A private meeting about Peninsula water is supposed to lead toward consensus, but consensus remains elusive.

Sara Rubin here, thinking about how easy it would’ve been from a journalistic perspective if our team at the Weekly could have simply scored an invitation to a private roundtable meeting hosted last Friday, July 26, by State Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. One of the chronic frustrations facing his constituents on the Monterey Peninsula is a cease-and-desist order, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2009, stopping new water hookups. 

Even more frustrating is that nobody seems to have a clear answer about what it will take to persuade the state water board to lift that order. Seeking clarity on what they want to see, Laird and his staff convened the closed-door meeting, featuring Erik Ekdahl, deputy director for the Division of Water Rights. The idea was to hear the answer straight from the horse’s mouth—the horse, in this case, being the state water board—whether or not recycled water will be deemed sufficient, or if desalination will be required. 

If clarity is a goal, I think it’s helpful to have the press in the room to translate what Ekdahl and others had to say to the general public. But that was not to be. In a letter to 56 hand-selected invitees, Laird staffer (and also Monterey County supervisor-elect) Kate Daniels wrote, “If you did not receive this invitation personally, you will not be on this list at check in…Please note, this is not a media event.” 

That did not stop Weekly staff writer Pam Marino from trying to attend, only to be turned away at the door. 

“I do mediations and facilitations all the time, and they are almost always closed so people feel free to talk and they don’t feel like they are grandstanding,” Laird told me afterwards. That this group was larger, he says, doesn’t change the premise. 

“The bottom line is, if people can come to some agreement on water supply, there’s a path to come back to the water board,” Laird offers as his takeaway. “That’s the best we could’ve hoped for.”

The trouble remains, consensus is as elusive as ever—even about what was said in the meeting. When we couldn’t land an invitation into the room, Laird’s staff suggested I speak to people afterwards. So I spent the better part of the past week calling participants, and spoke to seven of them. Their tellings remain as divergent as the perspectives they walked into the room with. Some said no long-term water supply is needed, and short-term will be enough. Others said the water board clearly views Cal Am as the antagonist. (Cal Am President Kevin Tilden declined an interview, and instead sent a statement saying the company continues full steam ahead on desalination.) 

For my part, I’m no closer to answering the question: What will it take to persuade the state water board we have enough water supply to lift the moratorium? For a meeting meant to deliver clarity behind closed doors, the messages flowing out to the public remain quite murky. 

There were some clarifying procedural takeaways (you can read more about them here), but as to the big question, it remains unanswered.

Newsletter

Peninsula’s water woes remain murky. Laguna Seca agreement completed. Kaiser makes it official.