer says: ‘The district’s vast resolution includes 83 proposed findings. These are mere surplusage, and do not need to be addressed by Cal Am.’” Some laughter ensued. “It’s comical, isn’t it?”

When it came time for a decision just before 9pm, the board voted 6-0 to adopt the resolution. Applause and cheers filled the auditorium.

The district now has six months to file its eminent domain lawsuit in Monterey County Superior Court.