The Sierra Club and CAWS have reviewed the PUC/EDAW web site data and have the following comments:

 I. PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES SECTION, page 1

 EDAW proposes three basic water supply issues to define the problems facing the Peninsula. However, they don’t include the reason we are in the situation we are in and this must be addressed. It is NOT because of droughts that we are in an over-committed position. A major part of the water supply problem facing the Peninsula is that growth has been approved and/or allowed to take place without supporting water supply. It is not enough to focus on "the availability of a long-term water supply" alone. If this is not identified as a basic water supply problem, the water problem will continue whether we have a dam or Plan B, or nothing. The limited nature of the supply must be recognized.

 Example: a project in Monterey, the IMAX theater/retail complex, has just been approved with many unresolved questions about water. If the owner cannot obtain sufficient water for this project, then it adds to the list of those waiting for water. The project’s approval will now increase the pressure to get more and more from our limited available resources. We can expect the promoters of that facility to feel they have an entitlement to build, and to begin demanding that the public provide them a water supply for that project, and the "takings" rhetoric is raised.

 Recommendation: Add to list of issues: "Manage demand so it does not outgrow the available supply."

 In Issue #3 the following underlined words should be added: "the ongoing adverse effects of over-pumping to the public trust resources of the Carmel River."

 Water Supply Availability Section: line 2: should say "the need to replace OR LEGALIZE water that Cal-Am, ….."

 II. OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING SECTION:

 TARGET WATER SUPPLY (1B): Although Order 95-10 made a finding that "Cal-Am is diverting 10,730 afa from the Carmel River or its underflow without a valid basis of right," it did not require Cal-Am to develop 10,730 of new supply. That figure is based on the assumption that Cal-Am diverts 14,106 afa from the river, whereas Cal-Am’s actual diversions have been less than that in most years. For example, according to the MPWMD’s 1995 NLP EIR, Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River and its underflow from July 1992 through June 1993 were only 11,784 afa, so its illegal diversions were only 7,748afa.

On that account 10,730 is largely a fictitious number that confuses rather than helps the discussion of our water supply. (see Sierra Club DSEIR comments, page 2). 

Recommendation: The CVSIM for the DSEIR provides data that shows the variable average demand. Subtracting Seaside yield and Cal-Am’s existing water rights (pre-1924 plus NLP) from each annual demand will show what is actually required.

 OBJECTIVE #2 states: "Provide flexibility to meet locally approved changes in demand". We assume this can only mean changes in demand upward. This objective has nothing to do with the goal and task before us. The PUC ruled that Plan B could not preclude growth. Plan B does not need to "accommodate" growth, it does not need to be "expandable" to allow for growth. It does not need to "provide flexibility to meet locally approved changes in demand". The current Cal-Am application before the PUC is for a supposedly "no-growth" dam, and Plan B does not need to be able to create water for growth. It is interesting to note that the dam, as Cal-Am claims it would be used, would not even meet this objective, because it can’t "provide flexibility to meet locally approved changes in demand". Page 4 at top also contains this error ("be adaptable to future growth").

 Recommendation: the objective is to provide a legal supply for the existing demand. Other considerations are more properly treated as criteria by which alternatives are evaluated. For example, reliability is obviously an important criterion, and one on which we think our alternative will score well, but it should not be an objective.

 OBJECTIVE 3A: says "provide at least 75% of normal demand". As noted above, reliability belong as a criteria rather than an objective. The logical error of placing it as an objective is compounded here by the fact that an actual percent figure has been prematurely chosen.

 Recommendation: The consultants must keep the objectives and criteria separate and ensure that criteria are developed using factual data and with proper input from the public and intervenors.

 III. ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVE 1C (PAGE 5) says: "be consistent with adopted community plans". What does this mean? This could be construed to mean "consistent with build-out numbers" in the general plans or area plans. These plans are undergoing revision, largely because the levels of growth and development they envision have to be revised to better match resource and environmental constraints. In other words, the growth projections were outstripping resources and environmental limitations. There is no assurance that the next general plan (now being drafted) will be any better.  

The bottom line on this issue is that the TASK before the PUC/EDAW and the public and intervenors is to provide a legal water supply in response to the SWRCB’s order to stop over-pumping the Carmel River. It is NOT to create a wish-list of potential new needs and build a project to accommodate that.

 Recommendation: delete IC.

 OBJECTIVE 2A: this section focuses on "biological resources". Again, these should be criteria, not an objective. CEQA drives the criteria for analysis and they include many more categories that we (or EDAW) have provided here.  

Recommendation: As criteria, EDAW should add "minimize impacts to communities, such as construction and traffic disruption, disruption from operations, harm to Native American and other cultural sites, impediments to safety and convenience, etc. 

 IV. LOGISTICS OBJECTIVES 2: says "Maximize consistency with current legal requirements". This does not recognize the fact that the SWRCB has been asked to modify its order to increase slightly the amount legally allowed to be used for the water supply system. We do not believe it is prudent to prejudge the outcome of possible SWRCB deliberations.

 Recommendation: we suggest deleting Objective #2 and relying instead on the language in Objective #3. It incorporates this issue by stating "maximize institutional acceptance through permitting and agreements". Unlike Objective #2 above however, it does not prejudge the decision of the SWRCB on these issues.

 Thank you for considering these comments.

 Gillian Taylor, Chair 

Ventana Chapter Sierra Club

 Submitted for Sierra Club and CAWS

 Nov. 5, 1999

Additional Comments: (11 January 2000): The following are comments to the Plan B, Alternatives Package, being discussed.

It is important to note that the proposed New Los Padres Dam would NOT provide water for either lots of record or remodels. It would NOT provide water for a future "wish list" of existing customers or potential customers. Why should Plan B be required to carry the burden of this additional supply requirement when the dam could not? This criterion unreasonably sets the "bar" higher for Plan B than for the dam.

Conflict with AB 1182: this bill called for an ALTERNATIVE to the proposed Carmel River dam, should it not go forward. The bill did not call for the creation of a water solution for build-out "potential" or a build-out "wish list".

The PUC is charged with solving the basic over-pumping problem identified in Order 95-10. The State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10 called for a solution to the over-pumping of the Carmel River, not the provision of future water supply for some future build-out potential of "existing customers".

"Future needs of existing customers" can be defined to include the following uses which to date do not have water supply and would not have water allocated by the proposed dam: remodels, undeveloped lots of record and their subdivision and remodels upon those subdivisions; vineyards and vineyard expansion, other agricultural expansion, any commercial expansion; new golf courses or golf course expansion; new resorts, new "spas" attached to existing resorts; new hotels, new retail businesses and new retail and new retail expansion.

Click here for more

Water Over The Dam