SALINAS – During a discussion Tuesday about one Monterey County Supervisor’s desire to delete a portion of a longstanding ordinance requiring public ownership of desalination projects, the debate took a decidedly Salinas Valley vs. Monterey Peninsula turn.
At issue is a subsection of the Monterey County Code 10.72 that Supervisor John Phillips wants amended to allow private companies to operate desal plants in the county. During Tuesday’s meeting, Phillips claimed he never mentioned any particular company that would benefit from such a move, and repeatedly reiterated that his request was only about a policy and not any particular project.
However, in July when he made a board referral, Phillips’ request coincided with a presentation by Liberty Power, a billion-dollar corporation based in Ontario, Canada, to construct a desalination plant in northern Monterey County where his district is located.
According to a Jan. 28 presentation by Liberty Power official Kim Adamson, the proposal calls for a desal plant capable of producing up to 32,000 acre-feet of drinking water per year at a cost of about $1,000 to $1,500 per acre-foot for Salinas, Castroville and Marina, and perhaps even eventually other parts of the Monterey Peninsula.
“I didn’t mention Liberty or any other project,” Phillips said during Tuesday’s meeting. “We haven’t been able to do (a desal project) through any public agency. Our county should have been banging on the doors to get any entity to come in and build a desal plant. It’s now 32 years later we are still waiting for a desal project.”
In 2018 another board referral asked Supervisors to look at possibly changing county code when DeepWater Desal was still active. That project stalled because of a lack of funding. The 32,000 acre-feet of water per year outlined by Liberty are more than California American Water’s proposed desal project and Pure Water Monterey’s recycled water project combined.
What was before the board Tuesday was a request by County Counsel Leslie Gerard to be provided direction on whether the board would want staff to return in three weeks with a more developed analysis and a possible draft ordinance rescinding 10.72 or any portion of the code.
Gerard said it matters whether the context is about a single project or simply a code amendment because if it was about a single project then it would likely be subject to an in-depth study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Board Chairwoman Wendy Root-Askew noted that it is common knowledge that a single project has “been shopped around” to different Supervisors’ offices and staff. Gerard responded that it depends on whether the shopping around was about specifics of a project or whether it was a more general, conceptual description. The level of environmental review depends on the level of details, he said.
Root-Askew asked about any legal challenges should the board amend the code section. Gerard said the county was likely to see legal challenges from opponents of private ownership if a subsection or the entire code was amended.
“It’s one of the reasons we want to make sure we take our time and make sure the record is as good as it can be for the board to make a decision,” Gerard said.
The discussion became dicey when Phillips argued that amending the code had complete support in the Salinas Valley and wanted his colleagues on the Peninsula to work better together, noting that every caller opposed to the amendment was from the Monterey Peninsula and positioned it as an “us” and “them” problem.
“That’s unfortunate that the fight they have with Cal Am over there is spilling over here,” Phillips said, “And now they are trying to block a project we need.”
That didn’t sit well with Supervisor Mary Adams, one or two Peninsula Supervisors, who turned to Phillips and said it was difficult when he and she sit next to each other and “you think of Salinas Valley people as your people when we were elected to serve the whole county.”
Adams has been supportive of a regional desal position since she first ran for office five years ago and her position hasn’t changed, she said. She advocated a “bigger picture” approach where all potential countywide solutions are presented to the board at a workshop.
“From the agricultural side of the county to the tourism side of our county, we all need this,” she said. “We need to have people leave their guns at the door and sit down and responsibly resolve the problem.”
Adams asked that a workshop be included in what county counsel brings back to the board in addition to the analysis of rescinding the county code.
“Delay, delay, delay,” Phillips said.
“Oh come on,” Adams replied.
“Don’t start in on me,” Phillips said.
The issue will return to the board in three weeks.
