2

3
4
5
6

RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON

JAMES L. MARKMAN (Bar No. 43536)
jmarkman@rwglaw.com
B. TILDEN KIM (Bar No. 143937)
tkim@rwglaw.com
KYLE H. BROCHARD (Bar No. 293369)
kbrochard@rwglaw.com
355 South Grand A venue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
Telephone: 213.626.8484
Facsimile: 213.626.0078

ELECTRONICALLY

FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

OCT 09 2014
Clerk of the Court
BY: ROMY RISK
Deputy Clerk

7 FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP

MARK FOGELMAN (BarNo. 50510)
8 mfogelman@ friedmanspring.com
RUTH STONER MUZZIN (Bar No. 276394)
9 rmuzzin @friedmanspring.com
33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 290
10 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: 415.834.3800
11 Facsrmile: 415.834.1044
12 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
15 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, a California corporation,
16
Plaintiff,
v.
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT;
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER
19 RESOURCES AGENCY; and DOES 2
through 10, inclusive,
20
Defendants.

23
24

Cross-Complainant,
v.

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
25 COMPANY, a California Corporation;
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER
26 RESOURCES AGENCY; and ROES 1
through 50, inclusive,
27
Cross-Defendants.

Case No. CGC-13-528312

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P.
COLLINS IN OPPOSITION TO
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER
RESOURCES AGENCY'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

October 4, 2012

Complaint Filed:
Cross-Complaints Filed:

Nov. 19,2012,

Trial Date (phase one):

April 17, 2014

December I , 20 14

Judge: Hon. Curtis Karnow

2811-------------------------~
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

I, Stephen P. Collins, declare as follows:

l.

The following testimony is made based upon my personal knowledge, and if

3 called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify consistent with this
4 declaration.

2.

On November 7, 2013, I attended a deposition following a subpoena served

6 by Marina Coast Water District ("Marina"). At that deposition, I did not answer any
7 questions regarding Government Code section I 090 issues because of the pending criminal
8 action against me. Now that the criminal action has concluded, I am submitting this

9 declaration and welcome a chance to testify at a deposition or at court, if necessary. I am

10 voluntarily providing this declaration, and I am not being compensated by Marina or
z

:c 1'~:

</)

0::
I.J.l

~
~

11 anyone else.

3.

12

On August 5, 2014, I attended an ail-day deposition, conducted by agreement

<.D <
-z
~

z
0 iii

13 in San Francisco, and I produced documents pursuant to a subpoena served by the

</)

!;;:

:s:
<Jl

0::

~
~
<

'

15 second day of deposition took place in San Francisco on August 27, 2014. My deposition

"
""

16 did not conclude on August 27th. I was amenable to a third day of deposition on October 3,

"5
~

<t: :;;
:c z

0::

14 California-American Water Company ("Cal-Am"). The deposition did not conclude, and a

~~
~~

17 2014. However, when I objected to the continued deposition taking place in San Francisco
18 (instead of San Jose as originally noticed, thus saving me at least 4 hours of back-and-forth
19 travel time), Cal-Am's lawyers notified me that they would not be taking the deposition as
20 previously scheduled on October 3, 2014. I offered to appear at San Jose on several other
21 dates and times in October, 2014, but as of today' s date, I have not heard further from Cal22 Am's lawyers.
23

4.

My motivation for submitting this declaration and willingness to testify are

24 simple- to have the truth come out. Monterey County Water Resources Agency
25 ("Monterey") officials have openly, publicly and untruthfully denied Monterey's
26 involvement in the events and circumstances leading up to criminal conflict of interest
27 charges against me in relation to my work between January 8, 2010 and December 2, 2010
28 as a paid consultant for RMC Water and Environment ("RMC") on the Regional
i

-1-

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

0--------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------

Desalination Project (the "RDP" or the "Project").

5.

There are five "RDP Agreements" at issue in this case, the Reimbursement

3 Agreement first dated February 26, 2010, the Water Purchase Agreement dated April6,
4 2010, the Settlement Agreement dated April 6, 2010, the CAW Credit Line Agreement
5 dated January 11, 2011 and the Project Management Agreement dated January 11, 2011.

6.

As will be discussed below, all five of the RDP Agreements were authorized

7 by Monterey County's elected decisional authority, the Monterey County Board of

8 Supervisors, and executed by its duly designated representative; I did not sign nor was I
9 named as a party in any of these five agreements.
10
z

~
~

7.

As background, attached as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the

11 criminal complaint that was charged against me.

12

8.

:5v

Count I of Exhibit "A" alleged a violation of Government Code section 1090

13 for the period of January 8, 2010 to February 28, 2010 as to the Reimbursement Agreement.
9.

Count II of Exhibit "A" alleged a 1090 violation for the period of January 8,

15 2010 to April 30, 2010 as to (1) the Settlement Agreement and (2) the Water Purchase
16 Agreement.
10.
~~

==~

On March 18, 2014, pursuant to a plea bargain reached with the Monterey

18 County District Attorney, I pleaded "no contest" to Count II.

19

11.

I agreed to this plea bargain because the criminal court would not allow me to

20 present evidence that various Monterey officials recruited me to work toward obtaining
21

approval of the Project as a paid consultant, and that those officials knew of the potential

22 conflict caused by my contract with RMC.

23

12.

This declaration details some of the testimony that I would have provided to a

24 judge and jury had the criminal court allowed me to present evidence at trial of the reasons
25 that I entered into a contract with RMC in January of 2010.
26

13.

As background, Monterey is a department of county government that

27 "manages, protects, and enhances the quantity and quality of water" in Monterey County,
28 created pursuant to the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (1990 Stats. 1159,

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

0------------------~~~~~~~-~-~~~~~~

1 1991 Stats. 1130, 1993 Stats. 234, and 1994 Stats. 803) (the "Agency Act").
14.

The Agency Act is contained in the Appendix of the California Water Code,

3 Chapter 52.
15.

Monterey's five-member Board of Supervisors is vested with certain powers

5 and duties, which specifically include:

6

a.

Deciding "which projects or works of improvement shall be carried out."

b.

Appointing "all needful agents ... to properly look after the performance of any

work provided for in ... [the Act]." These appointees hold their respective

offices at the pleasure of the Board.

c.

10

Employing "competent consultants ... as may be required to investigate and

11

carefully devise a plan or plans to ... conserve those waters for beneficial and

12

useful purposes ... and to obtain other information in regard thereto as may be

13

deemed necessary or useful for carrying out the purposes of this ac:t"
d.

14

Authorizing " ... projects that involve the creation of zones or the institution of

15

any financing measures" and [l]evy assessments or taxes, impose fees,

16

charges or tolls, authorize bonds, or borrow money." (Agency Act, 52-17,

17

18, 19, 70.

18

16.

Monterey's Board of Supervisors is comprised of the elected five-member

19 Board of Supervisors of Monterey County, ex officio. (See Agency Act 52-15.)

20
21

17.

I was a member of the nine-member appointed Board of Directors of

Monterey for approximately 16 years until my resignation on April 11, 2011. As discussed

22 below, the Board of Directors advises and makes recommendations to the Board of
23 Supervisors.
18.

24

Appointed members of the Board of Directors are "persons with experience

25 relating to" water agencies, resource districts or environmental protection, industry and
26 agriculture organizations, including Monterey County agricultural organizations and local
27 government. (See Agency Act 52-49(a), (b).)
19.

28

Due to their required backgrounds, Monterey Board of Directors members are

b--------------------~~~~~~~-~3=-,~~~~77~--------------------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

()
7

1 occasionally subject to conflicts of interest in their board-related activities. (See Agency

2 Act 52-49(c) no director shall be appointed who is likely to be "disqualified from a
3 substantial number of decisions" due to conflict of interest.)
20.

The Monterey Board of Directors' powers and duties are provided in the

5 Agency Act. (See Agency Act, 52-48 through 52-58.)

6

21.

Under the Agency Act, Section 52-52, one of the functions and duties of the

7 Board of Directors is to advise the Board of Supervisors on all matters relating to Monterey.
22.

During my term on the Board of Directors, I was nominated by the Grower-

9 Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California and appointed for successive terms by
10 various members of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.
23.

At all times relevant to this declaration, the General Manager of Monterey

12 was Curtis Weeks.

24.

Among other duties and responsibilities, General Manager Weeks had the

14 responsibility for implementing policy and managing day-to-day operations of Monterey.

25.

The Monterey Peninsula region of Monterey County faces a water crisis.

26.

Cal-Am, the Monterey Peninsula's primary water provider, is an investor-

17 owned public utility that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission
!!:~
~~

18 ("CPUC") and supplies water to its customers that it obtains in large part from the Carmel
19 River Valley alluvial aquifer, and from the Seaside groundwater basin.
27.

20
21

In October 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board issued a cease and

desist order, No. WR 2009-0060, based on its July 6, 1995 Order No. 95-10, requiring Cal-

22 Am to gradually reduce its withdrawal of water from the Carmel River Valley alluvial
23 aquifer by a total of approximately 70% by December 31, 2016.
24

28.

Further, Cal-Am was ordered by the Monterey County Superior Court to

25 reduce its withdrawal of water by approximately 50% and pay back its historic pumping of
26 water from the Seaside groundwater basin. (California American Water v. City of Seaside,
27 et al. Case No. 66343.)
28

29.

In response to this impending emergency, Cal-Am partnered with Monterey

!,o--------------;=c;;--;-;:-:=cc:
;::""'-:;:c4'C;-=~~=::-;-;-;c;-;::---------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS
7

1 and Marina for the construction and management of the Project.

2

30.

The contemplated Project was to create and establish

! desalination system

3 that would provide water in sufficient quantities to compensate for the ordered reduction in

4 withdrawals from the Carmel River Valley alluvial aquifer and the Seaside groundwater

5 basin.
6
7

31.

The joint proposal referred to in this declaration as the "Project," envisioned

the extraction of brackish water from wells constructed and owned by Monterey within the

8 Salinas River Groundwater Basin to be conveyed to a desalination plant constructed and

9 owned by Marina where it would be processed and the majority of potable water conveyed
10 to Cal-Am in sufficient quantities to compensate for the loss of water from the Carmel
z

:::c

"<

""

0
u

Vl

UJ
<.!)

~
~

-z

z Vi""0

:;;

Vl
Cl

::i

Vl

"
"" "

12 potable water conveyed to Marina for its use within the Salinas River Groundwater Basin in
13 sufficient quantities to maintain the Project's compliance with the Agency Act prohibition
14 on export of groundwater from the Salinas River Groundwater Basin (see Agency Act,

~
~

s <'
_,

""<t:
:::c

11 River Valley alluvial aquifer and the Seaside groundwater basin, with a smaller portion of

15 52-9(u)), which would also enable the Project to avoid unlawful groundwater extraction
16 in the Salinas River Groundwater basin by offsetting withdrawal of that portion of brackish

~~
:=~

17 source water deemed to be Salinas River Groundwater Basin water against a commensurate
18 reduction in pumping by Marina from its own existing groundwater sources within the
19 Salinas River Groundwater Basin.
20
21

32.

A long, complex process began before the CPUC during which three

competing proposals including the Project were reviewed and considered.

22

33.

A Final Environmental Impact Report for all three proposals was certified by

23 the CPUC on December 17,2009.

24

34.

In late December of 2009 and early January of 2010, Monterey Board of

25 Supervisors members Louis Calcagno and Dave Potter recruited me to lead the effort to
26 "close the deal" for the three Project partners' cooperation and obtain CPUC approval of
27 the Project, which would require significant efforts over and above my duties and
28 responsibilities as a member of Monterey's Board of Directors.

b---------------~~~~~~~-~5~-~~~~~~~------------------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P COLLINS

35.

As of January of 2010, my income source and support for my family was

2 earned as a consultant, primarily for Ocean Mist Farms, a large local agricultural company.
36.

My compensation for my duties as a member of the Board of Directors for

4 Monterey was only $50 plus reimbursement for each meeting I attended.
5

37.

I was concerned by Supervisor Calcagno's and Supervisor Potter's proposal

6 because the amount of time and effort that would be required to lead the effort to "close the
7 deal" on the Project would, and did, severely encroach upon my ability to earn income as a
8 paid consultant for my other clients.
38.

In a telephone conversation on January 8, 2010, I told Supervisor Calcagno

10 that the responsibility he was asking me to assume would take a substantial amount of my
11 time and effort.
12

39.

Later that same afternoon, on January 8, 2010, Weeks or his assistant

13 contacted me to set up a meeting for January 11, 2010.

14

40.

On January 11, 2010, Jim Heitzman (Marina's then-General Manager) and I

15 met with Monterey General Manager Weeks in Weeks' office in Salinas, starting at 11 a.m.
16

41.

The January 11, 2010 meeting resulted in the consensus that I would enter

17 into a sub-consulting contract with RMC to work on "Outreach" tasks related to obtaining
~!!
~~

18 CPUC approval of the Project, as RMC had an existing open contract with Marina related
19 to work on planning and preparation for the Project, among other things.
20

42.

Pre-approval expenses incurred by both of the Project public agency partners,

21 Monterey and Marina, were anticipated to be reimbursed to them by Cal-Am through the
22 Reimbursement Agreement, and would be ultimately repaid to Cal-Am through financing
23 obtained by the public agencies after CPUC approval of the Project or, under the
24 subsequent Water Purchase Agreement, in the event of failure or non-approval of the
25 Project, the reimbursed expenses would be collected in rates by Cal-Am.
26

43.

During the January II, 20 I 0 meeting, both Heitzman and I raised the question

27 of whether hiring me as a paid consultant to RMC to "close the deal" on the Project might
28 raise conf1ict of interest issues.

A-------------------~~~~~~~-~6~-~~~~~~------------------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

o
7

44.

I offered to resign as a Monterey Director, if a conflict existed because of this

2 situation, but General Manager Weeks told me to do nothing until he consulted with the
3 Monterey Board of Supervisors and County Counsel.
4

45.

Weeks subsequently informed me that the County Counsel opined I would

5 not have a conflict of interest between my position as a member of the Board of Directors
6 of Monterey and my contemplated work as a paid consultant with RMC to obtain approval
7 of the Project by the CPUC, and he also informed me that the Monterey Board of
8 Supervisors did not want me to resign as a member of the Board of Directors.

46.

I did not ask Weeks for a written copy of County Counsel's opinion, much to

10 my regret in hindsight.
11

47.

Subsequently I signed a consulting contract with RMC that was dated January

12 8, 2010; attached as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of that agreement (the "RMC
13 Contract").
14

48.

I began working under the RMC Contract on or about January 11, 2010.

15

49.

At the time I entered into the RMC Contract, I believed that after the CPUC

16 approved the Project, my contract with RMC would end and there would be no future
17 contracts with RMC unless I resigned as a Director and waited at least a year.
50.

18

The RMC Contract originally had a billing limit of $25,000.00, and it was

19 anticipated the proceedings before the CPUC and my duties under the RMC Contract would
20 conclude in April, 2010.
21

51.

During the course of an all-day meeting among representatives of Cal-Am,

22 Marina and Monterey on January 14, 2010, I spoke briefly with attorneys from Monterey's
23 outside counsel, Downey Brand, who assured me that I would not have a conflict of interest
24 between my position as a member of the Board of Directors of Monterey and my work as a
25

paid consultant with RMC as long as I did not bill RMC for attendance at Monterey Board

26 meetings or other Director activities.

27

28

52.
()

___

As a result of these conversations and meetings, in mid-January or at the

-7DECLARATJON OF STEPHEN P. COLLJNS

1 latest, February, 2010, various Monterey officials and attorneys, particularly General
2 Manager Weeks, knew of the potential conflict of interest issue posed by my Monterey
3 Board of Directors position, and the RMC Contract.
4

53.

I have reviewed portions of Weeks' deposition dated November 26, 2013, and

5 specifically pages 52-56, where Weeks corroborates my testimony that he knew of my

6 contract with RMC and the conflict of interest situation by January 11, 2010, and certainly
7 by no later than February, 2010.
8

54.

The Monterey Board of Directors did not vote on the Reimbursement

9 Agreement.

10
z

;=
<
~

Vl

UJ

:r:

""
<.!}

~
~

"

Vl

i>

!;;:

:s:

<

"" "
:r:
~

""

12 RMC Contract when I voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that it

13 (1) "[c]onditionally approve the Regional Desalination Project, contingent upon final
14 approval by the CPUC (Conditional Project Approval)"; and (2) "[d]irect staff to take all

~
~

Cl

11 involving the RDP Agreements during the time I was working as a consultant under the

0::

'
-"
Vl :5
<(

On AprilS, 2010, I participated in the only formal action I took as a Director

-z

55.

~
z
~

""

!!l:l!!!l
~~

15 other actions that may be necessary to effectuate this Conditional Project Approval,
16 including but not limited to executing the Settlement Agreement and Water Purchase
17 Agreement .... " Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of the minutes of that April 5, 2010
18 Board of Directors meeting.
19

56.

Thereafter, on April6, 2010, I attended a meeting wherein the decisional

20 authority, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Board of Supervisors of
21

the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, approved the Project and authorized the

22 execution of the Settlement Agreement and the Water Purchase Agreement.

23

57.

Besides Cal-Am, Monterey and Marina, other parties to the Settlement

24 Agreement were the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Public Trust
25 Alliance and Surfrider Foundation; Citizens for Public Water later joined the Settlement
26 Agreement.
27

58.

On April 7, 2010 the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District filed a

28 notice with the CPUC that it would not join the Settlement Agreement.

b----------~~=-~~~~-~8~-~~~~~~-----------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

0
7

59.

In the April to December, 2010 time frame, the CPUC approval process took

2 place and was completed on December 2, 2010; during this time, as in the January to April,
3 2010 time frame, I participated in numerous activities related to "closing the deal" and
4 obtaining CPUC approval of the Project.
5

60.

I understand that Supervisors Calcagno and Potter now disclaim any

6 knowledge prior to April of 2011 of the RMC Contract; however my activities in 2010
7 under the RMC Contract were directed chiefly by Supervisors Calcagno and Potter and I

8 believe that both of them, as well as Supervisor Simon Salinas, were fully aware in 2010
9 that I was being paid by RMC for many of my activities related to the Project.
10
z

~
~

61.

The delay in obtaining CPUC approval of the Project was due primarily to the

11 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer
12 Advocates becoming adversaries of the Project; as result, my assignment under the RMC

13 Contract became far more difficult and time-consuming and the RMC Contract was
14 amended several times; I was eventually paid approximately $160,000 by RMC under the
15 RMC Contract.
16

62.

On or about June 4, 2010, l participated in a series of emails and telephone

17 calls with General Manager Weeks and various attorneys for Monterey, including Dan
~!!
~~

18 Cano!l and Kevin O'Brien with the law firm of Downey Brand; the outcome of the
19 conversations on that date led me to believe that, although l was encouraged to contact my
20 own attorney, there continued to be no conflict of interest between my position as a member
21

of the Board of Directors of Monterey and my ongoing work as a paid consultant with

22 RMC to obtain approval of the Project by the CPUC.

23

63.

Following my June 4, 2010 emails and conversations with Monterey's

24 attorneys and General Manager Weeks, I testified on behalf of Monterey at the CPUC
25 hearings seeking approval of the Project.
26

64.

Some time no later than September of 2010, Marina's General Manager, Jim

27 Heitzman, informed each of RMC, Monterey's General Manager Weeks, and Cal-Am's
28 President Rob MacLean, that Marina would not pay RMC for the costs of my services
I
0----------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----------------------

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P COLLINS

1 under the RMC Contract and that Marina would not seek reimbursement of those costs
2 from Cal-Am under the Reimbursement Agreement.

3
4

65.

On September 27, 2010 the Agency Board of Directors voted on a contract

5 related to another consulting firm that was under contract to RMC, and I recused myself
6 from that vote due to my contractual relationship with RMC; attached as Exhibit "D" is a
7 true and correct copy of the minutes of the September 27, 2010 Board of Directors meeting,
8 evidencing my recusal as well as the attendance of Deputy County Counsel Irven Grant at
9 that meeting.
10

66.

Also in September of 2010, when I met on another matter with Supervisor

11 Simon Salinas, another member of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, he and I

12 discussed my concurrent paid work under contract to RMC on obtaining CPUC approval of
13 the Project.
14

67.

All of my contractual relations with RMC ended and the RMC Contract

15 terminated on December 2, 201 0; attached hereto as Exhibits "E, F and G" are
16 Amendments 1 through 3 to the RMC Contract, demonstrating that Amendment 3 also

17 terminated the RMC Contract.

18

68.

Although I continued to be involved in Monterey's efforts related to the

19 Project until I resigned my Board of Directors position on April II, 20 II, I never entered
20 into another contract to be paid by any entity for my involvement in those efforts after
2I

December 2, 2010, nor was I ever paid by any entity for my subsequent efforts on behalf of

22 the Project.

23

69.

On or about January 11, 20 II, the Monterey Board of Supervisors re-

24 approved the Project, but it did so with any further recommendation or action of the Board

25 of Directors, of which I was a member; attached as Exhibit "H" is a true and correct copy of
26 the minutes of the December I3, 2010 Board of Directors meeting, demonstrating that
27 Curtis Weeks, in his General Manager's Report (Item No.9) provided an update of the
28 Project, indicating the CPUC's approval of the Project, the Settlement Agreement and the

A-----------------~~~~~~~-~1~0~-~~~~~~-----------------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

o
7

1 Water Purchase Agreement, with no action taken by the Board of Directors.

2

70.

On January 24, 20 II, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors' approval of the

3 Project, the Monterey Board of Directors voted to recommend approval of the CAW Credit
4 Line Agreement and I participated in that vote; attached as Exhibit 'T' is a true and correct
5 copy of the minutes of the January 24, 2011 Board of Directors meeting. As above noted,
6 at that time I was no longer employed as a subcontractor to RMC.

71.

Besides Cal-Am, Monterey and Marina, the other party to the Project

8 Management Agreement was RMC.

72.

On February 28, 2011, the Monterey Board of Directors voted to recommend

10 approval of the Regional Desalination Project Management Agreement and I recused

11 myself from that February 28, 2011 vote due to my recent relationship with RMC; attached
12 as Exhibit "J" is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the February 28, 2011 Board of
13 Directors meeting.

14

73.

On or about December 12, 20 lO, I attended the first of three meetings of

15 which the primary purpose appeared to be getting rid of Marina from the Project and the
16 RDP Agreements.
17

74.

That meeting on or about December 12, 2010 took place in Supervisor

18 Calcagno's office, where he and Supervisor Dave Potter, Monterey's Chief Administrative
19 Officer Lou Bauman, County Counsel Charles McKee and General Manager Weeks also

20 attended; Supervisor Calcagno Jed the primary discussions on what, if anything, could be
21 done to get Marina out of the Project and the RDP Agreements.
22

75.

I voiced my surprise and objection to Supervisor Calcagno's comments since

23 I had spent so much time and effort in getting the Project approved by the CPUC just a

24 week ago; and I believed that Monterey, Marina and Cal-Am had binding rights and
25 obligations under the various RDP Agreements.

26

76.

No one else in that meeting appeared to share my objections to Supervisor

27 Calcagno's stated objective to get rid of Marina from the Project.

28

77.

Another similar meeting took place in January, 2011, either in County

b-------------------~~~~~~~-~1~1-~~~~~~-------------------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

o
7

I Counsel McKee's or Supervisor Potter's offices, when I again raised similar objections to
2 Monterey's apparent desire to remove Marina from the Project but no one shared my

3 concerns or my views.
4

78.

A third meeting concerning the objective of removing Marina from the

5 project took place in early February, 2011 in Supervisor Potter's offices, with the same
6 attendees except Supervisor Calcagno.
7

79.

Sometime after my recusal from the February 28, 20Il vote on the Project

8 Management Agreement, a representative of the Salinas Valley Water Coalition, an

9 agricultural group, questioned the reason for my recusal from that vote; in March of 20 II
IO after I explained the previous RMC Contract, I understood that the Salinas Valley Water
II Coalition's question was addressed and it had no further concerns about that matter.
12

80.

Notwithstanding that the Salinas Valley Water Coalition's concerns about my

l3 recusal were addressed, various newspaper articles began appearing in Monterey County in
I4 late March and early April of 20 II; subsequently the entire Board of Supervisors claimed
I5 no prior knowledge of the RMC Contract and called for my resignation from the Board of
16 Directors.

I7

81.

I resigned from Monterey's Board of Directors on April 11, 2011, and I was

18 charged with criminal conflict of interest in November of2011.

19

82.

I believe that the 1090 conflict of interest issue was a fortuitous and

20 convenient way for Monterey and Cal-Am to try to renege on all their obligations under the
2I RDP Agreements, and force Marina out of the Project.

22

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Calif<

ia that the

23 foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this 6th day of October, 20I4, and exec

24

25
Stephen P. Collins

26

27
28

~' -----------------ruyq""~~~~~~om~~---------------DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. COLLINS

7