BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of CaliforniaAmerican 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.

FILED

A.12-04-019
(Filed April 23, 2012)

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICTS

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER

MARK FOGELMAN
RUTH STONER MUZZIN
FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 210
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 834-3800
Facsimile: (415) 834-1044
Email: mfogelman@friedmanspring.com
Email: rmuzzin@friedmanspring.com
Attorneys for Marina Coast Water District

Date: November 28, 2016

11-28-16
04:59 PM

I.

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Rule 11.1(e) of the Commissions 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.
II.

ARGUMENT
A. The Motion Complies with Rule 1.4
Rule 1.4, subdivision (b), requires an entity seeking party status to:
(1) fully disclose the persons or entities in whose behalf the filing, appearance or
motion is made, and the interest of such persons or entities in the proceeding; and
(2) state the factual and legal contentions that the person intends to make and show
that the contentions will be reasonably pertinent to the issues already presented.

The Motion satisfies these requirements.

First, the Motion discloses Just Waters identity as consist[ing] of citizens of the
Monterey Bay region who have a common interest to preserve and to protect an affordable
and long-term water supply for the Marina and the Fort Ord communities. (Motion, pp. 12.) The Motion goes on to disclose its interests, which are broadly stated to explore
solutions for just and equitable use of regional water resources, and to prevent the
unintended inequities which it perceives to be implicit in the Applicants proposed
desalination project, as currently configured. (Motion, pp. 2-4.)

Second, by identifying the inequities Just Water perceives in the Applicants current
preferred project configuration, the Motion sets out the factual and legal contentions Just
Water intends to make that are reasonably pertinent to key groundwater and environmental
impact issues that are already presented in this proceeding. (Motion, pp. 4-6.) Just Water
proposes to bring data and findings developed through Electrical Resistivity Tomography
(ERT) imaging to augment the existing record concerning (i) the state of the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin in the proposed project area, and (ii) the proposed projects potential
impact on groundwater conditions. (Ibid.)
B. Participation of Just Water is in the Public Interest
Just Water requests party status so that it may speak for local Monterey Bay citizens
who are not ratepayers of the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am), but who
may nonetheless be impacted by the proposed project. Thus, Just Water states an interest
that is distinct from, and not duplicative of, the interests of other public advocacy parties,
such as the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Public Water Now, and Water Plus, all of whom
represent various interests of Cal-Am ratepayers and who advocate on behalf of unique
ratepayer concerns. Just Water also states a citizen-based interest for residents of the Fort
Ord/Marina community that is distinct from the interests of MCWD, a public entity whose
operations may be affected or even jeopardized by the proposed project, because Just Water
is a grass roots community organization focused on solutions for just and equitable use of
regional water resources. (Motion, p. 3.) In contrast, MCWDs interests in the proceeding
are more narrowly focused on protecting its groundwater resources and its continued ability
to serve its own ratepayers. (Ex. MCD-16, pp. 3-4, 6-7, 9; Ex. MCD-21, pp. 3-4, 5-6; Ex.
MCD-18, p. 3; Ex. MCD-20; Revised Ex. MCD-27.) It appears that Just Waters

participation would not be duplicative of any current party interest. MCWD does not believe
that any current parties would be prejudiced by the participation of Just Water.
Just Water appears to propose presenting evidence on its position on the state of the
groundwater basin and the potential impacts of the proposed project on the basin that would
be informed by research, data and findings developed by its members, which evidence is not
presently included in the Commissions record in this proceeding. (Motion, pp. 5-6.) Just
Waters new evidence appears to be accessible through its identified representative, Dr.
Coppernoll, and through its work with Dr. Knight and its access to the work of Dr. Knights
ERT research team. (Motion, pp. 3, 7.) Because the data, research and findings offered by
Just Water appear to be relevant but not currently available to the Commission, it is in the
public interest for the Commission to grant the Motion and confer party status on Just Water.
It is the Commissions duty to consider, in the public interest, the arguments of concerned
parties that are supported by relevant information, and to examine all relevant factors in
reaching a CPCN determination. (Pub. Util. Code 1002, subd. (a); see Northern California
Power Agency v. Public Utilities Com. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 370, 378.)
Just Waters participation will further the public interest, by providing relevant
information that might not otherwise be available to the Commission. While it is true that
the latest Scoping Ruling does not specifically contemplate further hearings, the availability
of new data, research and findings from Just Water would clearly contribute to the
Commissions record and to the extent necessary and relevant potentially could be
explored in further hearings, which might be limited in scope to issues not specifically
addressed by the Commissions prior hearings or its environmental review. Ongoing updates
to Cal-Ams supply and demand figures are required by prior rulings (Nov. 17, 2015 ALJ

Ruling Setting Evidentiary Issues and Schedule, p. 5), and it may be necessary to test that
information in further limited hearings prior to briefing, as well.
The instant application will not be submitted to the Commission for decision prior to
briefing (see Rule 13.14), and briefing cannot occur before the Commission finalizes its
environmental review, in any event. (Third Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling, dated
Nov. 21, 2016, at p. 4.) Therefore, keeping the record open for possible additional hearings
on recent relevant developments, including matters raised by Just Water, would not impose
any additional delay under the current schedule. (See MCWDs concurrently-filed
Comments in Response to Third Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling.)
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, and in the interest of a full and complete record in this

proceeding, MCWD supports the Commissions grant of the Motion.

DATED: November 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP

By:

_/s/ Mark Fogelman

Mark Fogelman
Ruth Stoner Muzzin
Attorneys for
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT