Posted on 11/23/2002 4:06:57 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
What ballot measure?
--After big defeat at polls, water board wants even more power
UNFAZED BY the no-confidence vote of 19,325 Peninsula residents earlier this month, the Monterey Peninsula Water Manage-ment District board voted Monday to expand its regulation of wells in rural parts of Carmel Valley and to begin the process of taking over Cal-Am Water Company.
The two moves -- which would greatly increase the jurisdiction of the water district -- were made at the board's first regular meeting after the Nov. 5 election, when voters backed a ballot measure by a 2-to-1 margin that called for the water district to be dissolved.
"Measure B is meaningless. Twenty-thousand people voted for it, but I still consider that to be meaningless," said director Zan Henson, a staunch advocate of giving the board more power.
Henson said it wasn't clear whether Measure B was a vote against the current water board, or against the board's 24-year history of failing to produce any new water.
"I was elected to try to do something on this water board and I'm going to try to do it," he said.
Only director David Pendergrass indicated any interest in the landslide, saying he thought the high voter turnout meant it should not be taken "too lightly."
More well permits
With its vote to approve Ordinance 105 this week, the water district took the first step toward giving itself control over many more water wells in the Carmel River watershed. Before last year, the district didn't interfere in plans for wells at individual homes in Carmel Valley. In March 2001, Henson, Erickson, Lehman and Lindstrom joined forces to require permits for all wells that tapped into the Carmel River aquifer or were within 1,000 feet of the river's five main tributaries.
The rocky, "upland" area the district voted this week to regulate is about five times bigger than the area covered by the old well ordinance. It contains 61 percent of the wells in Carmel Valley, according to MPWMD project manager Henrietta Stern. Because most property owners have no other way to get water, new wells are being drilled regularly.
"There has been a 150 percent increase since 1995 -- 247 new wells," Stern said. But they don't produce much water.
"Despite their number, they account for only 3 percent of the total water production in the watershed," she said. Drilled in hard rock, the wells amount to "squeezing water out of a turnip."
Stern warned that processing the added permits would require 875 hours of staff time and cost $60,000 each year.
The new rules require property owners to:
- prove they have the right to use the water under their land, and
- begin construction within one year of the permit date and complete it within two years.
Some members of the public, including Carmel Valley Association representative Robert Greenwood, praised the new law.
"It imposes burdens on the operators of private wells as well as more work on district staff," he said. "However, until we have a [new water] supply, we remain obliged to monitor carefully all sources of water within the district."
But Monterey resident Marc Beique -- who was defeated by Molly Erickson for a water board seat in 1999 -- questioned the logic of spending so much energy to regulate a large area that produces only 414 acre-feet of water.
After motions were made to approve the new law, director Dave Potter said he supported it despite concerns about its costs and impact on staff, and then said he thought the district's reach should be extended further.
MPWMD does not regulate the single-user wells drilled in Carmel Highlands and Pebble Beach, an area Potter called "a gaping hole" in the water district's rules, even though those wells are overseen by the county health department.
Erickson indicated she would support expanding the permit requirement to cover Pebble Beach and the Highlands at a future meeting.
The board voted 5-2, with Pendergrass and director Alvin Edwards dissenting, to approve the ordinance, which will get a final review by the board Dec. 16.
Cal-Am takeover
Citing what he called the "horrible" taste of water delivered by Cal-Am Water Co., Henson urged the water board to seize control of the company's local facilities. Despite objections from many members of the public and Cal-Am's pledge to fight it, the board voted 4-3, with Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Erickson in favor, to look into what it might cost to undertake eminent domain proceedings against the water company.
Henson said people need not search too hard for reasons why the district should be the local water supplier.
"You can start by trying to drink the water but should also look at the investments made in the water supply in last 50 years by the water company," Henson said. "The Paralta Well in Seaside and four wells in the lower Carmel Valley aquifer -- that's been their sum total investment."
He accused Cal-Am of failing to deal with silt problems behind its Carmel River dams and called its water lines "decrepit."
But his proposal that the district consider eminent domain proceedings against Cal-Am received little support outside the board majority.
"The interest of a water company is to provide water and this district has not indicated it is capable of organizing itself to provide water," former water board director Edwin Lee commented. "I suggest you not spend any more time or money on this proposal."
Instead, he said, the district should spend its resources on a Carmel River dam or the desalination and underground water storage projects known as Plan B.
Greenwood, typically supportive of the water district, said he hadn't had a chance to discuss the matter with the Carmel Valley Association board but was "sufficiently exercised" to comment on the idea of taking over Cal-Am.
"The district has enough on its plate, namely the design and implementation of a water supply project," he said. "This is the worst possible time for the district to take on another series of tasks and challenges."
Steve Leonard, vice president and manager of Cal-Am's Monterey division, doubted the district could handle the full-time job of running a water company and said his employer has no interest in selling.
"We do not believe this board should spend one cent to take Cal-Am, and we will do whatever we can to make sure our ratepayers do not pay for one cent of a study on it," he said. (Cal-Am customers pay a surcharge on their water bills that goes to the water district.)
"Condemnation is expensive, divisive and will not produce one drop of water -- the thing our customers need most," Leonard said.
Bob McKenzie warned the board against giving more ammunition to the people who expressed their dissatisfaction on election day.
"It may have escaped your notice, but three weeks ago the people you serve decided 2-to-1 you're doing a lousy job," he said. "Now you're finding more activities to do a lousy job at. Don't move forward with this."
Nonetheless, Henson proposed the district spend $15,000 to figure out how much it would cost ratepayers to take over Cal-Am, a motion seconded by Lehman.
"Cal-Am gets up and says they oppose this, so I have to wonder: What are they hiding?" Henson asked. "I think we owe it to the ratepayers of this community to at least begin an investigation."
Erickson added her opinion that Cal-Am is a "big obstacle" to solving water supply problems because it is "still clinging to the dam," but she objected to an immediate allocation of $15,000 toward taking it over.
So Henson changed his motion and asked that the district's staff come up with a preliminary plan of action.
Pendergrass, Edwards and Potter objected.
"We're looking at a large hole we're going to throw money down, and the only people who will benefit are consultants and attorneys," Potter said. "I don't see any benefit to the public, and short of having a printing press in the basement, I don't think we can fund it."
Typical for this area of California...
It's the water./sarcasm
Maybe. The must be drinking or smoking something...
Mr. Eastwood is what, seventy-seven? I think if he was a little younger, he would have the energy to take some of them on. He has a lot of irons in the fire already for someone his age.
A lot of the very wealthy folks around this place are either limousine liberals or tepid conservatives who do nothing but play golf and wear checked pants, go to resturaunts, hire illegals very cheaply to clean their yards and toilets or tend to the crops.
I call it "Plantation Monterey County." I'm fortunate to have a few bucks, but I'm no J. Paul Getty either...
Yes, it seems the local Republicans are always getting tepid primary candidates who are sure to lose in the general elections winning in our primaries. It makes one wonder.
-
The Watermelon Jihadists have controlled Carmel for decades.
Some of this has changed recently. We got rid of a few of the far Lefties on the Carmel city council. They are now a 3 to 2 minority. BUT, this is no reason to relax.
It is at the other municipal, county, regional districts and state level where we have a huge problem. Of course the local news media aids and abets the Leftist lies and the sheople take it hook, line and sinker...
You can never relax with the left wing elitists in California in your area or my area the wine country.
Like so many beautiful places in the USA, this one (Carmel) is infected with a leftist/expropriator mentality in its local government and bureaucracy.
How much of that $40 million ended up in Club Sierra Coffers after these law suits. This has/is happening all over the nice areas of Kali to live in.
Those pillars of the community... you know the type... salt of the earth./sarcasm
And drink recycled toilet water... like the astronuts do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.