Return to
HOME PAGE

Return to Menu of
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD

From the Monterey County Herald
Serving Monterey County and the Salinas Valley

April 14, 2002

Water transfers resurface again

By DENNIS MORAN
dmoran@montereyherald.com
 

Water-credit transfers are gone but not forgotten.  

The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board, which voted to ban the controversial transfers in February, will continue to deal with the after-effects of that vote on Monday. The board will convene a public hearing on petitions turned in by a group of Peninsula business leaders asking the board to repeal the ban or, failing that, to put it up to a popular vote on the November ballot. The group maintains that transfers are essential to business development and retention.  

The group, led by the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, has admitted that the petitions lack the number of signatures required to force the board to act. But group members say the response they did get in a short amount of time indicates a growing awareness and groundswell on a complicated issue.  

Supporters of the ban say the failure to obtain the required signatures, despite the mailing of petitions to every district household, indicates a widespread opposition to the transfers.

In addition, the Seaside City Council has voted to sue the water district over the transfer ban. City officials say that water-credit transfers are essential to redevelopment plans the city has already invested a lot of money in. Seaside's attorneys also say the ban is subject to an environmental review and that it amounts to an encroachment on land-use planning.

But the slim board majority that voted to ban the transfers is sticking to its guns (see Commentary, page F1). Those board members say the system was inherently flawed, led to water profiteering, and did nothing to reduce the water draw from the environmentally damaged Carmel River.  

Furthermore, members of that majority - which became the majority with the November election of conservationist Judi Lehman over the pro-development Ron Chesshire - are doubtful that any revised system of transfers could take its place.  

"We definitely would keep an open mind," board member Molly Erickson said. But any proposal allowing water-credit transfers would need to come equipped with an environmental impact report documenting that it would save water before it could receive real consideration, she said.  

"We would need environmental documents that essentially support that what is proposed decreases water use," she said. That, she said, was a major problem with changes to the transfer system approved by the previous board in November and rescinded a month later by the current board. It intended to ensure that transfers led to water savings, but didn't document that, she said. As such, it was open to a threatened lawsuit under the state Environmental Quality Act, she said.  

A study completed last year on whether transfers resulted in water savings appeared to be inconclusive, though it's been open to some interpretation either way. And as with the question of whether the glass is half empty or half full, the inconclusiveness itself is open to opposing arguments - either that transfers were no good because there's no conclusive evidence they saved water, or they should continue because there's no conclusive evidence they resulted in increased water use.  

The environmentalist board majority believes that the burden of proof lies with water savings. They point to a state order that the California American Water Co., the district's supplier, reduce its take from the environmentally damaged Carmel River by nearly 70 percent.  

So, members of the majority say, breaking even isn't good enough. "To the extent we maintain existing consumption, we continue to violate" the state order, said board member Alexander Henson.  

Also, some board members point to the difficulty of monitoring post-transfer water use, often complicated by confidentiality of Cal-Am records, and that in any case the monitoring is a drain on water district staff time and resources.  

"I have given the subject a good deal of thought, and I can't figure out a way to make it work," Henson said - that is, a transfer system that would result in documentable water savings.  

Instead, Erickson said, district resources should be devoted to the "big picture" - a new water supply that will fully satisfy the state order.  

Toward that, the board on Monday will take further steps toward seeking environmental studies on new water supply projects. The search for a new supply has been stymied over the years by board politics that tend to change with the elections. For that reason, the current board has set a timetable to approve a water supply project by November 2003 - before the election that month can again change the board's alignment.   

Dennis Moran can be reached at 646-4348.

What is a water credit?   - A water credit is created when a business ceases operating on a given site, or when the business reduces water use by a quantifiable amount by installing water-saving devices. The water credit stays with the location and has a shelf-life of 10 years if it remains unused.   With the ban on transfers, water credits must remain on site. They could move only to a contiguous lot under the same ownership and operating with the same commercial use, district officials say.   District officials say that transfers were first conceived as a way to allow for some business development activity on an increasingly water-starved Peninsula while also helping with water conservation. Transfers were originally conceived as going from a business not using them to another that wanted to. Fifteen percent of the water credits in any such transaction were to go to the district for permanent retirement.   Later, the system was amended to allow for transfers of water credits from a business to the jurisdiction the business is in, to be allocated by that jurisdiction.   The water district first approved a transfer of a water credit - 0.08 acre-feet from Cafe Berlin to Forge in the Forest, both in Carmel - in 1993. The next one didn't occur until 1997. According to water district figures, 27 water-credit transfers were approved, involving a total of 60.843 acre-feet of water credits. More than half of those transfers occurred in 2000-2001.   Still before the board are six pending water-credit transfer applications that were submitted before the ban.