A rejection of next steps for a buyout of Cal Am is a failure of democracy.

In 2018, California American Water spent $2.1 million urging Monterey Peninsula voters to reject Measure J, a public buyout initiative, yet the measure passed overwhelmingly, with 55.8 percent of the vote on Nov. 6.

What has followed in the three years since that election is a long slog of studies and analyses, commissioned by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, seeking to determine if it is feasible to pursue a public buyout, as the district is directed to do. The latest in that string of procedural steps was approval from an esoteric government agency, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County, which represents something of a third-party gatekeeper. Instead of a determination by the water district or its arch-nemesis Cal Am, this was an analysis from a neutral government agency. LAFCO staff spent months studying the question of whether it’s feasible for the water district to publicly acquire Cal Am, and their answer was yes. Referring to a ream of documents 189 pages deep, LAFCO Executive Officer told commissioners on Dec. 6: “These items provide a body of evidence that acquisition is feasible.”

There are, of course, unanswered questions in what would be the largest eminent domain case in California history if the buyout moves forward. Among the issues: a government property owner, rather than a private company, would mean $1.3 million less in property tax revenue, affecting dozens of agencies.

Commissioner Pete Poitras, who represents special districts on LAFCO and is president of the Monterey County Regional Fire District board, was looking at an estimated loss of $140,000 per year in revenue: “That represents a firefighter. We can’t afford to lose a firefighter as a result of this,” he said.

Commissioner Mary Ann Leffel, of the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, echoed that: “I do not believe I can in good faith take from one part of the community to make another part of the community happy.”

Nobody ever said a public buyout of a private company that is not for sale would be seamless or without hidden expenses. But what voters said, loudly and clearly, is that they want the water district to pursue a buyout of Cal Am – if feasible. The loss of a firefighter at one agency, while a burden, does not impact the feasibility of a buyout of Cal Am.

Generalized opposition to the public sector was part of the guiding logic as LAFCO commissioners laid out their arguments for ignoring their own staff’s determination.

“I’m definitely from the private sector, not the public sector. I don’t think government can run anything efficiently,” said Commissioner Matt Gourley, a former Gonzales City Council member, before making a motion to deny the water district’s application. (Serious question: Why serve in government, then?)

LAFCO commissioners Chris Lopez (a county supervisor) and Kimbley Craig (mayor of Salinas) joined in the no bandwagon – too many uncertainties, they said.

Next up is the inevitable lawsuit. The day after the vote, MPWMD Chair Alvin Edwards told Weekly Staff Writer Christopher Neely the district will sue LAFCO over blocking them from fulfilling their obligations under Measure J.

Joining Commissioner Wendy Root Askew on the losing side of the 5-2 vote, Ian Oglesby (Seaside’s mayor) said: “In my opinion, a judge or a jury would be very comfortable deciding in the district’s favor that LAFCO’s board disregarded the facts, as set out before us in our own draft study. I believe the only legally defensible position for me is to vote to approve.”

It’s always been presumed that it will be a judge who decides if it’s really feasible. But that’s supposed to be about substantive questions – whether the water district can operate the system at a reasonable cost. Instead, a court will now decide on this procedural step: Did LAFCO err in denying the water district’s request to activate its “latent powers”?

If Oglesby is right, and if the LAFCO’s staff analysis is right, the answer is an obvious yes.

Next, LAFCO staff will put their work in the shredder and write a new resolution in defense of the commission’s no vote, so they have something to stand on in court. Whatever happens legally, LAFCO commissioners are ultimately accountable to voters – the same voters who approved Measure J.

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