Showing posts with label Proceeding A.12-04-019 Marina Coast Water District. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proceeding A.12-04-019 Marina Coast Water District. Show all posts

Thursday, February 08, 2018

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 RESPONSE OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT TO CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the RESPONSE OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT TO CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE document copy is embedded. Pursuant to Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure 11.1 and 13.9, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) provides its response in opposition to the January 9, 2018 request of California-American Water Company (“Cal-Am”) that the Commission take official notice of a January 2, 2018 letter from Salinas Mayor Joe Gunter, addressed to Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority President, and Pacific Grove Mayor, Bill Kampe. For the reasons stated in the January 17, 2018 response of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the January 19, 2018 response of the City of Marina, i.e., Cal-Am provides no support for its contention that Mayor Gunter’s letter constitutes an official act properly subject to judicial notice under Rule 13.9 and Evidence Code section 452, and the statements in the letter constitute hearsay, MCWD agrees that official notice is not proper.
FILED 01/9/18
RESPONSE OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT TO CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

Friday, October 27, 2017

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CITY OF MARINA AND MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the CITY OF MARINA AND MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME document copy is embedded. REQUESTED RELIEF For the reasons stated above, Marina and MCWD request that the Commission act promptly to reject CalAm’s October 12 pleading in full for its failure to comply with Commission rules. If that action is not taken or even if CalAm acts to correct that error, Marina and MCWD request that CalAm’s request to shorten response time contained in its October 12 motion be denied with prejudice. Marina, MCWD, and the other parties to this proceeding must be afforded the ordinary time allowed by Rule 11.1(e) to fully and appropriately respond to CalAm’s requests to strike testimony contained in CalAm’s October 12 Motion.
FILED 10-13-17
CITY OF MARINA AND MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE OCTOBER 12, 2017 MOTION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO STRIKE TESTIMONY

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE OCTOBER 12, 2017 MOTION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO STRIKE TESTIMONY document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above, all of MCWD’s evidence that Cal-Am seeks to exclude from the Commission’s consideration is relevant to issues of consequence in this proceeding, as set forth in the Issues Ruling. None of the challenged MCWD testimony impermissibly states a legal conclusion. Cal-Am’s motion to strike constitutes yet another attempt by Cal-Am to silence opinions contrary to its own view and to deprive the Commission of a full and up-to-date factual record. Cal-Am’s motion to strike should be denied.
FILED 10-20-17
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE OCTOBER 12, 2017 MOTION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO STRIKE TESTIMONY

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE JANUARY 13, 2017 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE JANUARY 13, 2017 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b)) document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION MCWD requests that an order or ruling issue promptly, requiring that:
1) MCWD be provided prompt access to all of the documents referenced in the DEIR/DEIS and the Appendices thereto;
2) All of the documents referenced in the DEIR/DEIS for the MPWSP and the Appendices thereto be made readily accessible to the public for review, including – if an advance appointment for review is required – provision of sufficient and accurate contact information to arrange for such advance appointment;
3) The NOA of the DEIR/DEIS for the MPWSP be recirculated;
4) The recirculated NOA restart the public comment period for the DEIR/DEIS; and
5) The recirculated NOA include a clear statement of procedures and contact information for the public to arrange for review of the documents referenced in the DEIR/DEIS for the MPWSP and the Appendices.
FILED 2-08-17
MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE JANUARY 13, 2017 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))
DECLARATION OF RUTH STONER MUZZIN IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE JANUARY 13, 2017 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER document copy is embedded. INTRODUCTION In accordance with Rule 11.1(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) responds herewith to the November 15, 2016 “Motion for Party Status of Citizens for Just Water,” aka “Just Water” (the “Motion”). MCWD supports the Motion because it is both consistent with Rule 1.4, subdivision (b), and in the public interest. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, and in the interest of a full and complete record in this proceeding, MCWD supports the Commission’s grant of the Motion.

Mcwd's Response in Support 11-28-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
FILED 11-28-16
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S PROTEST OF AMENDED APPLICATION 12-04-019

ABSTRACT:  Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S PROTEST OF AMENDED APPLICATION 12-04-019 document copy is embedded. PROTEST AND GROUNDS MCWD protests the Amended Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) for the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (“MPWSP”). The MPWSP remains essentially the same project as the North Marina alternative that the Commission previously analyzed and ultimately rejected in A.04-09-019. (See MCWD’s Protest of A.12-04-019, filed May 25, 2012, p. 2, citing D.10-12-016.) The Amended Application suffers from a number of the same legal and practical impediments that MCWD raised in its initial protest in this proceeding, and MCWD reaffirms and incorporates by reference into this protest each and every position, objection and legal argument it has raised in this proceeding, whether by its initial protest, its pleadings filed in this proceeding, its oral statements and arguments to the Presiding Officer, or otherwise.
The chief obstacle to the project described in the Amended Application is still the threshold problem of Cal-Am’s lack of an appropriative groundwater right to carry out the project in the preferred configuration, i.e., utilizing slant wells drawing from the CEMEX property in North Marina within the now-designated Critically Overdrafted 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin1 of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Cal-Am admits that its test slant well draws groundwater, and that its fully operational source wells will draw far more groundwater. The State Water Resources Control Board’s assessment of this legal obstacle in July 2013 did nothing to cure this fundamental problem; rather, it simply suggested that there may be a potential path for Cal-Am to lawfully utilize for desalination purposes any groundwater pumped from source wells at the CEMEX site if Cal-Am is able to demonstrate that the project would not harm the groundwater aquifers and lawful groundwater users
within the vicinity of the CEMEX property. (Ex. MCD-17, pp. 48, 50-51.) MCWD is one of those users. The SWRCB properly emphasized that the burden falls on Cal-Am to demonstrate there will be no injury. (Id. at 46.)
MCWD believes that each of the following issues presents a serious impediment – or at least an unresolved potential impediment – to the preferred configuration for the MPWSP as proposed by Cal-Am in its Amended Application.

  • Cal-Am’s lack of an appropriative groundwater right for the MPWSP;
  • The Monterey County “Desal Ordinance,” Monterey County Code of Ordinances, chapter 10, section 10.72.030, subd. B, which requires public ownership of desalination facilities in Monterey County;2
  •  The anti-export provision of the Agency Act (Water Code Appendix, ch. 52, see sections 52-9(u) and 52-20), which requires groundwater pumped in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin to remain in the basin;
  • A 500 acre-foot per year pumping limitation and other restrictions, which apply to the CEMEX property. (1996 Annexation Agreement, Ex. MCD-6).3
Therefore the MPWSP, in the configuration preferred by Cal-Am as set forth in its Amended Appendix H (Project Description) and filed with the Commission as part of the Amended Application, is not feasible.
Thus, any final decision by the Commission in this proceeding that approves the MPWSP in Cal-Am’s preferred configuration of intake wells drawing from the Critically Overdrafted 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin at the CEMEX site would still require, and be subject to, a resolution in the appropriate judicial forum of the issue of Cal-Am’s lack of an appropriative groundwater right for the project.
Filing Date 4-08-16
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S PROTEST OF AMENDED APPLICATION 12-04-019

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF WATER PLUS TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF WATER PLUS TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING document copy is embedded. Importantly, The Commission should not be distracted by Cal-Am’s failure to support its attack on the Motion with any specific response to the statistical analysis that is presented by Water Plus. The Commission and its staff must evaluate the Motion on its merits. To the extent that the Commission believes Cal-Am has made deceptive or misleading statements that could constitute a violation of the Commission’s rules, or justify the sanction of dismissal, the Commission should undertake the appropriate investigation of any such potential violation.
Filing Date 10-16-15
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF WATER PLUS TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SEPARATE COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON PROPOSED SCHEDULING

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the SEPARATE COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON PROPOSED SCHEDULING document copy is embedded.
Filing Date 10-20-15
SEPARATE COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON PROPOSED SCHEDULING

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b)) document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION MCWD requests that an order or ruling issue promptly, requiring that:
1) All of the documents referenced in the DEIR for the MPWSP and the Appendices thereto be made readily accessible to the public for review;
2) The NOA of the DEIR for the MPWSP be re-circulated;
3) The re-circulated NOA include a clear statement of the location(s) where the documents referenced in the DEIR for the MPWSP and the Appendices thereto are available for public review; and
4) The re-circulated NOA restart the public comment period for the DEIR.
Filing Date 6-19-15
MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))
Filing Date 6-19-15
Attachment 1
DECLARATION OF RUTH STONER MUZZIN IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b)) 

Monday, September 15, 2014

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S COMMENTS ON PHASE 2 “GWR” SCHEDULE

ABSTRACT:  Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S COMMENTS ON PHASE 2 “GWR” SCHEDULE document is embedded.  CONCLUSION MCWD urges the Commission to include an opportunity for hearings on the environmental impacts of both the GWR and the full MPWSP following release of the respective environmental impact statements, in order to achieve a full and complete evidentiary record on all relevant factors that it must consider regarding the MPWSP (Pub. Util. Code § 1002, subd. (a)), and MCWD urges the Commission to coordinate the briefing and decision-making schedule to result in one CPCN decision on the “whole of [the] action” (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15378(a); Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 128-132), rather than impermissibly piecemealing its decision-making process.
Filing Date 9-15-14
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S COMMENTS ON PHASE 2 “GWR” SCHEDULE

Friday, March 07, 2014

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded. CONCLUSION Because the MPWSP Settlement and the Sizing Settlement, as proposed, are not reasonable in light of the whole record, are not consistent with law, and are not in the public interest (Rule 12.1(d)), neither settlement can be approved. The project must be configured to avoid impairment of the 1996 Annexation Agreement and injury to MCWD and other users of SVGB groundwater, and to comply with the Agency Act and other applicable laws. The entire project’s potential environmental impacts and those of all reasonable project alternatives must be thoroughly examined through the Commission’s completion, evaluation and certification of its Subsequent EIR, and its exploration of the environmental impacts of the project at an evidentiary hearing.
Absent revisions to the MPWSP and the Settlements that resolve the legal problems posed by the project’s non-compliance with law and its impairment of MCWD’s interests, and absent the Commission’s lawful resolution of the environmental review issues set forth above, MCWD respectfully requests that the Commission deny both the motion for approval of the MPWSP Settlement and the motion for approval of the Sizing Settlement.
Filing Date 02-14-14
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S OPENING BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S OPENING BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document, including ATTACHMENT 1, is embedded. CONCLUSION
Because the MPWSP Settlement and the Sizing Settlement, as proposed, are not reasonable in light of the whole record, are not consistent with law, and are not in the public interest, they cannot be approved.
The project must be configured to avoid impairment of the 1996 Annexation Agreement and injury to MCWD and other users of SVGB groundwater, and to comply with the Agency Act and other applicable laws. The entire project’s potential environmental impacts and reasonable alternative projects must be thoroughly examined through the Commission’s completion, evaluation and certification of its Subsequent EIR, and its exploration of the environmental impacts of the project at a hearing.
Absent revisions to the MPWSP and the Settlements that resolve the legal problems posed by the project’s non-compliance with law and its impairment of MCWD’s interests, and absent the Commission’s lawful resolution of the environmental review issues raised above, MCWD respectfully requests that the Commission deny both the motion for approval of the MPWSP Settlement and the motion for approval of the Sizing Settlement.
Filing Date Filing Date 01-21-14
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S OPENING BRIEF ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Filing Date Filing Date 01-21-14
ATTACHMENT 1

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT COURT DECISION AND REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT COURT DECISION AND REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE and ATTACHMENT A documents are embedded.  Importantly, Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) hereby provides the Commission and the Parties notice of the issuance of a court decision relevant to these proceedings, in the interest of ensuring the completeness of the Commission’s record in the public interest. Pursuant to Rule 13.9 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, MCWD requests the Commission to take official notice that the relevant decision has been rendered and that it reverses the judgment in the underlying suit and requires the suit be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal decision is particularly relevant to this proceeding because the Commission, in its Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for this proceeding, indicated that its Subsequent EIR would be relying in part on its previous EIR for the Regional Desalination Project. (October 2012 NOP, pp. 2-3.)
A copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal is attached hereto as Attachment A.

Marina Coast Water District's Notice of Relevant Court Decision Filing Date 08-30-13
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S NOTICE OF RELEVANT COURT DECISION AND REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE

Attachment A Filing Date 08-30-13
ATTACHMENT A

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ 1) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 2) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ 1) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 2) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION document is embedded. Importantly, CONCLUSION Because the MPWSP, as proposed by the Settling Parties, would 1) violate MCWD’s rights under the 1996 Annexation Agreement, 2) violate the Agency Act, and 3) proceed on an insufficient record without the completion of the environmental review required by CEQA and the evidentiary hearing exploring environmental factors required by the Public Utilities Code, the Settlement Motions seek approval of agreements that are not reasonable in light of the whole record, are not consistent with law, and are not in the public interest. The project configuration must be modified to avoid injury to MCWD and to comply with the Agency Act. The project’s potential environmental impacts must be thoroughly examined through the Commission’s completion, evaluation and certification of its Subsequent EIR, and its exploration of the environmental impacts of the project at a hearing, and the deficiencies noted above must be corrected. Only after CEQA review is completed can the public agency Settling Parties have a sound basis for joining the settlements and approving the project, and only after environmental review is completed and the Commission conducts its evidentiary hearing on environmental factors can the record be sufficient to support the proposed settlements, project approval and the grant of a CPCN under the Public Utilities Code. Even assuming the environmental concerns noted above could be resolved, the Commission could only approve these or revised settlements if the MPWSP as described in the proposed settlements could be modified both so as to avoid injury to MCWD by using the CEMEX property for its source wells and to avoid illegally exporting groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Commission then determined that the modified settlements were reasonable, consistent with law and in the public interest.
Absent revisions to the MPWSP and the settlements that resolve the legal problems posed by the project’s non-compliance with section 21 of the Agency Act and its placement of source wells on the CEMEX property, and absent the Commission’s lawful resolution of the environmental review issues raised above, MCWD respectfully requests that the Commission deny both of the Settlement Motions.


MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT'S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’.pdf Filing Date 08-30-13
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS ON THE SETTLING PARTIES’ 1) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 2) MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

Friday, May 10, 2013

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION TO MODIFY PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION TO MODIFY PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE document is embedded.  Importantly, “…MCWD respectfully requests that the Assigned Administrative Law Judge issue a ruling modifying the procedural schedule to provide that  (1) Cal-Am and all Parties be afforded an opportunity to request limited additional hearings following publication of the Commission’s final Subsequent EIR with written public comments, which hearings, if any, shall conclude no less than seven days prior to the deadline for filing Opening Briefs; and (2) Opening Briefs be due on a date no less than the later of thirty days after publication of the Commission’s final Subsequent EIR with written public comments or thirty days after the close of additional hearings, if any, with the Reply Brief deadline to follow no less than fourteen days later.”
Filing Date 05-02-13

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 APPLICATION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 12-10-030

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, APPLICATION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 12-10-030 document is embedded. Importantly, CONCLUSION "There is no reason for the Commission to violate its own well-settled precedents, as well as those of the California Supreme Court, to make a premature and speculative final determination concerning preemption of the Desal Ordinance, as it applies to this application at this point in time. The Commission cannot lawfully decide the preemption question until it determines that the present or future public convenience and necessity requires the MPWSP, in some form and with some as-yet unknown conditions, and issues a CPCN. Withdrawing the Decision or modifying it to make only a preliminary determination that the Commission has the authority to preempt the Desal Ordinance, if necessary, and deferring a final decision on preemption pending the Commission’s resolution of the CPCN proceeding, would injure no one, would preserve the integrity of the Commission’s CPCN process for this application, would adhere to Commission precedent, and would ensure the Commission’s compliance with the black-letter law governing ripeness as well as preemption."
"The scope of the Decision is in error, and thus presents a real threat to the parties’ and the public’s trust in the legal integrity and transparency of the Commission’s process. It could give the appearance, despite the Commission’s statement to the contrary, that the Commission has already pre-approved the utility’s proposal, when the Commission’s role in an application proceeding is that of a regulatory fact-finder and decision-maker, dedicated to service of the public interest and resting its determinations on a full and accurate evidentiary record. Hurrying to make a final preemption decision before there is a concrete controversy where an actual CPCN is in conflict with a local ordinance does not serve the public’s, the parties’ or the Commission’s interests in a fair hearing that does not “delegate[] its power to decide the question of public convenience and necessity.” (Ventura, supra, 61 Cal.2d at 464-66.)"

Filing Date 11-30-12
APPLICATION OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 12-10-030

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY TO THE COMMENTS OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND THE MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY ON PROPOSED DECISION DECLARING PREEMPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE AND THE EXERCISE OF PARAMOUNT JURISDICTION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S REPLY TO THE COMMENTS OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND THE MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY ON PROPOSED DECISION DECLARING PREEMPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE AND THE EXERCISE OF PARAMOUNT JURISDICTION document is embedded. Importantly, “the County’s suit against Cal-Am clearly and directly interferes with the Commission’s performance of its official duties in violation of Public Utilities Code section 1759, subdivision (a), as would any effort of the County and Cal-Am to reach a resolution of that suit outside the reach of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The suit should forthwith be dismissed. The suit is unripe and – under section 1759 – the superior court is without jurisdiction to entertain it.”
Filing Date October 16, 2012

Monday, October 15, 2012

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DECISION (PREEMPTION)

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DECISION (PREEMPTION) (Filed 10-11-12) document is embedded. Importantly, the CONCLUSION.  "MCWD respectfully requests modification of the PD to state the Commission’s decision at this juncture as finding only that it has authority to preempt the Ordinance, but that the Commission is not yet making a finding of preemption, because the Commission has not concluded its critical evaluation of Cal-Am’s application for a CPCN to construct and operate the MPSWP and has not determined that the public convenience and necessity require the construction of a project that irreconcilably conflicts with the Ordinance. MCWD’s proposed changes to the PD’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Ordering Paragraphs are set forth in the attached Appendix."
Note: (CPCN) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
Filing Date: October 11, 2012
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DECISION (PREEMPTION)

Saturday, August 04, 2012

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT OPENING & REPLY BRIEFS

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, Opening and Reply Briefs are embedded.

A1204019 - Proceeding

Filed By:
California-American Water Company
Service Lists:
Industry:
Water
Filing Date:
April 23, 2012
Category:
Ratesetting
Current Status:
ACTIVE
Description:
Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates.
Staff:
ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned May 11, 2012)
COMMISSIONER: Michael R. Peevey (Assigned May 11, 2012)

Filing Date July 11, 2012

Filing Date July 25, 2012