Candidate John Barry Smith:
Water is second only to air in importance to us residents of Carmel Valley. Our water supply is currently threatened by proposed rules of rationing. We residents have no voice nor seat at the table while discussions are ongoing about our water. Incorporation into the Town of Carmel Valley is the best way for our opinions to be heard and for us to have a fair allotment of water. If elected to the Town council should the Town of Carmel Valley be incorporated, I vow to keep the water that falls on our lands and runs to our river into our aquifer should be first used for our citizens.
From Public Utilities Commission letter: "Currently water use in Monterey averages 70 gallons per-capita per day (GPCD) . This is the lowest usage of any region in California and it reflects the effectiveness of the conservation efforts taken by Cal-Am, the MPWMD, the broader Monterey community, and others since your order was issued. By contrast, Sacramento average usage is over 250 GPCD. According to the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the 2005 statewide GPCD is 192 GPCD. Under the proposed CDO, the current lowest GPCD in California would be reduced to the lowest levels actually experienced in the industrialized world."
We in 'broader Monterey community' are not wasting water, in fact, we are using it wisely and carefully, more than most communities in the state. To put us on rationing is unfair and wrong. To deny us the water to bathe, do the dishes, and water our gardens which are so precious to us is intolerable. As an elected representative of the citizens of Carmel Valley, I will insist on a fair shake when meeting with state officials regarding the water that runs in the Carmel River and the aquifers that lie under it.
Regardless of how you feel about tourists, or golf courses, or needy big cities, regardless of what you look like or what TV shows you watch, water is very, very important to you and to all of us. Incorporation into a town is the best and only way our opinions can influence how our water is allocated.
John Barry Smith
Larger image here of Carmel Valley River flow and Aquifer
Larger image here of Allowable Diversions
Larger image here of Water Production
PUC urges state water officials to reconsider Cal Am order
Local economy would suffer, letter says
By DANIEL LOPEZ
Herald Staff Writer
Updated: 08/28/2009 08:34:26 AM PDT
The state Public Utilities Commission has asked another state panel to reconsider the terms of a cease-and-desist order on pumping water from the Carmel River.
In a letter sent earlier this month to the Water Resources Control Board, the PUC suggests that a 25 percent reduction over the next 10 years in California American Water's annual diversions from the river is unachievable.
The five-page letter, signed by PUC Executive Director Paul Clanon, said the terms of the order would have a serious negative impact on the health and public safety of Peninsula residents. The order would carry a hefty price tag.
About 75 percent of the water Cal Am supplies to Peninsula customers comes from the river, but since 1995 the company has been under state orders to reduce its yearly take.
The ruling made 14 years ago established that Cal Am has a legal right to only about 3,400 acre-feet of river water annually.
In January, the state water board first proposed clamping down on Cal Am's continued pumping above the legal limit.
Cal Am says customers may see their water use limited to 30 to 50 gallons per person per day if the order is approved, and outdoor watering would have to end. The average person uses about 70 gallons of water per day.
Local governments, business interests and Cal Am have protested the possibility of reductions, claiming it will ruin the local economy.
"We all want to get off the river," Cal Am spokeswoman Catherine Bowie said Thursday.
Cal Am's hope is that the state board will consider all arguments, she said, and give the company more time to develop an alternative water source before imposing reductions.
The PUC noted that Cal Am customers in the Monterey area already have what it calls "the most stringent conservation conditions in the state" and that a recently approved rate increase should increase conservation.
The commission suggests that the state water board should "work out a realistic timeline" with Cal Am so that reductions on pumping will coincide with the completion of new water system upgrades.
"There is a very real possibility that Cal Am will find itself short several thousand acre-feet of water in advance of the completion of any new project," the PUC writes.
Cal Am is pursuing development of a Coastal Water Project and a final environmental impact report is expected to be issued next month.
The EIR evaluated three possible new sources of water designed to bring Cal Am's pumping on the river into compliance with the limits established in 1995.
A decision from the PUC identifying the best solution based on the EIR is expected in May.
"At this critical time, it would be extremely disruptive to impose immediate and harsh water supply reductions on Cal Am," the PUC wrote.
The state water board has scheduled a workshop in Sacramento on Wednesday to discuss the draft order.
Daniel Lopez can be reached at 646-4494 or dlopez@montereyherald.com.
Pine Cone article below:
State agencies duel over Peninsula’s water supply
■ PUC to SWRCB: Cutbacks would threaten ‘health and safety’
By KELLY NIX
WHILE ONE state agency is considering imposing harsh cutbacks on the Monterey Peninsula’s meager water supply, another state agency is warning it to back off.
The State Water Resources Control Board is considering a cease and desist order, proposed in January 2008 and
revised July 27, that would limit Peninsula customers to between 30 and 50 gallons per person per day, a tiny amount.
But in a dramatic, five-page letter sent Aug. 20 to the SWRCB, Paul Clanon, executive director of the California Public Utilities Commission, said if the order were finalized, it would be “severe for Monterey Peninsula residents and businesses.”
The order “cannot be met except at unreasonable cost and with serious negative impact on the health and safety ofPeninsula residents,” Clanon wrote. The SWRCB ruled almost 15 years ago that California
American Water company was illegally diverting water from the Carmel River, which harmed the steelhead trout and red- legged frog populations that inhabit it.
Environmental and conservation organizations, such as the Carmel River Steelhead Association and the Sierra Club, have long called for Cal Am to stop overpumping.
And while strict conservation measures have long been in place, and water permits for new construction, remodels and businesses are essentially unavailable, there also have been no permits issued for a new water supply to eliminate excess pumping from the river, leaving the Peninsula’s roughly 40,000 water customers caught in the middle.
Clanon’s letter comes one week before the SWRCB is to hold a public hearing in Sacramento on the proposed order, which could be adopted as soon as Oct. 1.
The order would likely mean a complete moratorium on new water connections and elimination of all outdoor water use, Cal Am said last week.
Clanon urged the SWRCB to hold off imposing the order and to work out a “realistic timeline” with Cal Am to resolve the issue.
‘Efforts need time’
The CPUC throughout the years, he said, has been committed to conserving water on the Peninsula to reduce the need to pump from the Carmel River. The agency and others have imposed a number of strict measures, including a 35 percent rate increase in May, to achieve that, Clanon said.
“Existing residents of Monterey are under the most stringent conservation conditions in the state and have achieved the lowest per-capita consumption of any region,” he wrote.
The CPUC is in the process of weighing which of several water supply projects would best suit the Peninsula’s needs. The agency’s staff is expected to make its decision in May 2010. The agency also has a conservation goal to reduce the Peninsula’s customer consumption from three to six percent over three years.
Both agencies have also ordered Cal Am to fix leaky pipes to reduce water loss — work which will cost millions.
But Clanon told the SWRCB “these efforts will need time to come to fruition.” If the SWRCB adopts the cease and desist order now, it would only hurt Peninsula water cus- tomers, he said.
“At this critical time,” Clanon wrote, “it would be extremely disruptive to impose immediate and harsh water supply reductions.”
Cal Am spokeswoman Catherine Bowie said her company was “extremely gratified” the CPUC recognized all the effort Cal Am is putting into solving the Peninsula’s water shortage.
Peninsula residents on average use about 70 gallons per capita per day, while Sacramento residents use more than 250 gallons of water per capita per day, Clanon wrote.
The statewide average is about 190 gallons per capita per day.
“Under the proposed” order, Clanon said, “the current lowest [gallons per capita, per day] in California would be reduced to the lowest levels actually experienced in the industrialized world.”
Last week, Cal Am general manager Craig Anthony said he didn’t know if the Peninsula had a lot of room left to conserve water.
Clanon suggested the SWRCB and the CPUC coordinate its efforts to resolve the Peninsula’s water problems.
“We are all frustrated that a permanent solution to over- diversions by CaI Am of the Carmel River is not yet in effect,” Clanon said. “We believe, however, that we are close.”
PUC letter:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIESCOMMISSION 508 VAN ?ESSAVENUE 8AN FRANCISCO,CA 9410242W
August 29,2009
JeanineTownsend, CIerk to the Board State WaterResourcesControlBod 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Re:July27.2009 Draft Cease and Desist Orderinthe Matter of the Unauthorized DiversionandUseofWaterby the CaliforniaAmerican Water Com~my
Dear Ms. Townsend:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the State Water Resources Control Board's new draRC w e and Desist Order (CDO) inthe Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water by the California American Water Company (Cal-Am). TheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(Commission)hasrateand serviceregulationresponsibiIityover Cal-Plm throughoutCalifornia. ThisCommission is intimately familiar with both Cal-Am's operations and the unique and complex water supply issues on the Monterey Peninsula, and we are entrwted with ensuring that utility consumershave safe, reliable utility sewice at rereasonable rates, in compliance with all laws and regulations.
This letter presents i n f o d o n about the regulatory paIicies we have put in place for Cd-Amandhowwehavebeenworkingtoresolvethiscrisis. Itisanexpositionofthe Commission's actions since Order WR 95-10was issued,including a detailed review of the conservationpolicieswe have imposed upon Cal-Am, in recent orders, and a suggestion that at this time, it would be disruptive to impost immediate and harsh water supplyreductionsonCd-Am. WeurgetheBoardtoworkoutarealistictimeline cooperatively with Cal-Am and ?heCommissionto align the effective b t e of the ultimate Order with the completion of new system upgrades now contemplated,
Since Order WR 95-10 was issued, this Commissionhasissuednumerous rate and service decisions, commissioned studies, and imposed a number ofstringent consecvationmeasuresonCal-Am. Thevariouslocalwatermanagementagencieshave likewise made good faith attempts to reduce the overall water deficit conditionsthat prevail in Monterey. TheCommunityhasalso responded, and MontereyPeninsula's water consumptionhas dropped o v a 5,000 acre-feet per m u m (AFA) from its peak in 1987, despite service connection growth of over 20 percent.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGQER, Govemw
Inshort, evenwith the current level of overdrafl of the Camel River, existingresidents of Monterey are under the most stringentconservation conditions in theState, and have achieved the lowest per-capita consumption of anyregion, Despite numerous unsuccessfulandcostly attempts to secure alternative sources of water, and a dramatic reduction in water usage, the Came1River issueremains a major concern among the manywaterproblemsthatbedevilMonterey. Thehistoricproliferationofparticular interests has made any practical solution elusive thus far. We are confident that our currentprocess,setto concludeinMay2010,willauthorizeapermanentsolutiontothe over&@ problem,
The Commission has proactively worked with Cal-Am to develop water conservation strategiesoverthepast14years. In2009alone,theCommissionhasissuedthree decisions that implement steeply t i e d conservation rate designs, put in place comprehensive voluntary and mandatory conservation programs, address system loss issues, and greatly increase funding for water conservation programs.
On May 21,2009, the Commission issued Decision No. 09-05-029 which adopted a three-year conservation budget of $2,4million for Cal-Am and $1.2 million for its conservation project p m e r Monterey Peninsula W a m Management District (MPWMD) for calendar y m 2009-20 11. The conservation goal is to reduce per customer consumption at least three- to six-percent over three years.
WefollowedwithtwomoredecisionsissuedonJuly9,2009. The&st, DscisionNo. 09-07-021, orders Cal-Am to:
Implement a steeply-tiered five block conservation rate design with the highest block priced 10 times higher than the first block; Replace $7.1 million of leak- and break-prone pipeline; Install 13,500 new water meters at a cost of $2.5 million
Reduce unaccounted for Water from 1I ,5-percentto 9-percent inthe short term with a corresponding financial incentive I penalty program to make this reduction obligatory, and with the expectation that fwther reductions can be achieved; and
Develop a program to reduce or prohibit the use of potable water for landscape irrigation during periods of maximum system demand.
This decision raised water rates by about 35-percent, and the water rates and the tiered blocks that we implemented are by far the highest we have ever approved, During the public participation hearings,many residentid and business customers expressed great distressovertheimpactsonfamiliesandbusinessesofincreasingwaterrates, The CDO's aggressive supply reduction schedule, if not changed, will put even more upward pressure on rates.
The second, Decision No. 09-07-023, adopts new conservationtariff rules for Cal-Am that:
Include comprehensive expanded conservation and rationing plan that coordinates Cal-Am's and MPWMD's response to severe water supply limitations; Limit specific types of outdoor watering, establish water budgets for large water users, and allocate each customer a water ration; and
Implement emergency conservation rates and later rationing rates, including the installation of flow restrictor devices for water wasters.
These rulesare the most stringent of my the Commission has imposed on any investor- owned utility. I cite these decisions to demonstrate to the Board our commitment to water conservation on the Monterey Peninsula to reduce the need forCame1River water.
In 2004, Cd-Am applied for a Certificateof Public Convenience andNecessity (CPCN) to resolve its long-term water supply deficit in Monterey, and that proceeding, Application04-09-019,isongoing. Multiplep& wreunderconsiderationtoprovide sufficient alternative water resources that upon completion, Cd-Am would be able to construct and operate a new water supply project and end permanently any overdraft of theCarmelRiver. Theapplicationwasfiledinresponsetoastudycommissionedby the commission, known as the "Plan B Project Report," issued in July 2002. The draft EnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR)was issued earlier this year and the comment period is now closed. The Final EIR is expected to be issued next month and certified thereafter, The remainder of our process will entail evidentiary hearings in December 2009,with a final decision approving an appropriate permanent solution by the Commission expected in May 2010. I have attacheda CommissionRuling dated August 10,2009 containing our intended schedule. Theresults of that proceeding are not find, and it would be premature for the Commission to indicate exactly how it will beresolved. Still,weareclosetoculminatingthismulti-yeareffortsothatCal-Amcan comply with Order WR 95-10 while meeting its obligations to cwrent customers.
Ultimately, the result of all of these actions- our orders imposing strong conservation measures on Cal-Am and ib customers, system upgrades to reduce losses, and the imminent resolution of the CPCN proceeding - are expected to yield w combination of lower water demand and increasing water supply from other sources such that overddtsoftheCarmel Riverwill end. However, these efforts will need time to come tohition.
We share your concern for protecting the C m e l River, yet we are of the view that the terms of the revised CDO cannot be met except at unreasonable cost and with serious negativeimpactonthehealthandsafetyofPeninsularesidents. Thelatestversionof the CDO tempers the required mitigation measures compared to the original CDO. Still, the timing of the CDO could adversely reduce CaI-Am's water supply in advance
of completing planned mitigation efforts. There is a very real possibility that Cal-Am will find itself short several thousand acre-feet of water in advance of the completion of any new project. The consequences could be severe for Monterey Peninsula residents and businesses.
Although the CDO recognizes that an "immediate and substantial reduction in the quantity of water that Cal-Am diverts from the C m e l River could present a threat to public Health and Safety,"the CDO imposessuch an immediate substantialreduction onCal-Am. TheCDOcallsforanimmediatereductionof549AFAstartingOctober1, 2009, Itappearsthisnumberiscalculatedfromapotentialreductionofsystemlosses. The CDO goes on to call for an additional annual cutback of 121 AF A, starting October
1,2009, fox system Ioss reduction, indoor retrofits and outdoor irrigation savings. This totals to a first year reduction of 670 AFA, or about 9 percent of the annual over- diversion of 7,632 M A , or about 5 percent of Cal-Am's cwrent annual demand.
The CDO calls for further annual reductions of 121 acre-feet annually through October 1,2014, increasing to 242 acre-feet per year until Cal-Am has ended all over diversions. By 2015, the CDO calls for a minimum reduction of 1,638 AFA, or 21-
percent. This will force usage down to just 55 GPCD even assuming no increase in population. AnotherwaytolookatthisisthateachacrefootofwaterinMonterey serves about four households for one year. A 1,638 acre foot annual reduction,with no replacement water, would be equivalent to no water for about 6,500 families. And since any new water supply infrastructure probably will not be on line by that time, Monterey Peninsula residents would be subject to even more strict conservation measures and higher water rates.
Currently water use in Monterey averages 70 gallons per-capita per day (GPCD) . This is the lowest usage of any region in California and it reflects the effectiveness of the conservation efforts taken by Cal-Am, the MPWMD,the broader Monterey community, and others since your order was issued. By contrast, Sacramento average usage is over 250 GPCD.According to the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, the 2005 statewide GPCD is 192 GPCD. Under the proposed CDO,the current lowest GPCD in California would be reduced to the lowest levels actually experienced in the industrialized world.
Ifthe CDOtimetablefor stoppingover-diversionscanbe alignedwiththe completion of a new water supply project and other actions already on the drawing board, unnecessary hardship could be avoided, and an alternative supply solution could become a reality.
Insummary, the Commission has been working diligently with Cd-Am and the MPWMD to reduce water usage until a new source of supply can be brought on line. Water issues in the Monterey Peninsulaare always contentious and extensively contested, and they bring out a vast array of interest groups, each with its own vision of whatshouldbedone. Whilethisellsuesavigorousdebate,italsoensuresthatthe decision-makingprocesstakesanunusuallylongtime. We are really frustrated that a
permanent solution to over-diversions by CaI-Am of the Carmel River is not yet in effect. We believe, however, that we are close. It would be best to coordinate our efforts.
Fourteen years have elapsed since Order WR 95-10 was issued. At this critical time it would be extremely disruptive to impose immediate andharsh water supply reductions on Cal-Am. Monterey residents, business groups, a substantial portion of the environmental community, and the various relevant agencies have negotiated painfulIy what is expected to be a long tern, comprehensive solution to the "Montereyproblem," andseveralproposalsaresoontobepresentedtothisCommissionfordecision. It should be possible to adjust the timeline and terms of the Order to provide a realistic plantoresolvethisandtheotherwaterissues. TheCDOaswrittenwillunnecessarily harm Monterey Peninsula residents and businesses by driving down their water usage beyond their already low per-capita usage while at the same time driving up their rates. Instead of taking a punitive action against Cal-Am and thereby against its customers, we urge the Board to work out a realistic timeline cooperatively with Cal-Am and ourselves to align the effective date of theCDO with the completion of the Commission's current proceeding to authorize a new water supply project.
Attachment
CC: President Michael R. Peevey Commissioner John R, Bohn
Commissioner Rachelle Chong Commissioner Dim M. Grueneich Commissioner Timothy A. Simon
Expert: State board will impose water cutback order
By KELLY NIX
THE COORDINATOR of a coalition that’s drawn up a regional water supply pro- posal for the Monterey Peninsula said at a meeting this week it’s likely the state will order Peninsula water users to drastically cut water consumption.
A week after the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento listened to comments from Peninsula residents over the agency’s proposed cutback, Water for Monterey County coordinator Steve Kasower said, “It [doesn’t] look promising to avoid the cease and desist order,” to about 30 coalition members in Marina Wednesday.
The SWRCB first proposed the cease and desist order in January 2008, then issued a less stringent version in July.
The order would compel California American Water to drastically reduce pump- ing from the Carmel River, the Peninsula’s primary source of drinking water. With no alternative water source in place, it would mean strict rationing for residents, including a likely ban on all outdoor watering.
The order could require water customers to cut their usage to 30 to 50 gallons per day,
a tiny amount compared to other areas in the state.
The California Public Utilities Commission is reviewing proposals by Cal Am and an alternative plan by Water for Monterey County, which includes desalina- tion and recycled water.
At Wednesday’s meeting, Kasower specu- lated how several of the state water board’s members might vote on the cease and desist order. The board could decide as early as mid-October.
Comments last week by board member Tam Doduc that the conditions in the draft order are the “bare minimum” the board should levy against the Peninsula seemed to indicate her decision, Kasower said.
“I think Doduc is going to vote for the cease and desist order,” he said.
Doduc recently served as deputy secre- tary at the California Environmental Protection Agency, where she directed the agency’s environmental justice and external scientif ic peer review activities, according to her online bio.
Kasower said Redondo Beach-based board member Frances Spivy-Weber’s back- ground and her conservation efforts for
Mono Lake make it likely she will also favor the severe cutback. “I think it’s an even bet- ter wager that she will vote for the cease and desist order,” Kasower said.
Spivy-Weber was a member of the Bay- Delta Public Advisory Committee and co- chair of its water use efficiency committee. She also served as co-chair of the Southern California Water Dialogue and the California Urban Water Conservation Council.
Kasower said board member Arthur Baggett has been “somewhat antagonized about the water use on the Monterey Peninsula,” but didn’t say how he thought Baggett might vote.
Baggett, an attorney, was cofounder of the Merced Canyon Committee, which suc- cessfully advocated for protection of the upper Merced River and its tributaries under the federal Wild and Scenic River Act.
Others at the Water for Monterey County meeting discussed the Sacramento workshop and speculated what would happen if the
order were imposed. Lorin Letendre with the Carmel River
Watershed Council said he believes an order would prompt litigation. “I think there will be a lawsuit filed immediately,” he said.
Clive Saunders with the Carmel River Steelhead Association, which along with the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against Cal Am to compel the company to reduce pumping by 35 percent, seemed to point the finger for the Peninsula’s water problems equally at Peninsula users and Cal Am.
“In reality,” he said, “we all benefit from getting the water. It’s us, not just Cal Am.”
Overpumping from the Carmel River cre- ates low water levels and harms the river’s steelhead trout and red-legged frog popula- tions, environmentalists claim.
Letendre said the board shouldn’t vote on the order until it fills the seat left vacant by Gary Wolff, who resigned from the five- member board. “You shouldn’t have a board with an even number of people,” he said.