≡ Menu
Share

The Monterey Herald has not given me a voice in its recent editions. I am the obvious one to respond to its criticism regarding Public Water Now’s activities, and hospitality industustry executive John Narigi’s criticisms (twice). But I have been denied that voice.

Following a Herald piece critical of the current effort to put Cal Am Water under public ownership, and similar arguments from Narigi, I submitted a response late last week. So far, it has not been published. Either the Herald editorial team has completely committed to one side, or it has taken a dim view of dialogue, or it is inept.

Regardless I am deeply disappointed in the Herald’s editorial view regarding its broader community of ratepayers, residents, voters, and the basic local economic life around water.

The Herald’s editorial of Oct. 6 called the new effort to buy Cal Am a distraction from the process of getting a new water supply.

First of all, ownership and supply are two very separate and distinct issues. Neither hinges on the other. Supply is short term. Ownership is long term. Whatever develops with supply will have to be incorporated into the ownership proceedings.

Second, call it a distraction. Call it a ground squirrel. Call it whatever. But those who call it anything cannot deny this fact: Cal Am is a monopoly using Peninsula water as a cash cow. The real question is not about distraction. It is who is the ostrich refusing to see the obvious.

The Herald is not the only one playing ‘ostrich’. The next day, Oct. 7, a paid commentary by the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses argued for a larger desalination plant and claimed that “most recent local water savings has (sic) come from initiatives undertaken by commercial businesses.” Somehow residential conservation was overlooked, which did not endear the coalition to many local ratepayers.

On Monday, Oct. 16, the Mayors’ Water Authority meets with the Peninsula Water Management District at 5:30 p.m. the district office. The mayors voted 4 – 2 to not discuss the community opinion of Cal Am.

During the Measure O campaign in 2014, Cal Am and the others expressed confidence that a new supply was close at hand. But here we are four years later, and still Cal Am flounders. Other supply projects have caught and passed Cal Am’s desal plan.

The foursome must spend a lot of time talking to themselves. Because they seem deaf to ratepayer complaints. Do they care? Ratepayers have been vociferous. Who is listening?

Public Water Now is the largest ratepayer advocate community organization on the Peninsula. Others are WRAMP (Water Ratepayers Association for Monterey Peninsula), previously called WaterPlus; and a new group, Citizens for Just Water, representing residential interests in the Marina area. All three participate in CPUC proceedings. All three hear from ratepayers and residents all the time, and the messages have been simple and clear – Cal Am is too costly, is arrogant in its approach to water, hides behind CPUC rulings, has a history of failure, and is no longer welcome.

Back to the starting point. Where is the distraction? The Herald, the business coalition and the mayors’ authority Business Coalition, Mayors Authority, all do not seem distracted. They seem focused. But they have not been successful. So are they actually distracted? Or is there another motivation?

My perspective is that all four want a distraction. They want a scapegoat. They want to have something to blame if Cal Am flat out fails. They want to be able to say that the community has “again” not marched to the “leadership” powers that be. They need an excuse to explain to the state water board why the cease-and-desist order regarding Carmel River water needs another modification, or why Cal Am cannot get it right, or why “they” cannot get it right.

Here is the obvious. Ratepayers are upset. Ratepayers have been gouged. Ratepayers and residents are reacting. It is time for a change. It is time for Cal Am to leave town. It is time for public ownership. Since the ostrich ‘leadership’ will not lead, ratepayers will.

In summary, ratepayers are being hammered. Monopoly water is too expensive and wrong. Public water is more affordable and right.

Riley

Look for a public water petition and sign. You will be doing the entire region and the future a big favor.

George T. Riley is managing director of Public Water Now, which is circulating petitions supporting local public ownership of Cal Am, a privately held international company.

{ 8 comments }
Share

Get ready to rumble.

Public Water Now is kicking off its effort to take Cal Am Water public with a rally set for 1 p.m. Saturday Oct. 7 at Seaside’s Laguna Grande Park. Expect a news conference with Public Water Now founder George Riley and others along with a bit of entertainment, food trucks, etc.

The group is starting a petition drive to create a November 2018 ballot measure that would force a public takeover of the Peninsula’s water purveyor for reasons that include constantly rising water rates that have made the water here the most expensive in the United States.

Public Water Now attempted a similar measure in 2014 that was defeated by a blitz of deceptive advertising by Cal Am. There’s no reason to expect anything less this time around but organizers believe ratepayers have become fed up with Cal Am’s pricing and its propaganda.

Said Riley, “Skyrocketing water bills have people all over the Peninsula fed up with Cal Am. According to Food & Water Watch, we have the most expensive water in the country. Ratepayers have experienced a 68-percent increase in the cost of water over the last two years and there are more increases scheduled. It really bothers people that we’ve conserved water only to have Cal Am charge us $40 million for the water that we didn’t use to make up for lost profits.”

Riley said goal is to collect as many as 8,000 signatures, considerably more than the 6,200 needed to place the measure on the ballot.

The petition calls for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to adopt a policy of owning the water system and to acquire it if its determined to be “economically feasible.” The water management district would be required within nine months to initiate a plan to acquire and manage all the water facilities in the district boundaries. The result likely would be court hearings to establish the value of the system that Cal Am insists is not for sale.

The unpopularity of the water district, stemming from disagreement over its role, is certain to be used against the Public Water Now campaign, but the group is likely to emphasize that the agency is led by publicly elected board that voters can change.

{ 22 comments }
Share

From Public Water Now:

MONDAY MORNING UPDATE: THE BUSINESS COALITION HAS NOW INVITED SOME PUBLIC WATER REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND TUESDAY’S PRESENTATION BY WATER LAWYER JOE CONNER, SO THE DETAILS AND TONE OF THE PLANNED PROTEST RALLY HAVE BEEN AMENDED.

NEW INFORMATION HERE FROM GEORGE RILEY, FOLLOWED BY ORIGINAL NOTICE FOR THE SAKE OF CONTEXT

FROM GEORGE:
The Business Coalition called me this morning to invite some of our members to the presentation by American Water Works attorney Joe Conner on eminent domain.  And to participate in the Q&A as  appropriate.

Public Water Now promoted this protest because the BC invitation was ‘members only,’ the lack of transparency, and to the one-sided presentation.

Because of the offer to PWN to allow some of us to attend and participate in this ‘educational’ presentation, PWN requests that no signs be used that afternoon.  Instead, PWN requests that it be converted to a vigil, to appear in general silence, and to offer an ‘educational’ handout which PWN will provide.

This last minute change in PWN plans is to honor the Business Coalition changing its plans.

Thank you for honoring this new request.

George T. Riley
Public Water Now

ORIGINAL POST

Cal Am ratepayers and PWN members will gather at 3:30 on Tuesday, June 27 at the Monterey Plaza Hotel on Cannery Row to protest the “invitation only” presentation “The True Cost of Condemnation”. The Coalition of Peninsula Businesses is hosting Joe Conner, American Water attorney, who will present his view of the costs and problems the Peninsula would face in an eminent domain takeover of California American Water.

George Riley, Public Water Now managing director, countered, “Joe Connor and his American Water legal team recently fought Missoula’s eminent domain action to take their water public and LOST the case. We want to make sure our business community knows both sides of the story.”

Connor did succeed in driving up the cost of the buyout, from $65 million to $88.4 million, but Missoula’s legal team WON. Missoula took their water system public and they will NOT have to raise rates to customers.

Missoula’s Mayor and two of the attorneys who litigated the case told their story at the PWN public forum in Carmel on June 5th. Watch their presentation here.

Melodie Chrislock, Communications Director
PUBLIC WATER NOW
831.624.2282
MWChrislock@redshift.com

{ 2 comments }
Share

Friday’s Carmel Pine Cone contained two unvarnished attempts to vilify Public Water Now, the group leading the upcoming attempt at a public takeover of Cal Am Water. George Riley, the extremely water-savvy managing director of Public Water Now, usually doesn’t let the Pine Cone’s excoriations get to him, but this heavy-handed and apparently erroneous attack got under his skin.

In a letter to the Pine Cone and the rest of local press corps, Riley calls reporter Kelly Nix’s front page story on Public Water Now “appalling” and argues that the companion editorial on April 21 was “riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and assumptions.”

Riley goes on to demand a retraction and clarification though he said he doesn’t expect either. Pine Cone Editor and Publisher Paul Miller has been an unquestioning promoter of Cal Am at least since the turn of the century, and Cal Am has been a significant advertiser in the weekly publication. Efforts to control Cal Am’s rapidly escalating price structure or to scrutinize the company’s flawed and increasingly expensive desalination project have been met with derision, even ridicule from Miller.

In the news article on Friday, Nix focuses on a letter to Public Water Now from the Peninsula mayors’ water committee, saying it had been signed by the committee chairman, Pacific Grove Mayor Bill Kampe. In his letter of response, Riley says the letter was not signed by Kampe or anyone else, was not approved by the mayors’ committee and was not even sent.

“People who were at the meeting confirmed that the letter under discussion was not approved,” Riley wrote. “I watched the tape of the entire meeting. The Pine Cone is dead wrong in its report.”

A draft of the letter was considered as a possible response to a March letter from Riley in which he criticized the desalination venture in general and its reliance on so-called slant wells. He correctly notes that the slant-well technology, despite being favored by regulators, has not been put to at any desalination plant in the world. Nix sought to rebut that by quoting Cal Am officials as saying their controversial testing of the technology is going well. The testing process was interrupted by disclosures of conflicts of interests involving the designer of the technology.

“It’s most unfortunate for readers when the Pine Cone reports unsubstantiated information as fact,” Riley wrote. The account “was NOT based on what the mayors said.”

“It must feel exciting for a small paper to believe it has a big scoop, then pontificate with an editorial,” Riley continued. “But it is a serious breach of journalistic ethics, and your responsibility to this community, to fail to verify, or to ignore that step altogether.”

Riley retired as chief housing officer for San Mateo County and ever since has led Peninsula efforts to control Cal Am’s water rates and to put the private company into public hands in hopes of controlling costs.

Direct links to the Pine Cone article and the editorial are not included in this post because the weekly newspaper’s technology does not accommodate linkage. Those wanting to read those pieces can, however, go to the Pine Cone’s online archive (Google Carmel Pine Cone archive or click here) and then click on the line labeled “download this week’s edition” and wait for a download of a facsimile of Friday’s paper.

Nix’s article gives no indication that he sought any comment from Riley before posting his piece and Riley says he was not approached. The Partisan sent an email to Nix before working hours Tuesday and had not heard back as of 11 a.m. This report will be updated if he responds.

Unlike Nix’s story, Miller’s editorial makes no pretense of objectivity.

“… This community’s water activists must be the dumbest people in the world,” he writes.

“Not only do they incessantly fight every single thing that might help eliminate our perennial water shortage, they simply won’t give up on the idea of a government takeover of Cal Am, no matter how many times the public tells them, ‘No.’”

It goes on like that for several more paragraphs. He says the activists are opposed to desalination, slant wells, pipelines and even water recycling “for utterly nonsensical and self-serving reasons,”none of which he mentions.

He writes that the activists “hate private business and have a deep narcissistic desire to get everybody else to hate businesses, too.”

He concludes, “The only intelligent thing for the activists to do would be to devote their energy to helping solve the Monterey Peninsula’s water problem, and stop pursuing their little takeover hobby until the shortage is gone.

“The problem is that little word, ‘intelligent.’ We don’t know how smart the activists are. But anybody can see how stupid they act.”

{ 14 comments }
Share

Public Water Now, the activist group that has been pushing for a public takeover of Cal Am Water, is asking the various regulatory agencies to put the company’s desalination project on hold until it addresses two sticky and expensive issues.

And if the agencies, particularly the California Public Utilities Commission, do agree to a timeout, look for Public Water Now to use some of that time to launch a renewed effort toward a public takeover of the privately owned utility.

In its campaign against the Measure O takeover initiative in 2014, Cal Am argued that it could not move ahead with the complex desalination project while also having to combat a takeover campaign.

Public Water Now leader George Riley would not comment on that possibility this week though there has been talk of a new ballot measure at the group’s most recent meetings. Others involved in the group have hinted at another takeover measure and have said a decision should occur within months.

In a statement attached to the letter to the public agencies, Riley wrote, “Public Water Now continues to focus on the high cost of a new water supply. PWN knows from experience that ratepayers will pay for Cal Am success, delay or failure. PWN continues to believe there will be litigation on Cal Am’s desal proposal. PWN hopes that public officials will pay astute attention to the potential for delay, and possibly failure, from litigation.

“Meantime, the need for a reliable water supply continues. And Cal Am costs continue to pile up. PWN believes that the potential for complete financial disaster to ratepayers can be reduced, if not avoided altogether, if two important issues were addressed soon: 1. the weak science surrounding the test slant well. 2. the lack of water rights.”

Cal Am’s long-delayed desalination project depends on slant-well technology that aims to reduce the impact on aquatic life. For various reasons, including conflicts of interest involving experts involved in the testing, the company has had difficulty demonstrating that planned technology can work here. In its letter, Public Water Now notes that the technology is not in use anywhere.

The letter also points out that as part of its project, Cal Am intends to use water from the Salinas Valley aquifer though it has no rights to the water.

A Cal Am takeover has been the subject of two previous ballot measures, which both went down to defeat. The first was simply advisory. The second, in 2014, would have required the Peninsula water management district to conduct a feasibility study and then to proceed with a takeover if it was deemed feasible.

The measure received 45 percent of the vote, short of a majority. Cal Am hailed that as proof of public indifference to a takeover but supporters of Public Water Now argued that it was a strong showing considering that the water utility had spent millions of dollars on deceptive advertising to combat the effort. The group’s polling showed that absentee voters who voted early, at the height of the Cal Am advertising blitz, favored Cal Am’s position while those who waited to hear response to the advertising heavily favored the takeover.

Likely a significant factor in Public Water Now’s thinking is the fact that Cal Am’s rates have risen dramatically in recent months, in large part because the state Public Utilities Commission is allowing water agencies to charge customers now for water that wasn’t used because of conservation measures during the recently ended drought.

{ 14 comments }
Share

160_f_116637611_rq5djvon4yr5u5apuarm2li63waczx4hProprietor’s note: George Riley is the founder of Public Water Now in Monterey, a former housing official in San Mateo County and a longtime political activist and student of the initiative process. The foll0wing are his picks for the Nov. 8 ballot, choices closely in line with the Partisan’s view.

SUMMARY: YES on all state propositions except 53, 60, 65 and 66. YES on Measure Z

There are 17 propositions on the November ballot. The state voter guide is 222 pages. The League of Women Voters summary is 34 pages. The secretary of state’s summary is 15 pages. Mine is seven pages, and it’s more interesting.
 My progressive view is shaped by who’s paying, who benefits and whether is there a long-range progressive purpose.

First, three things to notice:

— There are several pet projects financed by these millionaires:

Tom Steyer: Hedge fund manager (Farallon Capital). Favors progressive causes in Prop 56, 59 (overturn Citizens United), 62 (death penalty repeal) and 67 (preserve plastic ban). Steyer is also expected to run for governor in 2018.

Charles Munger Jr.: Son of Berkshire Hathaway billionaire Charlie Thomas Munger, partner of Warren Buffett. Favors the GOP. Has funded Prop 54 (print bills 72 hours before voting).

Sean Parker: Founded Napster, first president of Facebook. Focuses on life sciences, civic engagement and “challenging issues” in Prop 63 (gun control) and 64 (recreational marijuana).

Dean Cortopassi: Self-made agribusinessman from Stockton. Opposes Gov. Brown and state water decisions he feels impacts his world, which caused his Prop 53 (require vote on state projects costing $2 billion and up)

— Dueling  propositions: Death penalty in Props 62 and 66, plastic grocery bags in 65 and 6

— Prop 65 is the champion of misleading and deceptive intent.

Warning: Try to ignore TV ads. They all want you to put a Yes or No on a proposition number, based on emotional and visual shorthand. It’s sound bite influence. Know how you want to vote, not how you remember a number.

YES on Prop 51. School Construction Bond, $9 Billion. For K-12 and community colleges. Unfortunately special interests (construction, finance, realty) can all too easily finance a campaign for public bonds that provide a public good and benefit a select range of business interests. But schools have suffered, and this provides financing that is easier than individual school district bond measures. Prop 51 will likely favor the more affluent school districts because they have the staff to pursue these funds. On the other hand, lower income school districts may not likely pass a local bond issue. Provides matching money for local districts.

Financial support: $8 million, mainly from special interests, wide support, polls are high to pass. Oppose: $0, some media editorials.

YES on Prop 52. Continues private hospital fees for Medi-Cal health services, uninsured patients, and children. First enacted in 2009 to help match federal funds. This extension prevents future diversions by Legislature, which happened recently. These fees go to the state, are matched with state and federal funds, then redistributed to public and private hospitals for services. The fees have allowed continued and stabilized financing for services to needy populations.

Support: $60 million, mainly from health industry. Huge widespread support from politically active (Dem and GOP and individuals, all sorts of health interests, and business.
Oppose: $12 million. SEIU, but it recently declared itself neutral, no longer in opposition.

NO on Prop 53. Require statewide voter approval for state infrastructure revenue bonds over $2 billion. The problem is that it reads–on first glance–like a good idea. But it intends to prevent large infrastructure projects. This removes legislative accountability, ignores financing 
security, reduces major decisions to geographical manipulation (north vs south, coast vs interior), and interferes with jointly financed projects (federal & state).

Support: $5.5 million. This is a pet project of Dean and Joan Cortopassi, a rich Central Valley farming family who are opposed to the bullet train and the delta tunnels. Having lost in the courts, Cortopassi has turned to the initiative process. There are no other donors. Backed by Howard Jarvis anti-tax groups.

Oppose: $3.8 million. Dems, many agriculture and business interests, unions.

YES on Prop 54. Prevent last minute lawmaking. This requires any proposed law be in print at least 72 hours before a legislative vote.
 Good government advocates say YES. Real Politick Democrat advocates say NO. Good government thinks it is only fair, and allows a representative, or an interest group, to have time to act in their interest. Real Politick recognizes the controlling majority in California is Democrat, and last minute ‘gut and amend’ is useful strategy, mainly to avoid the opposition launching attack ads.

This is ‘good government’ wrapped in partisan politics – it is entirely funded by GOP millionaire Charles Munger Jr, hoping to counter the Democratic majority.
Support: $10.5 million, all from Munger. Support from LWV, Common Cause, GOP, many chambers of commerce, many newspaper editorials.

Oppose: Dems, unions. But there is no money and no campaign.

YES on Prop 55. Extend tax on wealthy for education and children’s health.
 Extend by 12 years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K-12 schools, California community colleges, and health care. Raises $4 to $8 billion annually. Opposition mainly points to the fragmented state tax code, and the problems created with continuing to use the initiative process to fragment it further. On the other hand, at least it reflects wide public sentiment.

Support: $46 million (hospitals $25M and nurses $19M interests, Dem Party, LWV. Oppose: GOP, chambers, anti-tax groups. No money has been raised.

YES on Prop 56. New tax on cigarettes, including e-cigarettes. Adds $2 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Raises $1 billion-plus annually. Allocated to a variety of health related services, research and education. Revenue should decline as the price impact reduces sales, also an intent of 56.

A battle between large corporate interests. Big Tobacco (mainly Phillip Morris and R.J.Reynolds) with $56 million is outspending “big health” with $22 million.
 Support: Many elected Dems, Dem Party, youth and ethnic groups, wide business support, cancer, heart and lung associations, Tom Steyer ($3.5 million). Oppose: State GOP, few others outside of tobacco interests.

YES on Prop 57. Parole for non-violent criminals, revise juvenile court procedures.
 Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons; authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education; and requires a juvenile court judge, not a prosecutor, to decide whether a juvenile will be prosecuted as an adult.
 This version of ‘compassionate release’ rewards prisoner performance, relieves overcrowding, reduces state costs. Will apply retroactively to eligible prisoners. Will likely increase county jail costs where recidivism shows up.

Support: $8 million, half from Gov. Brown’s fundraising. Backed by Dem Party, many civic orgs, LWV, unions (teachers, nurses, construction).
 Oppose: $250,000. GOP, many district attorneys and law enforcement orgs.

YES on Prop 58. LEARN initiative preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency as rapidly and effectively as possible. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Approved by state Assembly and Senate. Repeals 1998 restriction on English language instruction. Allows return to local option.

Support: $1 million. Widespread education, union, Dem Party, LWV, individual elected officials. Oppose: No funding. GOP, little else.

YES on Prop 59. Overturn Citizens United
, advisory to California’s elected officials to use their authority to support an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that declared placing limits on political spending by corporations and unions to be unconstitutional. The court decision reflected ‘free speech’ arguments that money was speech, and that speech cannot be limited. National research show that corporations outspend unions by about 10 to 1.

Massive national reaction led to a movement to overturn the ruling via constitutional amendment. Prop 59 continues that movement. It is criticized for not addressing the complexity of a constitutional amendment, and not focusing on a new Supreme Court majority that could reverse the ruling. Hardly any money has been raised by either side. The issue is not news.

Widely supported by Dem interests. Widely opposed by GOP interests.

NO on Prop 60. Condoms in porn films. Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites.

California in general, and the San Fernando Valley specifically, are recognized as centers of the pornographic film industry. Prop 60 is unique, but this is California. The attack on the porn industry may be justified, this is an overly aggressive approach, with problems in the details. Any person who sees a violation can sue. It does not need to start with a criminal complaint. The proposed law specifies that an advocate of 60 will be appointed a state employee to defend this law if it is passed.

Support: $4 million, from mainly AIDS prevention and health orgs.
 Oppose: $400,000 mainly from porn film companies. Also Dem and GOP parties.

YES on Prop 61: Prescription drug pricing standards. Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug at a price higher than that paid by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi-Cal.

Recent skyrocketing drug prices have fanned this reaction. And it is turning Prop 61 into the most costly campaign this year, and maybe the most costly ever. Big Pharma is definitely scared. The VA has the best bulk-priced drug agreement. Proponents believe the public is ready to stand up to any argument from Big Pharma. Opponents argue that drug pricing will be disrupted to such an extent that all agreements and insurances will have to be renegotiated. Veteran groups are opposed so as not to disrupt the VA deal. Nurses and consumer groups argue the opposite. It is time to change Big Pharma’s lock on rising health care costs. Any large change will not be a smooth ride. There will be negotiations and litigation. But there would be no change without a push. This is the time for that push against Big Pharma.

When the U.S. Congress previously tried to extend VA pricing to Medicaid nationally, drug manufacturers responded by raising VA drug prices. Congress subsequently removed the linkage between VA and Medicaid pricing. Here we go again, and still on a very large stage.

Support: $15 million, mainly by AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Includes nurses and AARP.
 Oppose: $87 million, and rising, from Big Pharma (Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers-Squib, Amgen, Novartis, Eli Lily, Merck, Pfizer, Glaxosmithkline). Other opponents include American Medical Association, CA Chamber, veterans groups, GOP.
 (A strange piece of P61 is a requirement that if it passes, and if the state does not choose to defend a legal challenge, it must appoint and fund a Prop 61 proponent as a new state employee with the right to fully fight for implementation. It is similar to a Prop 60 provision, which will likely be challenged.)

Prop 62 and Prop 66 on the death penalty are not compatible measures. If both are approved by a majority of voters, then the one with the most “yes” votes would supersede the other. Prop 62 is based on humane treatment. Prop 66 demands quicker executions.

YES on Prop 62. Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmate wages that may be applied to victim restitution.

In 1972, the CA Supreme Court ruled the state’s capital punishment system unconstitutional. However, in 1978, Prop 7 reinstated the death penalty. In 2012 voters rejected an initiative to ban capital punishment.

Many editorials refer to the ineffective death penalty and the dysfunctional system. It is time to abandon the death penalty. It is historically racially unjust. Time on death row is arguably cruel and unusual punishment. It has become the most expensive sentence in CA because of various appeal options. Life without parole accomplishes the same societal benefit or debt, however one sees it.

Support: $6 million. Dems, many civic and religious groups, academics, unions, teachers, nurses, actors, many newspaper editorials.

Oppose: $4 million. GOP, many district attorneys, police officers and sheriffs.

YES on Prop 63. Restricts gun and ammunition sales. Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Prop 63 requires permits for sale, and reporting of transactions. Sets procedures for prohibited ownership by felons and designated individuals. Does not affect current ownership.

Support: $5 million. Dem Party, LWV, many elected officials, unions, civic orgs. Oppose: $1 million. GOP, NRA, sporting clubs.

YES on Prop 64. Legalizes recreational use of marijuana. Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation.

Smoking would be permitted in a private home or at a business licensed for on-site marijuana consumption. Smoking would remain illegal while driving a vehicle, anywhere smoking tobacco is banned and in all public places. Up to 28.5 grams of marijuana and 8 grams of concentrated marijuana would be legal to possess. However, possession on the grounds of a school, day care center, or youth center while children are present would remain illegal. An individual would be permitted to grow up to six plants within a private home, as long as the area is locked and not visible from a public place. It is also designed to prevent licenses for large-scale marijuana businesses for five years in order to prevent “unlawful monopoly power.”

It would bring discipline and oversight to an industry already operating in the shadows. Net additional state and local tax revenues could range from high $100s of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually. The money is are required to be spent for medical research, law enforcement, services for substance abuse, youth programs, drug education and prevention and treatment. Reduced costs are in the tens of millions annually related to a decline in the number of marijuana offenders held in state prisons and county jails.

Support: $17 million (Sean Parker $7.3 million). Dem Party, ACLU, NAACP, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association.

Oppose: $2 million. GOP, California Hospital Association, some public and law enforcement officials.

There are two plastic bag Props – 65 and 67. Check the differences carefully. How you carry your groceries may seem like a trivial subject, but it’s the focus of rival propositions that pit environmentalists against the plastic industry. Flimsy plastic shopping bags are blamed for choking wildlife, vast littering, and damaging municipal waste systems. About 40% of California residents living in 151 communities already live with bans. But the variety led to problems with large retailers. State law in 2014 established standards, and many retailers agreed. The bag industry challenged the law. Now Prop 67, which is the legislative fix from 2014, is on the ballot for confirmation. It bans the flimsy plastic bags, and charges a dime for paper or heavy-duty plastic bags. The goal is to promote reusable bags. The plastics industry is countering with Prop 65 to eliminate the ban and protect profits.

In a clever ploy, both 65 and 67 were placed on the ballot by the American Progressive Bag Alliance. APBA was formed in 2005 to oppose bans and fees on plastic bags. The four main funders are in Texas, New Jersey and South Carolina. It spent $3 million in 2014 in a petition against the California ban, which halted the ban until these propositions are voted on. APBA hopes voters will favor their dime going for a public purpose (65), rather than to the stores (67). But the ‘poison pill’ is that 65 repeals the plastic bag ban, thus eliminating any need for the ‘dime,’ and therefore the funding for the environmental fund. APBA has put $6-plus million into promoting 65 and opposing 67. It is a well-devised plan to confuse voters and protect profits.

NO on Prop 65. Directs charges for plastic bags to new environmental fund.

The most deceptive measure this year. Directs money collected by grocery and certain retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund for specified environmental projects.

But in the small print, it repeals the state ban on plastic bags. They want you to believe their motives are altruistic. The sinister pitch for a new environmental fund distracts from the underlying repeal! To the benefit of the plastic bag industry. It displays the worst aspects of the state’s initiative process.

Support: $6 million, all from plastic bag industry. Also GOP. (Also used to oppose Prop 67.) Oppose: No $$. LWV, CA Nurses Assoc, environmental groups.

NO on Prop 66. Speeds up death penalty executions. Expedites procedures and sets time limits for appeals, exempts prison officials from existing protocols for execution methods.

It is what it is. The differences are stark. It’s between Prop 62 (eliminate executions, humane approach) and Prop 66 (rapid executions, finish the debt to society). Nineteen other states have already abolished the death penalty. No other Western nation has capital punishment. But North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and China do.

Support: $5 million. GOP, many district attorneys, police officers and sheriffs. Oppose: $7 million. Dems, many civic and religious groups, academics, unions, teachers, nurses, actors, many newspaper editorials.

YES on Prop 67. Retain Plastic Bag Ban Statewide. A “Yes” vote approves 2014 state legislation that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing single-use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags.

State law in 2014 banned flimsy plastic bags, and authorized stores to charge 10 cents for an alternative. The plastic bag industry (dominantly in Texas and East Coast) is trying to repeal that law, urging a no vote here, and is heavily promoting Prop 65 as an alternative. The intent of the plastic industry is to confuse voters, and to promote a public good, and embarrass stores into abandoning the 10 cent charge that covers costs. Hopefully, voters will see the ploy, and vote YES.

Support: $3.5 million. Dems, LWV, Many elected officials, California Nurses Association, very many environmental groups, many print editorials.

Oppose: $6 million, all from plastic bag industry. (Also used to support Prop 65.)

For Monterey County:
 YES on Measure Z Ban fracking and other enhanced toxic extraction techniques, and protect ground water. This is the only ballot measure in the entire United States on this subject. It is attracting attention nationally, It is also attracting huge donations from Big Oil to defeat it. Big Oil is lying about the measure killing the industry, since Measure Z very specifically retains all current operations. Big Oil is lying about the details, but it has the money to pitch its misleading messages.

A community initiative against an established corporate interest must be based on detailed research and fact. Otherwise it would not pass its first test of credibility. Big Oil has not challenged the facts. But any large corporate interest has the money to promote any message it feels will work. Just look at the small print on any TV ad – paid for by oil interests. So it comes down to: Who do you trust? Then it becomes a no-brainer. Trust that your community initiative has pinned down its facts. I believe it has. YES on Z.

{ 12 comments }
Share

????COMPANY HAS NO RIGHT TO SOME OF THE WATER

Back in July 2013, a settlement agreement was reached between California American Water, local water agencies, certain ag interests in the Salinas Valley and several non-profit agencies including the group now known as Public Water Now. The agreement related to Cal Am’s proposed water supply project that involves building and operating a desalination plant in the vicinity of Marina.

Public Water Now is headed by George Riley, a well-known leader in the ongoing effort to seek fair water rates for Peninsula residents. Public Water Now signed the agreement not because it was in full support of the project but because, as a party to the agreement, it would be entitled to participate in reviewing draft reports and other activities. It would be in the loop rather than on the outside.

The settlement agreement contains important language that gives the parties, including Public Water Now, the right to challenge the project’s source of water if it is shown to harm the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin or the Sand Dunes Aquifer in the Seaside-Marina area. It is unlawful to extract water from one groundwater basin and transfer it to another. Water taken from either or both of those sources and used by a desal plant would be unlawful. On top of that, Cal Am has no underlying legal right to either source.

Therefore, Cal Am turned to the idea of drilling slant wells under Monterey Bay in order to reach sea water for desalination. Drilling data, however, have clearly shown that significant amounts of fresh water, not totally saline water, is in the water pumped so far, meaning Cal Am is pumping water to which it has no legal rights. Further, in spite of Cal-Am’s continuing arguments that slant wells are a tried and true method of obtaining water for a desal plant, the company has provided no proof of that, and Public Water Now has determined that no ocean desal plant in the world is served by slant wells.

Given these facts, Riley sent two emails in 2015 and 2016 to all parties before the California Public Utilities Commission in connection with the continuing hearings on Cal Am’s project. He wrote that he and Public Water Now were exercising the right under the agreement to withdraw support for slant wells and to actively work for legal and reliable alternatives. He provided the necessary facts on the record to support his claim.

Neither email was incorporated into the record.

In response, Cal Am and its supporters had their lawyers submit a “Motion to Strike” Riley’s emails.

The motion asserts that the emails were sent “ex parte,” meaning sent without notice to other involved parties, including a decision-maker. Even though the other involved parties did indeed receive notice, the CPUC prohibits such communications if a decision-maker such as an administrative law judge is a recipient. The administrative law judge was, in fact, a recipient.

The underlying purpose of limiting ex parte communications in a judicial or quasi-judicial setting, such as the CPUC’s administrative action involving Cal Am, is to ensure that no party can gain an unfair advantage by communicating off-the-record with any decision-maker.

IMG_1198 copy

George Riley

It is important to note that administrative law judges do not have decision-making authority on substantive matters. They make procedural decisions but their opinions on matters of substance are only recommendations to the commissioners. None of the five commissioners received the emails, so the integrity of the process was not compromised.

If Cal Am succeeds in having the emails stricken from the record, important facts will be kept out of the record upon which a final decision will be made on the desal project.

What are they afraid of?

If the information and facts offered by Riley and Public Water Now were faulty, why would Cal Am be so concerned about them and go to such effort to have them stricken from the record?  They are concerned about those facts because they are the basis for showing the world the mistakes, misleading statements and other errors that have increased the project costs that will probably be transferred to ratepayers.

The motion asserts that the time for “commenting on the agreement” had long passed when, in fact, the emails were not comments on the settlement agreement. The emails address issues that arose after the settlement agreement. Since the settlement, concerns about the slant wells have evolved, including conflicts of interest involving the man who designed the wells and the validity of the data collected from test wells.

So it comes down to this. The emails were, by a strict definition, ex parte communications prohibited by the PUC. But at the same time, the substance of the emails had nothing to do with comments on the settlement agreement. Rather, they were direct communications necessary to notify all parties involved that Riley and Public Water Now had gathered sufficient evidence from the record to support the exercise of the right to challenge the source of water for the proposed desalination plant.

If the motion is adopted by the administrative law judge, facts that are not supportive of Cal Am would never see the light of day. The motion also threatens serious sanctions against Riley and Public Water Now.

The motion to strike is inappropriate and PWN’s emails should be incorporated into the record. Fairness and equity also demand that the final decisions in this case be determined on the basis of all the facts that should be contained in the entire record. As such, facts adverse to Cal-Am should be included as long as they are facts and can be supported as such. Riley has made that case. Justice demands that the motion fail. If it is adopted, the administrative law judge should direct Riley and Public Water Now to resubmit their materials in another format.

Hood is a retired lawyer and engineer who divides his time between Carmel and Columbus, Ohio. He is a former executive director of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.

{ 27 comments }
Share

????Ready for Cal Am’s 40% rate increase over the next three years, plus another 60% increase for the cost of desal?

Please show up Thursday and take your three minutes to let the California Public Utilities Commission know this is UNACCEPTABLE!

CPUC Public Participation Hearing on
Cal Am’s Water Supply Project
2 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 1
Carpenter Hall in Sunset Center, Carmel

It’s time to make it clear to the CPUC  that its protection of Cal Am’s revenue is excessive, unjustified, and wrong. Ratepayers and their conservation efforts are being penalized to ensure Cal Am’s profits. Residential ratepayers bear the largest burden because of the extreme tiered rate structure. Cal Am is a showcase for investor profit, and the CPUC is complicit.

Here’s what Cal Am wants and what it has already received:

• $100 million ($50 million plus $50 million in interest) for water we didn’t use due to our conservation efforts. This would be an 6% increase in Cal Am rates.

• $51 million in General Rate increases for 2017 to 2020. This would be a 16% increase.

• $130 million ($50 million plus $80 million in interest) for the new Monterey Pipeline. This is a piece of the Pure Water Monterey project. This would be another 8% increase in rates.  An alternative route for a base cost of about $15 million was rejected by Cal Am.

Just these first three total an increase of 30% and that’s with no new water! What other business can get away with this?

• $84 million for the Pure Water Monterey reclamation project that will provide new water. This would be a 10% increase in rates.

• $32 million for failed Cal Am projects from 2004 to 2011 was approved by the CPUC and has already been paid by ratepayers.

• 15% increase for the next 27 years is on current bills to cover the San Clemente Dam removal. This charge will move from a surcharge into the rate base, where Cal Am adds to its asset base. But remember, this was an asset that was removed.  So Cal Am can tear down the dam, but add the removal cost as an asset.

• 60% increase for Cal Am’s desal plant IF it ever gets approved.

• Cal Am has escaped any penalty for failing to meet the December 31, 2016 Cease and Desist Order (CDO) by agreeing to a series of milestones.  If Cal Am misses any milestone, ratepayers will be punished with rationing.

Riley is managing director of Public Water Now.

{ 13 comments }
Share

American Water Works, the parent of Cal Am Water, has two basic strategies for expanding its business. One is to expand into areas where development is expected. The other is to buy up small water services, those under 10,000 customers.

Both methods are in the works for Cal Am, the Monterey Peninsula’s principal water purveyor.

Cal Am has a long history of not adding supply infrastructure, from 1966 when it bought the Peninsula system, to 1996 when the State Water Board ordered it to change direction. Even after the California Public Utilities Commission added its recommendation in 2001 to build a desal facility at Moss Landing, Cal Am has worked at snail speed.

A “eureka moment” occurred, however, Cal Am realized that the future required new water to come from north of the Peninsula. Exciting visions of sugar plums began dancing in Cal Am’s head. Maybe all the cards were lining up, putting development at the former Fort Ord into play for Cal Am. After decades of neglecting the infrastructure, Cal Am now had a profitable game changer.

This explains everything. But for it to work, Cal Am would have to win legal battles and not simply meet engineering hurdles.

It had to play along with the Regional Desal Project in 2008-2010 because the CPUC, Cal Am’s regulator, had designed that process. But that venture was not to Cal Am’s liking. The CPUC had approved a project that was about 80% publicly owned, providing Cal Am with little ownership and infrastructure. That greatly limited its ability to collect profit. At the first opportunity, Cal Am and Monterey County’s government scuttled the project. They used conflict of interest charges to sink it.

Then Cal Am decided to pursue a fully corporate-owned and larger desalination project, which fit its profitable expansion strategy. It would be located near the former Fort Ord, the only part of the Peninsula with development potential. It would require Cal Am to overcome numerous legal hurdles.

The company first needed to overcome the county ordinance requiring public ownership of any desal facility. It got the county to cooperate and to get the CPUC and the State Water Board to lay the groundwork with quasi-legal opinions in support.

Soon, Cal Am’s primary consultant on the project was caught in a conflict of interest (Dennis Williams of Geoscience holds patents on slant well technology). The CPUC agreed that a conflict existed. But Cal Am skirted that issue by adding a legal non-revenue sharing agreement, Williams continues on the job with the potential to make millions even though a much less severe financial conflict of interest had sabotaged the Regional Desal Project.

Cal Am’s strategy shows up in various ways. Though the company initially promised the public and the permitting agencies that the intake for the current desal project would be under the bay, the intake is inland. This aggravates the legal challenge over water rights. Remember that Cal Am has no water rights for this project.

Being inland, the intake is smack in the seawater-intruded Salinas River Groundwater Basin (SRGB). The desal intake draws seawater inland, causing more seawater intrusion and legal problems. But Cal Am, of course, has a legal strategy for a “practical solution,” claiming a beneficial use of the largely abandoned intruded aquifer water. It is an innovative legal strategy that must overcome decades of court cases that conclude that overlying water rights holders have prevailing rights. The legal test is yet to come.

By pumping from the Salinas Basin, Cal Am is obliged to “return” source water taken from the intruded aquifers. This is the local law, the Agency Act, governing the basin.

There seems to be no great alarm about the continued high volume of Salinas Basin water in Cal Am’s test slant well samples. Why not? In my opinion, it is because the requirement to return water to the basin is being used to justify expanded infrastructure into new territory. Cal Am is credited with “success” by negotiating a breakthrough deal – the Peninsula and farmers agreed to the plan! But Castroville and the farmers got a great deal, paying less than 3 cents toward each dollar in costs. The difference of 97 cents will come from Peninsula ratepayers.

But the main point is not the cost. It is the infrastructure and rights Cal Am needs to implement the return water agreement. It will need to construct piping and pumping infrastructure in the area, and it will need obtain the authority to deliver potable water to Castroville. It will seek to be a water distributor right in the middle of the jurisdiction of another water purveyor, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD). Yes, it will be able to deliver potable water smack in the middle of another water service area and adjacent to the future development opportunities on the former Fort Ord. Despite another legal challenge, Cal Am will be positioned exactly where it has wanted to be for many years – able to provide water to new Fort Ord development.

Related legal hurdles include overcoming Marina Coast Water District worries that it has been invaded. MCWD is litigating against Cal Am for not making promised payments from the earlier Regional Desal Project. But expect Cal Am to play hardball. Remember that American Water Works has a national expansion strategy to acquire smaller water services (under 10,000 customers) when opportunities arise. These are called “tuck-ins.” MCWD has about 8,000 customers.

Recently, I have pleaded with the Mayors Water Authority to look at the legal risks Cal Am is facing, and the relevant water supply contingencies. But those in the know seem not to be concerned.

This is not mission creep, nor a series of unexpected circumstances. It is corporate planning. I have seen, read and heard too much over the years to think otherwise. I think the corporate strategy is clear. Cal Am will be positioned exactly where it has dreamed to be, right in the middle of Fort Ord, the only area with significant growth potential on the bay. All because it expects to win every legal challenge.

With such litigation ahead, who has confidence that Cal Am will meet the milestones set by the state’s cease-and-desist order?

Riley is managing director of Public Water Now and a regular contributor on water issues. He has been an active observer of each aspect of Cal Am’s desalination ventures and a technical adviser to the Peninsula Mayors Water Authority.

 

George Riley
georgetriley@gmail.com
645-9914

{ 26 comments }
Share

????There are parallel universes in the local water picture, both wanting a reliable and affordable water supply.

One I call Universe A, which praises Cal Am’s progress toward its desal project. It has continuing accolades for the proposed cease-and-desist-order modification that penalizes water users if Cal Am misses milestones. It has the print media demeaning other opinions that Cal Am is not a prince.

The other universe, Universe B, remembers history. It has Cal Am over­drafting the Carmel River that led to the infamous cease and desist order in 1995 to reduce pumping. It remembers Cal Am over­drafting the Seaside basin, resulting in a court adjudication that restricts Cal Am pumping there. It remembers that Cal Am has had more than 20 years to produce a new water supply, and has failed to do so. It remembers Cal Am stranding $35 million on three failed water supply projects between 2000 and 2012, with the ratepayers paying every penny of it. Shareholders paid zero. And still no water.

Universe A apparently accepts the fact that desal projects around the world cost much less than half the cost of Cal Am’s proposed desal at about $4,400 per acre-foot, without a good explanation. It ignores the fact that Cal Am exports 65 percent of its revenue, about $30 million annually, out of the community.

Universe B is criticized by Universe A for pointing out Cal Am shortcomings. Universe B discovered Cal Am’s conflict of interest with contractor Dennis Williams and Geoscience. It pointed out the misinformation about Cal Am’s slant well, promoted to be drawing water from under the bay but instead pumping directly from the intruded Salinas River Groundwater Basin, without entitlement. Universe B remembers that as the entire Peninsula conserved at record levels, there has never been proof that Cal Am fixed enough leaks to claim it conserved much at all. It remembers that Cal Am accounting and management systems waited years before announcing it would seek reimbursement of $51 million for revenue lost from conservation.

Universe A is critical of Universe B for not rallying to Cal Am, the adopted child of Universe A. Universe A thinks Universe B is impeding Cal Am progress. Universe B’s response is that Cal Am is its own worse enemy. Universe B remembers it was Cal Am that violated the county ordinance requiring public ownership of desal. It was Cal Am that decided to install its slant well without getting prior approval for water rights in the Salinas Basin. It was Cal Am’s minders, the California Coastal Commission and the county, that may have failed to enforce its responsibility for local coastal plans, according to new litigation.

Universe A has blinders on, is solidly glued to Cal Am and accepts Cal Am skirting the law, but calls into question others who think a violation needs enforcement action.

Universe B worries that the cost of Cal Am operations, its desal project and its demand to rake in profits, are getting sky high. It wants to see a comparative analysis of the Moss Landing desal options (Deep Water and People’s), since both are projected to cost half of Cal Am’s $4,400 per acre-foot. It can see additional options in more reclaimed water in the future.

And the simplest potential option of all (other than political will), is to extend the Aquifer Storage and Recovery project, currently drawing from the Carmel River, to draw also from the Salinas River near the rubber dam. More than 250,000 acre-feet runs to the bay in winter time, unused and not claimed. If a mere 3 percent of this surplus water, useless to anyone else, was diverted to the Seaside Aquifer, the Monterey Peninsula’s water problems would largely be solved, in a simple and economical way.

George Riley is managing director of Public Water Now. He wrote this for the Monterey Herald, where it appeared on Sunday.

{ 28 comments }
Share

A golden first place trophy with the word Best and colorful stars shooting out of it, symbolizing winning a competition or being declared to be top of your field, sport or classReturning to the Central Coast after an Easter-week jaunt to the desert, I was excited to pick up a copy of Monterey County Weekly outside my neighborhood dispensary. At last there would be some recognition for this blog, the Monterey Bay Partisan, which the paper undoubtedly had honored as the region’s best.

My holiday spirit of renewal and revival was crushed in an instant, however, when I discovered that those sneaky folks at the Monterey Bay Aquarium apparently had stuffed the ballot box better than I had. Before the Weekly’s “Best of Everything in the Universe” contest, I had no idea the aquarium put out a blog but of course it does and of course it is everything that an aquarium blog should be.

In the interest of efficiency, I let Charlie the Truth and Justice Dog lick my wounds while I pondered my next move. Then, amid the weeds and wildflowers of spring, it hit me. Who are they at the Weekly to think only they can decide what’s the best? (They would maintain, of course, that they do not pick the winners, that their readers do. To that, I have no ready response but I am hoping something will occur to me before I attach the final period to this post.)

So here it goes, the Partisan’s first and likely only “Best of Most Everything the Partisan Cares About Awards,” better known as the BMEPCAAies. (There will be some semblance of democracy because readers will be invited to post comments letting me know their own favorites and reminding me of my lack of discernment.)

BEST THAI FOOD DISH: The Kao Tung at Baan Thai in Seaside. It’s this chicken curry thing that you spoon over rice crackers.

BEST ELECTED OFFICIAL: Libby Downey of the Monterey City Council. I don’t agree with every vote she makes but she’s usually on the right track and she puts so much attention and energy into every issue that she makes most elected officials look like Fernando Armenta, whose back seat must be a repository of unread agenda packets.

Unknown

Libby Downey

BEST HOSPITAL: CHOMP and I’m not just saying that because my wife works there.

BEST TORTILLAS: Rosa’s La Villa Taqueria in Seaside. Fresh and soft and best wrapped around just about anything.

BEST DOCTOR: My doctor but I’m not going to name him because I don’t want him to get too busy to see me.

BEST CITY COUNCIL IN EITHER SEASIDE OR MARINA: Marina.

BEST THRIFT STORE: Tie. Last Chance Mercantile at the dump offers up all sorts of unexpected treasures, especially outside, and the prices are right. St. Vincent De Paul on Fremont in Seaside keeps the stock fresh, likely by taking the unsold stuff to Last Chance.

BEST MOVIE THEATER: Maya in Salinas, especially for artsy movies because you might have the whole theater to yourself. Now I hear they have updated the sound system so it probably compares favorably to the new screens in Marina.

BEST GOLF COURSE: Beats the hell out of me.

BEST BUDGET GOLF COURSE: Nine holes after 2 p.m. at Salinas Fairways is a budget-balancing $11 without a cart, and they keep the fairways hard enough to give my drives some semblance of distance. It works especially well for me because my usual playing partner is Larry Parsons, whose running commentary on golf and life keeps me humble.

BEST REPORTER: The Herald’s Claudia Melendez Salinas. She has been criticized by some as overly supportive of Latino causes, which is nonsense. She brings a Latina perspective to her work and that’s a good thing. She also brings tremendous passion to the job, something that is exceedingly difficult to maintain in these dark days of daily journalism.

AR-151029962.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

Claudia Melendez Salinas

BEST NEWSPAPER: The Weekly. They are not as good as they think they are, but they are  becoming indispensable.

BEST CARMEL NEWSPAPER: The Carmel Residents Association newsletter.

THE BEST LAWYER: If I ever get busted, my family has instructions to hire Paul Meltzer of Santa Cruz. No matter what they did, his clients never go to trial much less jail. On the civil side, especially in the non-profit realm, Virginia Howard is a very good choice. If you or someone you love has been in an accident, I can tell you which firm to avoid.

BEST BURRITO: Darn it, I can’t remember the name of the place but it’s on Market Street in Salinas, west of the Amtrak station, and it’s like this little grocery store with a deli counter. You can’t miss it.

BEST TEACHER, MIDDLE SCHOOL: Derek Yonekura, San Benancio Middle School. He brings science to life. He also brings eighth-graders to life.

BEST TEACHER, HIGH SCHOOL: OK, the field is limited to the teachers my daughter had, but I’d put this guy up among the best anywhere. Phil Moore, history, Salinas High School. First off, he avoids most things digital. Second, he teaches in a way that makes it stick and, third, he does a remarkable job of teaching writing skills even while teaching history. He gets extra points in my grade book as well for his years of work with the teachers union.

BEST ACTIVIST: Crowded field this one but George Riley comes out on top. George has toiled tirelessly on water issues for years and years now and he knows as much as anyone, including the brain trust at Cal Am. It is something of a mystery why all the local news outlets don’t call him for comment when news breaks in the local water world.

BEST COACH: Gary Figueroa, CSUMB women’s water polo. In his current post, Figueroa is unlikely to win a championship. The Central Coast is a water polo backwater compared to Southern California and the Bay Area. But this former Olympian improves everyone he coaches, both as an athlete and as a person. I played a little masters polo under Gary just so I could tell my old water polo friends that I had played with him. They figured I was probably lying.

Gary_Figueroa

Gary Figueroa

BEST WATER POLO OFFICIAL: Gary Figueroa.

NICEST FELLOW ON LOCAL TV NEWS: Felix Cortez.

BEST REAL ESTATE SALESPERSON: Steve Hunt, Sotheby’s. No one will work harder to make the sale or the purchase.

BEST PLACE FOR FISH: Massaro & Santos on at the Coast Guard Pier (first right after going through the tunnel southbound.) Upstairs. Order anything and enjoy the view.

BEST ITALIAN RESTAURANT: There are a bunch of really good Italian restaurants, especially in Carmel and Pacific Grove, but if you want really good at prices you can afford, try Frutti del Mar on Reservation in Marina. It’s run by a Salvadoran family that worked in all the pricier places hereabouts and learned all the secrets.

BEST BASKETBALL PLAYER AT THE MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER, TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS: Jon Ordonio.

2433-jon-ordonio

Jon Ordonio

BEST BASKETBALL PLAYER OVER 70 AT THE MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER: Billy Thompson.

BEST POLITICAL CANDIDATE: Tie, Jane Parker and Mary Adams. Parker is the District 4 supervisor and is being challenged by Dennis Donohue of Salinas, who is essentially the carpetbagger in this race. Adams is challenging Supervisor Dave Potter in District 5 and she’s a class act in every respect.

BEST ENDORSEMENT: To the surprise of most everyone, former Supervisor Lou Calcagno has endorsed Parker but there has been almost no publicity about it. I called Lou twice to ask him to talk about it  but he hasn’t called back. I’d love to hear from you, Lou. It’s 484-5068

OK, that’s all for now. I tried to come up with others. I wanted to find a category Cal Am could win but I was stumped. Maybe I could have named it the Best Reason to Have Your Own Well. I thought about picking on GOP activist and troublemaker Paul Bruno again, maybe by naming him as the Best Reason to Be a Democrat, but I decided to give him a break. People have been picking on him all his life. The local Democrats just issued a dual endorsement for District 4 supervisor, picking both Potter and his challenger, Adams. Maybe I will make that the Best Reason to Keep Local Politics Non-partisan.

I could go on and on. I do that sometimes. But let’s turn it over to you, the Best Readers of Any Blog in Monterey County. What say you about my picks? And what categories and honorees would you add? Just click on the comment button below and have at it.

{ 20 comments }
Share

????They once promised to be the solution to one of desalination’s biggest drawbacks. Most of the world’s 14,000 desalination plants draw seawater directly from the ocean, sucking in varying amounts of sea life. But slant wells, sharply angled in order to pump water from below the ocean floor, would use the sea bed as a natural filter, leaving all the aquatic critters where they belong.

That idea turned into a noble but failed experiment as California American Water began the long and expensive process of building a desalination plant to solve the Monterey Peninsula’s water problem. At the direction of state regulators, including the California Coastal Commission, Cal Am adopted slant wells into the design and for the past several months has been testing one such well at the plant site next to the Cemex facility on the Monterey Bay shore north of Marina.

The testing was delayed because of political opposition, concerns about feasibility and questions about whether the environmental impact of the testing itself had been fully considered. Once it started, it encountered additional delays for technical reasons and the discovery of a glaring conflict of interest. One of key hydrologists involved in the design and execution of the testing turned out to be a patent holder on the technology being tested, calling into question the advice he was giving his employers, both Cal Am and Cal Am’s chief regulator, the Public Utilities Commission, a compound relationship that created yet another conflict.

At one point, the testing was halted because a monitoring well showed that groundwater in the area was dropping significantly. Among the factors being tested is the desalination plant’s impact on area groundwater and, most specifically, an underlying aquifer that extends all the way to the Salinas Valley and supplies much of the water that sustains Salinas Valley agriculture. Though the intent is to draw seawater exclusively, the test well in fact draws a significant amount of its water from the brackish oceanside edge of the aquifer. If the desalination process draws too much water from the aquifer or aggravates the existing issue of seawater intrusion into the fresh water aquifer, the desalination plant’s design and/or location seemingly would be doomed, absent a purely political solution.

According to Cal Am’s declarations to state officials, the testing remains highly inconclusive but the company says it has learned enough from the exercise to plunge ahead into the overall plant approval process and then into the construction phase, which would result in the drilling of an additional nine slant wells. According to water activist George Riley, the company has already started awarding well-drilling contracts despite the absence of any data supporting that decision.

If the plans continue on that track, the Marina plant would be the first in the world to use slant wells. Recent tests of the same technology at a proposed Dana Point plant failed dramatically, taking in as much fresh water as salt water, and operators of a proposed plant at Huntington Beach, also under state pressure to use slant wells, recently announced the technology there to be unfeasible.

Against that backdrop, an array of speakers at a forum sponsored by Public Water Now lined up Tuesday night in Carmel to explain why the slant-well plan should be abandoned in the name of maintaining some semblance of control over the desal costs.

Public Water Now founder George Riley ran out of descriptors as he labeled the slant-well approach “a sham, a hoax, a fraud” because it provides none of the benefits that its supporters promised and carries with it unacceptable costs and complications. The most recent cost estimates show that water from the proposed Cal Am plant would cost more than double the costs expected in either Dana Point or Huntington Beach.

Public Water Now was formed to pursue public ownership of Cal Am, an idea that Monterey voters narrowly rejected a year ago. Riley and the organization support desalination as a solution to the region’s water-supply problem but they argue that the state Public Utilities Commission will be making a huge and expensive mistake if it does not order serious study of alternate, cheaper proposals, the People’s Project and Deepwater Desal, or does not toss out the slant-well approach on grounds of inefficiency and expense.

A partial solution to one of the slant-well technology deficiencies was announced Tuesday, when Cal Am revealed a plan to sell fresh water to the Castroville area. The fresh water to be sold is same fresh water that the slant wells will draw into the desal plant, where it will be processed along with the sea water. That agreement settles one of several potential water rights disputes that Cal Am faces but it is an imperfect solution to a problem that would not exist if the slant wells worked as intended. The volume of freshwater pumped from the aquifer essentially increases the size and cost of the desal plant, an expense borne by Cal Am customers, but Castroville is not expected to pay a commensurate amount.

Among the revealing presentations Tuesday was one by retired mathematician and computer language expert David Beech. He demonstrated how Cal Am has misled the public and even the Coastal Commission by repeatedly suggesting that the test well would extend 1,000 feet into the sand below Monterey Bay. In fact, Beech showed, the drilling angle and the location of the inland wellhead reduce the overall length to just 724 feet and the net effect is that only the final 35 feet of the well are in contact with ocean water.

Most of the water pumped into the desal plant under the current design would come from the freshwater aquifer, Beech and others concluded, which strongly suggests that there is no reason to use expensive slant-well techniques when vertical wells drilled directly into the aquifer would produce approximately the same result. The idea of switching to vertical wells was even endorsed Tuesday night by Paul Bruno, president of Monterey Peninsula Engineering, an aggressive backer of Cal Am’s desalination project. EDITOR’S NOTE: Bruno now denies having said this. He said his comment was that vertical wells would be less expensive than slant wells. 

Another speaker, water activist and retired teacher Michael Baer, complained that Cal Am and its contractors still have not fully tested the potential ramifications on the groundwater despite repeated urging from a hydrologist working for Salinas Valley ag interests.

Ron Weitzman of the Water Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula, another proponent of public ownership and alternate proposals, used computer modeling to demonstrate his assertion that Cal Am has intentionally manipulated its measurements of sea level and groundwater levels in order to make its plans appear logical.

Riley noted that the cost of the testing has risen steadily, adding additional costs to a project that will result in astronomical water bills throughout Cal Am’s local service area. The initial estimate for the testing was $4 million, which rose to $7 million as a result of both avoidable and unavoidable delays. It rose next to $10 million, which doesn’t include the costs of special review by scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The overall cost of the plant is now estimated at more than $300 million.

If Cal Am shareholders were responsible for the costs, they would have ended the slant-well experiment long ago in favor of something more efficient and less expensive, Riley insisted. Unfortunately, though, common sense does not prevail when the regulators and the utility know that the costs of every misstep will be passed directly to the water ratepayers.

Riley said there is no longer any question that a desalination plant will be built. A looming cease-and-desist order on the overuse of Carmel River water has created enormous political pressure to find a solution and nothing on the horizon presents meaningful competition to desalination, Riley acknowledged. It is entirely likely, he said, that the various state agencies will approve the overall project even before the environmental impact study for the plant has been completed and before various other water rights issues have been adjudicated.

What is important now, he said, is for Cal Am customers and their elected leaders to persuade state officials to stand up to the momentum and take a long and deep look at the costs of staying on the current path. Both the alternate plant proposals and simpler well technology promise lower costs for the ratepayers, he said, and it is the responsibility of officialdom at the local and state levels to do everything they can to take the sting out of future water bills.

{ 23 comments }

Cal Am rate increases, all lined up as far as you can see

Share
Red 3d 40% text on white background. See whole set for other numbers.

Your Cal Am bill is going to be going up again. If you’re thinking 30 percent, you’re getting warm. Thirty-five? Warmer. Forty? Good guess

RATES UP FOR MOST BUT DOWN FOR COMMERCIAL USERS

When I received my most recent letter from Cal Am, I knew it wasn’t a late Christmas card. The first thing I noticed was the little blue box in the lower corner. “See inside for important information about your rates.”

Based on experience, I was pretty sure this was not signal of lower rates. I was right, but only half right.  More on that in a bit.

The mailing announced a Jan. 27 workshop on California American Water’s application to modify some of the conservation and rationing rules that affect most of the company’s customers in Monterey County, and to make some changes in the “rate design.”

On the last page I discovered that this means an increase in my water rates. As a somewhat typical water customer in a single-family home, I can expect to see my bill go up by about 40 percent. I should count myself lucky that I don’t live in an apartment because if I did, my bill would be going up about 43 percent.

Why is this happening? Didn’t Cal Am get a rate increase like 20 minutes ago?

I read the whole thing rather thoroughly and couldn’t find anything about improvements to the system or to service, fixing leaky pipes, or solving the water supply problem or saving fish in the Carmel River. None of that frivolous stuff. I didn’t see any talk about the rising cost of taking Public Utility Commissioners to dinner. As far as I can tell from the four-page letter, my bill is likely to go up because Cal Am wants to change the way it calculates bills, the way it applies conservation rates and how it does other things that have no impact on me other than increasing my bill.

Cal Am says, without explanation, that it wants to charge increase “the service charge to recover 30 percent of residential fixed costs, compared to a 15 percent recovery currently.”

Perhaps we should be relieved. What if Cal Am had picked 40 percent or 50 percent instead of 30 percent?

According to the letter, Cal Am also wants to charge me more by collecting money in the future that it should have collected from someone, who knows who, in the past. In other words, someone slipped up and failed to wring every dollar out of us at some point and the company thinks it should be able to remedy that. I have to presume that I was not the person or persons who should have paid more in the past because I am fairly certain that Cal Am has never missed an opportunity to get every possible nickel from me.

This is not a done deal, of course. It is part of an application before the Public Utilities Commission, which, if the past is a good predictor, will likely approve the requested increase and present Cal Am with an award for creativity and accounting prowess. This also is not a full reflection of what is likely to happen to your water bill in the near future. Cal Am rate increases are a lot like El Nino storms. Right behind this one, there’s another one taking shape.

But what of the lucky others whose rates aren’t going up? Those would be the Cal Am customers in the commercial category. They apparently aren’t being affected by most of the changed accounting procedures Cal Am wants to implement but they would be impacted by the effort to collect money that previously uncollected. On account of that, commercial ratepayers can expect to see their bills go down by about 9 percent.

If this is explained in any meaningful way in the letter, it is written in invisible ink.

It is difficult to see why commercial rates are to go down. Based on the information at hand, it could be that Cal Am thinks the uncollected money in past years should have been collected from residential customers and that commercial customers overpaid.

Or it could be that Cal Am just likes commercial customers than it likes the rest of us, or that it is more interested in keeping commercial customers happy.

You may recall that is was just a couple of years ago that Cal Am dramatically cut rates for commercial customers, or at least any commercial customers who were willing to sign a paper certifying that they really into conserving water whenever possible. They did that for various reasons, some of them sound. But I and a few other cynical types suspect that it was part of a deal. Something like this: Back us up on our desalination plans, the rate scheme for the San Clemente Dam removal and on other issues as needed, and we’ll lower your rates, and lower them again at the next opportunity.

Can I prove that? Heck no. In the byzantine world of utility accounting, it becomes ridiculously difficult to prove much of anything.

Now before someone gets all doesn’t-he-understand-that-what’s-good-for-business-is-good-for-everyone on me, I get it, I get it. What I don’t like is that decisions on such things are being made in places where I’m not normally invited and are being reached by people who don’t live anywhere near my neighborhood.

Which takes us to my final point. While there are some good Cal Am watchdogs already – people like George Riley and Ron Weitzman and Charles Cech as well as the fine people at the PUC’S Division of Ratepayer Advocates – I submit that they cannot possibly keep up with the all the rate storms lining up in the Pacific and heading our way.

Cal Am is regulated, and its rated set, by the state Public Utilities Commission, but that body in recent years has been preoccupied with keeping PG&E shareholders happy and overwhelmed by the need to monitor each public utility in this huge state.

Here’s what I think. We need someone in Monterey County, some highly credible person with great accounting skills, to take on the task of analyzing and reporting on all Cal Am rate increase requests and analyzing the company “rate design” and everything else it has or does that impacts our water rates.

Once upon a time, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District had some role in regulating Cal Am. That function has mostly gone away, but it seems entirely reasonable that the district hire someone to perform the function I propose.

Another possibility is the mayors’ water authority. Its primary function is to advance the Cal Am desalination project, the biggest storm of all, and to provide some level of public scrutiny over that venture. Seems to me it would be well equipped to take on the task.

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors could make it work as well if the members really wanted to, though the county wouldn’t be my first choice.

I see this person issuing public reports on Cal Am rate proposals and representing area residents at rate hearings before the PUC. A key function: educating Cal Am customers to the point that we could represent ourselves at rate hearings.

Some of the work would duplicate work already being done by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates. The difference is that the division is responsible for the entire state and must constantly change its focus. This person would have one mission – making whatever Cal Am is up to make sense.

There are those out there doing some of this work now. The George Rileys and Ron Weitzmans. But they cannot keep up with the volume it on their own, without someone able to devote full time to the effort. Rate applications consume hundreds of pages of fine print and tie into previously approved side deals, surcharges and recalculations. Only someone devoting full time to the challenge has any hope of ever understanding all of it.

Expensive? Kind of. What isn’t? an energized and effective person in this role could save Cal Am customers, including businesses and government bodies, more than enough to cover expenses, more than enough many times over.

Right now, Cal Am has us right where it wants us. Divided. Confused. Overwhelmed. The PUC has no motive to fix that and neither does anyone else. We need to create our own seat at the table.

About that workshop, it’s at 2 p.m. and again at 7 p.m. Wednesday Jan. 27 at the Oldemeyer Center, 986 Hilby Ave., Seaside. Presiding over the sessions will be an administrative law judge for the PUC. 

{ 15 comments }
Share

????

The following is my Aug. 7 letter to the California Coastal Commission’s executive director, Charles F. Lester, regarding the Cal Am test well:

Dear Mr. Lester,

Public Water Now (PWN) is the group that discovered the patents owned by Dennis Williams and Geoscience. PWN alerted the public about potential conflicts of interest. PWN is also the group that has harped on the phrase issued by the State Water Resources Control Board about pursuing subsurface intakes, “if feasible,” prior to pursuing other options.

I am writing to alert you to related issues that I hope you consider in the review of an amended permit for Cal Am, and the follow up monitoring and evaluation of data and circumstances re this test slant well.

PWN is well aware of the desire by you, the State Water Resources Control Board, California Public Utilities Commission, and others in the state that want a successful subsurface intake for desal facilities. PWN is also aware of the environmental reasons, and we do not disagree.

But PWN strongly objects to several factors that are in play, and you have a role in considering them.

How does the CCC remain objective and focused on the facts when it has a obvious public policy to support subsurface intake? PWN questions the depth of objectivity CCC will bring if the overlying policy goal is a successful subsurface intake for desal. Will CCC go the extra mile to guarantee its objectivity and interest in validated data and analysis? Is the CCC open to looking beyond the face value of the data it receives?

The patent royalty relationship between Dennis Williams/Geoscience and the driller –Boart Longyear – has not been queried. Is it possible that substantive financial relationships exist between these two that could cause the data to be skewed to serve ulterior motives? Will CCC look into the contract relationship between Williams and Boart Longyear? Will CCC determine there are no royalty and shared self interests in the contracts or in the actual test well operations that could skew their reports?

Will CCC question the financial relationship of these key sources of data and opinion?

PWN has felt for some time that the specific test period got cavalier treatment by the CCC. I made this very point at your hearing in November 2014 on the initial permit. Since slant wells are not in use anywhere in the world, how can CCC not absolutely insist on a valid test period? Not knowing what is a valid period, surely sophisticated professional attention is required. What is a valid test period? Will CCC opine on this? Will CCC prescribe a valid duration for the test period?

The only known subsurface intakes for desal have occurred in California – Dana Point and Sand City.

1) Dana Point results after 18 months of test slant well pumping are these: no conclusions on viability; some sand infiltration problems; and pumping efficiency declined from over 90% to about 55% over 18 months.

2) The data from the Sand City vertical subsurface wells for a small 300 acre foot/year plant shows actual pumping efficiency over 4 year of operation to be in serious decline:

From Sand City Public Works, calendar year:

  • 2011 96.8%
  • 2012 69.6%
  • 2013 64.8%
  • 2014 60.8%

From Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, water year

  • 2011 91.9%
  • 2012 80.7%
  • 2013 62.3%
  • 2014 59.5%

This data on Sand City tells a very negative tale about reliability, and therefore viability. Why does pumping efficiency with subsurface intake decline so significantly over a few years? Dana Point and Sand City data clearly make this point! Has the CCC considered this? This is why a valid test period is critical. Experience so far does not dictate a “full speed ahead” mentality. In fact it screams out for caution. And to be skeptical about any optimism about short term data. The telling will be in the testing, and in the duration, not the first data available.

Will CCC require a legitimate test period of two years or more? Remember, Cal Am originally proposed a two year test period. But with unexplained lower performance at Sand City, is two years adequate?

Every diagram example in all sources describe slant wells as penetrating far enough under the sea floor to extract water from beneath the sea floor. The intent is clear – to avoid aquifer interference, and perhaps to avoid related water rights claims. But the Cal Am test well does not penetrate the vertical line at the mean high tide line. It stops landward of that line. Would this “test well” meet your normal standard for a test of under sea floor intake? The fact that it did not extend under the sea floor area should raise questions about design or engineering?

Was the drilling length too risky or difficult? Was the drilling capacity limited in some way? Is this an issue for feasibility? Was the design under the patents too limiting? Should horizontal directional drilling still be an option? Are there more experiments that should take place? Did the insistence on the removable casings create engineering demands that were excessive? Could the guidelines from the State Water Board have established too high a level of outcome that was too expensive for success? The fact of a shorter test well length than intended (by the proponent, the patent holder and the public promotion) must get questioned regarding its use as a “test”?

Furthermore the plan of Cal Am to proceed directly from a short test period into a development permit for nine production wells makes a farce of all the publicity about the “test well” being a legitimate test well! The plan of Cal Am is based on assumptions, not tests. There are enough questions about long term performance reliability and cost acceptability that should ring alarm bells at the CCC, and elsewhere.

Working out the details and the costs of this experiment should not fall on the ratepayers. This is a state-sponsored requirement, and should have significant state funding. I doubt you have access to funding assistance. At least you might acknowledge the unfairness of the state, and the corporate utility, foisting this unproven and little scrutinized experiment on ratepayers.

The CCC, having jurisdiction over the efficacy of slant well impacts, and having a deep interest in the long term success of subsurface intakes, should have a particular interest in seeing that it is done right. This is too new for the CCC to feel comfort in self-interested promoters and contractors.

Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

If there is to be a successful test, there must be conscientious and professional attention to the fact that slant wells have never been successfully constructed and become operational anywhere in the world.

Costs can become astronomical, and should not fall exclusively on local ratepayers. State resources must be made available, since it is a policy goal of several state agencies for subsurface intakes. And the facts of declining pumping efficiency should also raise alarms.

We sincerely hope you will take these issues into account during deliberations and analysis of Cal Am’s amended permit.

Respectfully,

 

George T. Riley
Managing Director
Public Water Now

Emailed to: tom.luster

{ 11 comments }
Share

Vote no campaign and protest signs for a political or social issue in an election resulting in a group demonstration protesting to stop a law  or policy made by a politician on an isolated white background.BILLS FOR SOME HOMES WOULD JUMP 43 PERCENT

Public Water Now is launching a protest to Cal Am’s recent request for a rate increase. Although Cal Am may feel under-funded, we ratepayers are under-represented and under-appreciated.

Public Water Now has settled into the role of watchdog, but now feels the need to pursue action with a stronger and stronger voice. Because we were relentless in seeking a review of the water rate structure, Cal Am recently acquiesced.  Our main interest was to compare and understand the significant differences between residential and commercial rates. We are not convinced that things are fair. And so far, neither Cal Am, nor the commercial interests, has been able to explain how the stark differences are fair.

We did get a meeting with Cal Am officials a few weeks ago on the new rate design. We were told to expect 1) removal of the allotment system, 2) a compressed rate structure, and 3) a shift of costs to the fixed meter charge and away from volume and usage charges. The community’s success at conservation has Cal Am in a tizzy. When the Herald carried the news of the specifics, I was stunned because only days earlier Cal Am had not shared with us the size of the increase (averaging 29% for residential), nor the commercial decrease (averaging 14%), nor the short time period for protest, ending on Aug. 12.

I remember a California Public Utilities Commission workshop in 2012 where Cal Am proudly announced its research showed that higher rates would not cause reduced use. The Peninsula was different, Cal Am said. Cal Am’s view of price elasticity was the opposite of other research Cal Am shared that was unanimous in concluding that the higher the price, the lower the demand. I remember calling Cal Am out on this, in front of about 25 interested and mainly local parties, about its counter-intuitive statement. I was criticized by Cal Am for doing so. It seemed wrong then, and it surely has proven that Cal Am’s research expert was totally wrong.

Cal Am has a serious under-collection of revenue because it misjudged the elasticity of demand. For a protected utility without competition, it has no experience in the business of economic dynamics. Why so many seemingly savvy local business people support Cal Am is mysterious. It boggles the mind to witness such corporate incompetence.

Cal Am’s current rate request is on this link.

My conclusions and the points of protest are these.

  1. Cal Am is using conservation, and the cease-and-desist order and drought crises, to piggyback its under-collection performance. The underlying pitch is to shore up its revenue stream. Guaranteed revenue is the point. This is an inappropriate rationale, timing and method to restructure Cal Am’s entire revenue picture.
  1. The proposed protest period is excessively short, ending Aug. 12
  1. Cal Am has called for workshops, but none has been scheduled by Cal Am or the water management district. This shortcoming undermines the deadline.
  1. The residential rate for Tier 1 users goes up 43%, far exceeding the reported average of 29%. This is where the main water conservers have ended up, so now Cal Am will get its piece of gold from them. It is also where most voters will begin to feel the heat of Cal Am costs. The more we conserve in the public interest, the more we serve the corporate interest.
  1. The commercial rate decrease is not explained, which calls into question if the commercial rates still create an incentive for conservation as advertised.
  1. The fact of under-collections proves Cal Am has not had a rational revenue structure, or it proves Cal Am is inefficient in its management.  Both should be evaluated.
  1. Cal Am revenue reports, contained in its application (link) shows plenty of income after expenses.  Where and how is Cal Am under-financed?
  1. Cal Am claims, but does not explain, how it is less costly to have these new rates.

Protests can be filed by email (below).  In correspondent to the PUC and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, you should refer to the case number, which for now is  A.15-07-?  (The question mark is correct for now)

Public Utilities Commission: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov

Office of Ratepayer Advocates: richard.rauschmeier@cpuc.ca.gov

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District: arlene@mpwmd.net

Monterey Herald: mheditor@montereyherald.com

Monterey County Weekly: mail@mcweekly.com

Monterey Bay Partisan: calkinsroyal@gmail.com

Riley is managing director of Public Water Now.

{ 8 comments }