Proceeding Number A.13-05-017 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

ABSTRACT: RE: In the Matter of the Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for an Order (1) Approving a Settlement Agreement with the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to Settle and Resolve Claims and Issues Between the Parties and to Promote the Development, Construction and Operation of a Water Supply Project for Monterey County on an Expedited Basis, and (2) Authorizing the Transfer of Authorized Costs Related to the Settlement Agreement to Its Special Request 1 Surcharge Balancing Account, the NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT document copy is embedded. Please be advised that Application 13-05-017 is being reassigned from Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Seaneen Wilson to ALJ Robert Mason.

Notice of Reassignment 9-20-17 a.13!05!017 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 9-20-17
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Proceeding Number A.13-05-017 RESPONSE BY PUBLIC WATER NOW IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING EVIDENCE, SETTING ASIDE DECISIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAND OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (No. S230728) DIRECTING THE COMMISSION’S RECONSIDERATION

ABSTRACT:  RE: In the Matter of the Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for an Order (1) Approving a Settlement Agreement with the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to Settle and Resolve Claims and Issues Between the Parties and to Promote the Development, Construction and Operation of a Water Supply Project for Monterey County on an Expedited Basis, and (2) Authorizing the Transfer of Authorized Costs Related to the Settlement Agreement to Its Special Request 1 Surcharge Balancing Account, the RESPONSE BY PUBLIC WATER NOW IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING EVIDENCE, SETTING ASIDE DECISIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAND OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (No. S230728) DIRECTING THE COMMISSION’S RECONSIDERATION document copy is embedded.  PWN Supports MCWD Motion for Reconsidertion PWN believes the proceeding was inefficient, incomplete and unnecessarily convuloted with the redacted portions. Even within the nondisclosure portion of the proceeding, the review of redacted material was also incomplete and confusing. In other words, the confidential portion was essentially a continuation of the public portion with the refusal to reveal facts. 

It is my opinion that the intent to reveal selected information within confidential hearings actually did not reveal addditional infomation to the ALJ. The ALJ did not gain any new insight throughout the confidential portion of the hearing. In fact she commented on that point.

It is the opinion of PWN that the ALJ Proposed Decision was not based on a full revelation of facts for the record. PWN believes further that the Commission decision was equally faulty from lack of full information on the record.

PWN supported MCWD in its initial appeal the the State Supreme Court. PWN continues to support MCWD in its effort to create a fair and complete public record in this matter.
Recommendation Public Water Now supports the MCWD Motion for Reconsidertion.

Response by Pwn in Support of Mcwd's Motion 7-14-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 7-14-17
RESPONSE BY PUBLIC WATER NOW IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING EVIDENCE, SETTING ASIDE DECISIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAND OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (No. S230728) DIRECTING THE COMMISSION’S RECONSIDERATION

2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: A GLASS HALF FULL? THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

ABSTRACT: The 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report “A GLASS HALF FULL? THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT” document copy is embedded. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections are reproduced.

FINDINGS

F1. The MPWMD has effectively communicated the need for consumers to conserve water.

F2. Reduced funding for the MPWMD rebate program may impact participation in the voluntary retrofit of home appliances.

F3. Water conservation efforts for the MPWMD are nearly maximized; further efforts may conserve an additional 500-1,000 acre-feet per year.

F4. Although water sources are sufficient for existing MPWMD communities and customers, this will change with the execution of Order 95-10 and enforcement of the State’s Cease and Desist Order Cal Am to decrease pumping from the Carmel River.

F5. Although current water sources are sufficient to serve existing MPWMD customers, these sources are not sufficient to allow for growth.

F6. The MPWMD supports the current Cal Am proposal to construct (and so own) a desalination facility and has agreed to access low-cost funding for this project on behalf of Cal Am.

F7. The MCWD has sufficient water to serve existing customers but will need reliable sources of additional water if proposed developments in Ft. Ord are to move forward.

F8. 2014 groundwater legislation could affect the MCWD’s current allocation of water from the Salinas Valley Basin.

F9. A lack of permanent senior management at MCWD has led to instability within the organization.

F10. Individuals elected to the MCWD Board of Directors are not required to undergo formal training in governance, procedure, and chain of command.

F11. The technology exists to track water use in real time, alerting technicians to serious water leaks; however, MCWD does not have this technology in place.

F12. Excess surface water from the Carmel and Salinas Rivers could be used to recharge the aquifers, providing a method for “storing” water that would otherwise flow to the ocean.  MPWMD is currently capturing water from the Carmel River.

F13. The MOU signed by both districts and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey County Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and the City of Salinas may lead to a more efficient use of reclaimed and treated wastewater across the county, provided the MOU results in a signed agreement.

F14. Conservation offset programs that involve conservation agreements between developers, water districts, and cities have significant potential to benefit both conservation efforts and city planning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) continue conservation efforts to achieve additional water savings, with the goal of conserving an additional 500 acre-feet per year by the end of 2016.

R2. MPWMD seek additional funding to offset reduction in rebate program budget by the end of 2015.

R3. MPWMD offer incentives for retrofitting multi-family laundry facilities by the end of 2016.

R4. MPWMD mandate installation of pressure reducers on all water supply lines by the end of 2016.

R5. MPWMD institute offset programs for new residential and commercial developments that offer incentives for builders to pay for conservation efforts in other structures as part of permit approval beginning in January 2016.

R6. MPWMD install water saving devices (low-flow toilets, water-efficient washers and dishwashers, aerators) in low-income housing units in conjunction with offset programs.

R7. The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) continue conservation efforts to achieve additional water savings.

R8. MCWD install technology to track water use in real time by the end of 2016.

R9. MCWD hire additional personnel to expand current conservation efforts by September 2015.

R10. MCWD institute offset programs for new residential and commercial developments that offer incentives for builders to pay for conservation efforts in other structures as part of permit approval beginning in January 2016.

R11. MCWD hire permanent General Manager and District Engineer as soon as possible to stabilize operations.

R12. MCWD provide mandatory and ongoing training for all board members, effective immediately.

R13. MPWMD and MCWD keep abreast of new technology for conservation and desalination and utilize such technology when economically feasible.

R14. MCWD and MPWMD make all possible efforts to form an agreement with the signers of the wastewater MOU with the goal of having such an agreement in place by the end of 2015.

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests a response as indicated below from the following governing bodies:

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board of Directors:

• Findings F1 thru F6, F13, F14; Recommendations R1 thru 6, R13, R14

Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors:

• Findings F7 thru F14; Recommendations R7 thru R14.

A Glass Half Full Mpwmd & Mcwd 06-05-15 Mccgj Report

2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report
A GLASS HALF FULL? THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
June 5, 2015
(16 pages)

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Regular Board Meeting, Board of Directors, 21 January 2015: Action Items Related to ‘Proposed 2,700 AFY Desalination Facility

ABSTRACT:  On Wednesday, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT Board of Directors is scheduled to conduct a meeting, including an open session beginning at 7:00 P.M.  The Agenda includes Action Items related to a “proposed 2,700 AFY desalination facility:”
A. Discussion and Possible Action to Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Request for Proposals(RFP) to Provide Environmental Services During the Design of, and Subsequently, to Prepare CEQA Documents (EIR/EIS) for a Proposed 2,700 Acre Foot (af) Desalination Facility to Augment the Water Supply at the Ord Community.
B. Discussion and Possible Action to Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to Design and Build a Proposed 2,700 acre foot (af) Desalination Facility to Augment the Water Supply for the Ord Community and a Solar Energy Offset Project Associated with the Desalination Project.
C. Discussion and Possible Action to Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to Prepare a Financing Plan for Design and Construction of a Proposed 2,700 af Desalination Facility and Energy Offset Project.
D. Discussion and Possible Action to Consider Annexing the Cemex Property; Soliciting Proposals for Environmental Services in Connection with this Annexation, and; Directing Staff to Prepare an Application for Submission to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCO).
The MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT Agenda Packet is embedded.

MCWD Agenda Packet 2015-01-21

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

Agenda Packet

Regular Board Meeting, Board of Directors
Marina Coast Water District
11 Reservation Road, Marina, California
Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 6:30 p.m. PST

REFERENCE:
Marina Coast poised to resume own desal project
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 01/19/15

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Respondent Appellant, V. AG LAND TRUST, Petitioner/Respondent: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, No. H038550, OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

ABSTRACT: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Respondent Appellant, V. AG LAND TRUST, Petitioner Respondent, No. H038550, OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT is embedded. Importantly, CONCLUSION The superior court prejudicially erred in determining that it had jurisdiction to "review, reverse, correct, or annul" final, conclusive Commission decisions. (Pub. Util. Code §1759, subd. (a).) The trial court's clear error in determining that it had jurisdiction to decide ALT's CEQA petition resulted in an extraordinary failure of justice. Not only does the judgment below punish MCWD for following the law, but it casts a cloud of uncertainty over the ongoing effort of numerous parties presently before the Commission to secure a stable, environmentally sound water supply for the Monterey Peninsula, and it requires the unwinding of a complex good faith property transfer between the Armstrong Family and MCWD that became final more than two years ago. MCWD's section 1759 argument is dispositive of this appeal. However, if the Court were to reach MCWD's remaining jurisdictional and merits arguments, each of those arguments is similarly dispositive of this appeal in MCWD's favor.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should reverse the April 17, 2012 Judgment, including the award of costs to ALT, and direct the Monterey County Superior Court to dismiss or deny the CEQA petition in its entirety and enter judgment for MCWD.

Opening Brief of Appellant Mcwd h038550

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Respondent Appellant, V. AG LAND TRUST, Petitioner/Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

No. H038550

AG LAND TRUST v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, 6th Appellate District Case Number H038550

ABSTRACT: AG LAND TRUST v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, 6th Appellate District Case Number H038550 pending. Case Summary, Briefs and Future Scheduled Actions information is presented.

Case Summary

Trial Court Case: M105019 Court of Appeal Case: H038550 Division: Case Caption: AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District Case Type: CV Filing Date: 06/11/2012 Oral Argument Date/Time: Cross Referenced Cases: H036084 Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (AG Land Trust) H038167 Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court

Briefs

AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District Case Number H038550 Brief Due Date Date Filed Party and Attorney Notes Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed.   11/07/2012 Defendant and Appellant: Marina Coast Water District Attorney: Mark Fogelman   22 volumes of Appendix (2 boxes)  Respondent's brief. 01/07/2013   Plaintiff and Respondent: AG Land Trust Attorney: Michael W. Stamp

Future Scheduled Actions

AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District Case Number H038550 Description Due Date Notes Administrative record returned to superior court. 06/05/2013 To court. 11/26/2012 Request for Judicial Notice Filed by Marina Coast Water Dist Respondent's brief. 12/07/2012 To court. 11/29/2012 Applnt's mot to expedite cal pref and o/arg Grant of extension due from court 11/26/2012 for 1st ext on Resp brief & appendix

 ADDENDUM: 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Case Details of GNM105019 ;  AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District

Case Number GNM105019

Case Caption AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Filing Date 4/5/2010
Case Type Civil (General)
Filing Type Complaint
Original Filing Date 4/5/2010

Motion Hearing 12/14/2012 9:00 A.M. Courtroom 15

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Supreme Court Case Number S204634

ABSTRACT: California Supreme Court, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Case Number S204634, Petition for Review, Answer to Petition for Review and Reply to Answer to Petition for Review documents are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied. And 6th Appellate District, Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court, Case Number H038167, Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and Amicus Curiae Brief Armstrong Family are embedded. Disposition: Petition summarily denied by order.

California Supreme Court 

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST) 

Case Number S204634 

Disposition: Petition for review denied, 12 September 2012

S204634 Petition for Review

Petition for Review

S204634 Answer to Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

S204634 Reply to Answer

Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

6th Appellate District 

Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court 

Case Number H038167 

Disposition: Petition summarily denied by order, 2 August 2012

h038167 Amicus Curiae Monterey Santa Cruz Counties Building and Construction Trades Council

Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council

h038167 Amicus Curiae Armstrong Family

Amicus Curiae Brief Armstrong Family

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), California Supreme Court Case Number S192285

ABSTRACT: California Supreme Court, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Case Number S192285, Petition for Review, Answer to Petition for Review and Reply to Answer to Petition for Review documents are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied. And 6th Appellate District, Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (Ag Land Trust), Case Number H036084, Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Utilities Commission, Amicus Curiae Brief Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks and Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey County Water Resource Agency are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied.

California Supreme Court

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST)

Case Number S192285

Disposition: Petition for review denied, 18 May 2011

S192285 Petition for Review

Petition for Review

S192285 Answer to Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

S192285 Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

6^th Appellate District

Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (Ag Land Trust)

Case Number H036084

Disposition:  Petition summarily denied by order, 6 April 2011

h036084 Amicus Curiae Cpuc

Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Utilities Commission

h036084 Amicus Curiae Cities

Amicus Curiae Brief Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks

h036084 Amicus Curiae Mcwra

Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey County Water Resource Agency