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