Mcwd's Response To The June 30, 2017 Joint Statement of Issues 7-11-17

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FILED
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7-11-17
04:59 PM
In the Matter of the Application of California- A.12-04-019

American Water Company (U 210 W) for (Filed April 23, 2012)
Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project and Authorization to Recover
All Present and Future Costs in Rates.
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICTS

RESPONSE TO THE
JUNE 30, 2017 JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES
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: July 11, 2017

I. INTRODUCTION
Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) respectfully submits its Response to the
June 30, 2017 Joint Statement of Issues filed by the parties to this proceeding (Joint
Statement). MCWD recognizes that a number of the issues listed in Exhibit A to the Joint
Statement may be duplicative in whole or in part, and that some but not all of them may
overlap with the issues set forth in the June 9, 2017 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Ruling Requesting Parties to Identify Issues for Further Evidentiary Hearings (the ALJ
Ruling). MCWD submits this Response chiefly to address category (f) as listed on page 2
of the ALJ Ruling, calling for anything else the party believes the Commission needs to
make an informed decision. MCWD believes that anything else properly includes the
priority of taking evidence on demand issues before exploring other issues that may be
scheduled for submission and receipt into the record of additional testimony and evidence.
II. PRIORITY OF ISSUES
MCWD strongly believes that it would be in the best interests of the Commission and
the parties if the Commission were to first require submission of testimony concerning
demand. Such testimony would include the topics detailed in issue numbers 3, 14, 24-28, 52,
56(i), 65 and 77 on Exhibit A to the Joint Statement. Until the record is updated with current
evidence concerning the level of system demand that will be required in order for the
California-American Water (Cal-Am) to comply with the orders of the State Water
Resources Control Board by January 1, 2022, and thereby meet the primary project
objectives, there can be no rational basis to assess the adequacy of the various components of
available supply and what if any need will exist for additional supply components going
1
forward from January 1, 2022. Indeed, the showing of demand would assist the Commission
in addressing whether the proposed project is in fact needed.
After the record on actual demand is brought current, the Commission and the parties
will be in a much better position to address each of the other broad categories of additional
evidence that have been raised, including the volume of supply required, what alternative
supply sources are or will be available to meet the required demand and which of them best
serves the public interest, alternative intake locations and technology for desalination, the
costs, financing, and legal issues related to desalination, and the costs, financing, and legal
issues related to viable non-desalination alternatives capable of satisfying Cal-Am demand
for additional supply, if any exists. The record on legal feasibility issues necessarily
encompasses the question of impacts on groundwater supply, which is related to matters
analyzed in the Commissions draft Environmental Impact Report. As indicated in issue
numbers 6, 16, 36-38, 61-62 and 64, important new evidence concerning the state of the
groundwater basin in the project vicinity and therefore bearing on the likely impacts of the
project and Cal-Ams ability to legally implement it is now available and should be
incorporated into the record. If Cal-Am cannot meet the burden of demonstrating that the
project it proposes can be operated without significant unmitigable impacts to groundwater,
the project cannot lawfully be carried out.
MCWD submits that it would be wasteful and imprudent to forge ahead based on
assumed need for large-scale desalination without first accurately establishing the level of
demand for new supply, if any, in Cal-Ams Monterey District. MCWDs proposal for
prioritizing updated testimony on the factual issue of demand should require only minimal
time and would require submission of sworn testimony by witnesses from only a few parties,
2
such as Cal-Am, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and perhaps Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority. (See Ex. A to Joint Statement, issue nos. 3, 14, 24-28,
52, 56(i), 65 and 77.) Rebuttal testimony and a hearing of less than one day to cross-examine
witnesses could be set on a short schedule.
Following the submission of demand testimony and evidence and a brief hearing on
demand, the Commission will be in a far better position to evaluate the need and extent to
which other issues must be further examined. And the parties will be in a much better
position to pursue any needed discovery on other issues and tailor their testimony and cross-
examination on those issues, based on a more current and realistic understanding of Cal-
Ams actual demand.
III. CONCLUSION
MCWD urges the Commission first to convene an evidentiary hearing, including all
available current evidence, on all elements of the demand for water supply necessary to meet
the primary project objectives, prior to proceeding further with the Application.
DATED: July 11, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP
By: /s/ Mark Fogelman

Mark Fogelman
Ruth Stoner Muzzin
Attorneys for
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT

Mcwd's Response To The June 30, 2017 Joint Statement of Issues 7-11-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mcwd's Response To The June 30, 2017 Joint Statement of Issues 7-11-17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mcwd's Response To The June 30, 2017 Joint Statement of Issues 7-11-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Application of California- A.12-04-019

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICTS

Attorneys for Marina Coast Water District

Date: July 11, 2017

II. PRIORITY OF ISSUES

in addressing whether the proposed project is in fact needed.

issues related to viable non-desalination alternatives capable of satisfying Cal-Am demand

encompasses the question of impacts on groundwater supply, which is related to matters

analyzed in the Commissions draft Environmental Impact Report. As indicated in issue

project it proposes can be operated without significant unmitigable impacts to groundwater,

the project cannot lawfully be carried out.

witnesses could be set on a short schedule.

Ams actual demand.

DATED: July 11, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark Fogelman

You might also like