by Gillian Taylor
A direct mail piece that California American (Cal-Am) recently sent out contains numerous items of misinformation and "creative accounting" on their pet project, the proposed New Los Padres Dam. Not only is the mailing filled with untruths, but we, the rate-payers, will probably be billed for it as we have paid for previous "public information campaigns" that are in reality dam promotions.
Blatantly electioneering for their Carmel River dam, Cal-Am quotes the local Grand Jury, a newspaper editorial, and a group formed to promote the dam in order to support their version of reality. While these groups have a right to their opinions, they do not represent expert opinion on the dam. In fact, they represent the opposite.
Key omissions
Examples? The brochure claims the dam would improve the environment. Perhaps instead of the opinions of non-experts, Cal-Am should present us with the statements of the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), the California Department of Fish and Game (F&G) and the Sierra Club's hydrologist. The experts' comments on the proposed dam reveal its artificial flows would be a significant problem for the Carmel River ecosystem. The expert comments are a part of the public record on the dam, available to anyone asking for them, but ignored in Cal-Am.'s slick brochure.
Creative accounting
Cal-Am misrepresents the cost of one dam alternative, desalination, in their mailer. Regardless of whether you believe we even need or want a desal plant, Cal-Am should put out true and complete information-such as the fact that the Public Utilities Commission's own "Ratepayer Representation Branch" recently researched the costs of desal and found it to be much lower than claimed by the Water Management District and Cal-Am in the Parsons Report. Again, this fact is part of the public record. Cal-Am's dam cost estimate of $107-$127 million is not substantiated. Where are the costs for the extensive "mitigations" such as the expected bull-dozing of the river channel as a result of the altered flows and sedimentation? Why aren't the costs of dismantling the project (as called for by NMFS) included? Clearly, this propaganda piece does not tell the whole story when it comes to costs.
Wishful thinking
The direct mail snow job even implies that Cal-Am has all its dam permits and is ready to go. Not so. There are significant hurdles ahead for this project, some of which could kill it outright, such as
1) the required re-write and re-review of the draft supplemental EIR, necessitated by the many significant public and agency comments on the previous version;
2) the Endangered Species Act Section 7 process;
3) The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District public hearings and certification of the documents;
4) the state Public Utilities Commission's comprehensive review and hearing process; and, most significantly;
5) the legal requirement that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) reconsider the dam permits to determine whether public trust values (the river and environment) are adequately protected.
Far from being ready-to-go, feasible and beneficial, the dam is a seriously wounded project which uses outmoded and discredited technology.
Click to return to news or impacts