Squid revels in the sooper-seekret Monterey Downs documents accidentally released by Seaside.

Early Christmas…When a plain brown envelope arrives in Squid's mailbox this time of year, Squid wonders whether it's secret documents or another 8-armed sweater from grandma. 

Hallelujah, people: This year it was secret documents. 

There was the usual array of stuff in Squid’s P.O. box when Squid checked the mail: the latest edition of Cephalopod Monthly, with advice on how a single cephalopod can better cover local elections and make the most of inter-species dating; and that plain brown envelope marked “Hush Hush.” 

And the document the envelope contained provided mega-insight into the minds and methods of those planning Monterey Downs—especially as the proposed horse track/housing development relates to water. Or lack thereof.

In short, there's not enough water to do the whole project, and they know it.

The 16-page document was written by a trio of attorneys with the Los Angeles firm Richards Watson Gershon and carries the inelegant subject line, “Water Supply Analysis Requirements for the Monterey Downs Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.”

Yawn, right?

Except there’s an epic cringeworthy part. On every single page, there’s the following notice: “Confidential. This material is subject to attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privileges. Do not disclose the contents hereof. Do not file with publicly accessible records.”

Whoopsies. Apparently, in response to a sweeping Public Records Act request from the activist group Keep Fort Ord Wild, the city of Seaside released all emails with Monterey Downs in the subject line—including this one.

The memo, written in July to Teri Wissler Adam, a contract planner with Seaside, and Lisa Brinton, Seaside’s community and economic development services manager, seeks to answer four questions about the Monterey Downs water supply assessment—basically, how much water do they need, really, for all them horses and all them homes?

One of the questions asked by the city: Must the city include a specific water demand in the Monterey Downs EIR, or can the EIR refer to a range of anticipated water demands based on competing numbers? The surprisingly measured answer from the attorneys: “The EIR must adequately address the environmental consequences of providing a long-term water supply for the proposed development. Practically speaking, this requires the EIR to include an accurate representation of the project’s projected water demand.”

In other words, it ain't a solid EIR without a solid number.

“We recommend selecting the most conservative methodology to avoid underestimating water demand and the environmental impacts of providing water to the project,” the attorneys write.

Squid’s favorite question, though, is No. 4: How should the city address future allocations of its remaining available water supply?

The answer: Uh, what remaining available water supply?

“The EIR acknowledges that the project does not have sufficient water supplies to serve all phases of the development. The EIR should include a statement that the project has a potentially significant impact on water supplies without mitigation,” the memo states.

In other words: Seaside doesn’t have the water for Downs, and it’ll take some serious water magic to come up with it.

According to the memo, the Monterey Downs draft EIR (which is 14 months late and counting, although the city swears it’s coming soon) states 539 acre-feet per year of groundwater is available to serve Downs—but the attorneys warn that any uncertainty over that number has to be disclosed. The EIR also “fails to explain” to what extent saltwater intrusion makes that number uncertain, the memo states.

And the pièce de résistance of this memo? The EIR identifies a recycled water system and a desalination plant as potential sources of water to meet the projected supply shortfall. “But with respect to both facilities,” the memo explains, “it is not clear how much water supply is reasonably expected to be available to the project from each source, what the uncertainties are, or whether there are any contingencies if those facilities do not materialize.”

Squid shot an email Monday morning to the memo’s attorney authors—Kevin Ennis, Serita Young and Amanda Stein—to give them a heads up it had been released. Young writes back, “We are researching the disclosure of the privileged memorandum and will respond to you later today.” 

And just about an hour later she writes this: "We request that you not make the privileged document available to the public, or publish your article this afternoon regarding the document, in order for our office to research the specific document that was released to Keep Fort Ord Wild, the confidentiality of that document and the circumstances behind its release. We can provide you with comments as soon as we have concluded our review of the circumstances."

It’s raining again. Squid figures the Monterey Downs EIR is likely to be all wet along with the rest of us.