A proposed decision on Peninsula’s water needs paves the way for desal.

In 1987, the Carmel River Steelhead Association filed a complaint with the State Water Resources Control Board, arguing that utility company California American Water was pumping too much water from the Carmel River to supply users in and around the Monterey Peninsula, harming steelhead trout.

That state board agreed, and in 1995, issued Order 95-10, directing Cal Am to find a replacement water supply for river water it was illegally siphoning away from the habitat.

It’s 30 years later, and Cal Am has complied. Since 2021, it has pumped within its legal limit (3,376 acre-feet per year) from the Carmel, down from about 14,000 acre-feet at the time.

And yet Order 95-10 is still in place, with state officials calling for a “permanent replacement” supply before lifting it.

Until then, there’s a moratorium on new water meters in Cal Am’s service area, meaning it’s hard to build a new house or restaurant, and nearly impossible to add a bathroom.

For years, Cal Am and leaders in the hospitality industry have argued a “permanent replacement” will require massive new infrastructure – specifically, a desalination plant using reverse osmosis to transform brackish oceanfront water into drinking water. Cal Am’s many detractors have long argued the company is aiming way too big, over-projecting water consumption, and that a combination of other strategies (conservation, a high-tech recycled water system) are sufficient to get us there.

At the crux of the debate is a supply-and-demand forecast for 2050: How much reliable water supply will we have then, and how much water will we use?

Cal Am projects a relatively low supply and a high demand in 2050. Others – including the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the California Public Advocate’s Office, which advocates for fair utility bills – have argued Cal Am’s supply forecast is too low, and its demand prediction is too high.

There is no need to start taking longer showers.

This math matters because Cal Am has jumped through hoops to get a desalination plant approved, but only on the condition that desalinated water will be required to meet future supply. That makes the supply/demand determination a critical piece in determining whether Cal Am can break ground on its desal project.

In a proposed decision released on May 9, two administrative law judges at the California Public Utilities Commission laid out their determination. They agree with Cal Am’s high estimate – 13,732 acre-feet of water per year – as the projected water demand in 2050. (They did not agree with Cal Am’s low projections for supply that is generated by non-desal sources, going with a higher estimate of 11,204 acre-feet. “For a water supplier it’s troubling,” says Evan Jacobs, Cal Am’s director of external affairs. “It’s not just paper water. We have to deliver water on the driest and hottest day.”)

Commissioners could vote on the proposed decision as soon as June 12. If adopted, it will in essence greenlight the desal project. Jacobs says they expect to put it out to bid this year.

Opponents of desal have long argued the project will produce immensely expensive water that we won’t even need. The CPUC decision is the closest we are going to get to a third-party affirmation of whether or not this project is needed, and these judges are saying: We do.

My interest (and the community’s interest) is in getting to a number that persuades the state water board to lift Order 95-10, so we can finally build needed housing. But wherever that water supply comes from – recycled water, river water, desalinated water – I’m hoping our community sticks to the conservation principles we’ve worked hard to adopt. Just because the flow of the Carmel River is restored, there is no need to start taking longer showers or plant a lawn.

So I was taken aback by Jacobs’ expectation that individual water consumption will rise by 10 percent after a desalination plant comes online. A “scarcity mindset,” he argues, has led to personal conservation practices that people might shed – after they read in local news – that desalinated water is getting piped into our system.

I sure hope not. We’ve learned to be climate-smart water users, setting an example for Californians. And besides, the more water you use, the more you pay.

SARA RUBIN is the Weekly’s editor. Reach her at sara@montereycountynow.com