Summertime and, at CCSD, They're Uneasy. . . 

by Lynne Harkins

Synopsis: Taking a look at some of the recent and on-going issues of concern to the Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) and its rate payers, this article focuses especially on the LandWatch lawsuit. It calls for actions on the desalination test wells project to be halted until there's a trial to consider the lawsuit's position that the California Environmental Quality Act process and a Coastal Development Permit are among the things that must be complied with before the project can legally continue.

Additionally, there are recent developments in the CCSD electoral and environmental mix.  Observations based on a recent Viewpoint about beach well drilling and a citizen's mercury public information initiative lead to some specific and general conclusions about stewardship of financial, water and coastal resources.

While the actual summer season has been quite cool thus far, things are showing signs of heating up at the Cambria Community Services District, quite apart from the budget issues. Beyond the uneasiness about whether the federal credits or funding for desalination will materialize in time for the proposed test wells project or the project as a whole, for that matter, there are some new developments. Those of note would include a lawsuit filed by LandWatch, more public information initiatives, and two new candidates for the CCSD Board of Directors election in November. The candidates are Harry Farmer and ValerieBentz. Many Cambria rate payers are still looking for new attitudes and directions from the CCSD Board of Directors and each new candidate brings their ideas for needed changes. (Director MacKinnon is notable already for asking questions about information for the public and about the financial picture.) Thus, some of the elements are in place for a possible upcoming shift at the District.

First, the lawsuit filed by LandWatch features a forty-one page Petition for A Writ of Mandate dated July 4th, which details allegations about the actions and deficits of the District and the Army Corps in their environmental analysis and in their missteps in the public process, as they moved forward on the proposed desalination test wells drilling project on the beach near Santa Rosa Creek and Shamel Park. The County and the Coastal Commission are also included for not having upheld the Local Coastal Plan and for not requiring the desalination test wells project to obtain a coastal development permit. The lawsuit seeks relief, in part, in the form of the District being ordered "to apply for and obtain a valid coastal development permit for the PROJECT as described herein prior to carrying out any phase of the PROJECT" and "to conform with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act . . . ." The County would be ordered " to carry out and enforce its Local Coastal Program. . . " and the Coastal Commission would be compelled to "vacate and set aside its May 13, 2010 action to approve and concur . . . " with Army Corps' plan for the test wells drilling. The suit asks that a "temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction" prevent "District and/or its agents, associates, contractors, representatives, and employees from taking any action to carry out or implement the PROJECT. . . " until there's a trial about the issues raised.

Documents obtained by LandWatch attorney, Cynthia Hawley, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allegedly reveal evidence of circumventing environmental review and assessment; processes which are supposed to include and protect the public and the public's natural resources.

Of particular note are some e-mails sent prior to the Army Corps' visit and presentation by Colonel Magness and staff at the CCSD December 14, 2009 meeting. Starting on page 14, item 42, its evident that the ". . . District and the Army Corps explicitly intended to avoid public review and permitting procedures" and, according to a December 11, 2009 e-mail memo, Mr. Keeney of the Army Corps stated that the categorical exemption ". . . negates the need for public review. . . "

In item 43, ". . . the only indication that the environmental assessment had been dropped and . . . District intended to exempt the project from the public review process were the words 'CatEx' used on Colonel Magness's slide."

On page 15, Item 46, ". . . District Board President Greg Sanders reviewed the draft power point presentation and stated in an e-mail to District Engineer Gresens that "[I] hope we can avoid using the term "Categorical Exemption" at today's meeting. That will really get the natives restless. Can't we simply say "NEPA/CEQA Compliance? We will end up with a categorical exclusion, but I'd rather deal with that when we are ready for the Coastal Commission."  [ Note: Categorical Exemption apples to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Categorical Exclusion is the language of NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act)

This is an interesting use of language by Mr. Sanders, which may raise some questions about his commitment to serving all of the public.

In any event, Gresens apparently did as Sanders directed and, at that December 14, 2009 meeting, the public saw the slide with a " NEPA/CEQA Compliance" heading followed on separate lines by CatEx after CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and CatEx after NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) and no one, including this reporter, was aware of the meaning. Not until later, that is, when the special January 5, 2010 meeting was called by CCSD and they tried to push through the Categorical Exemption from the CEQA environmental  process and they met with vigorous and informed community resistance reported on by Jack McCurdy in the February, 2010 Journal.

Faced with the well-documented protests lodged in public comment, the CCSD Board blinked and diverged from the plan with the Army Corps. They did not vote to approve the Categorical Exemption, but voted instead to start the CEQA process with an Initial Study. It is likely, as poet Robert Frost once observed, "that has made all the difference." [Note: Yes, the CEQA process they then abandoned in April; thus, in part, the lawsuit.]

Speaking of difference, candidate Harry Farmer's recent Viewpoint in The Cambrian expresses his sense of the differences needed at CCSD—especially, in the way that desalination is being presented to the community by the Board.

The Greg Sanders quoted by Mr. Farmer certainly sounds like he is more receptive to rate payers' concerns, doesn't he? But wait, what about the recent Sanders' Viewpoint where he attacked a citizen's mercury information initiative which was an insert in the past few weeks of The Cambrian?

Titled "Holes in The Drilling Project letter about mercury, Mr. Sanders actually tees himself up rather nicely for a charge of being "holier than thou," as he makes a reference to the mercury educator in terms of "there is no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire." Readers of this Journal will know that Mr. Sanders has himself been found to have put an apparent false alarm out concerning a contaminant—about MtBE being in the production wells in Santa Rosa Creek, when it's not! (See June issue) That alarm has very much served to advance the desalination agenda with which Mr. Sanders is so identified.

The mercury piece appears to be a laudable public service information effort. Any questions about it could best be addressed by professionals studying the fate and transport of mercury through creeks out to the beach and into the nearshore.  That would happen if there were to be an appropriate  full environmental review which is what many in the community have been saying for some time.

In any event, does it not seem remarkable that in his apparent eagerness to diminish a rate payer effort,  the CCSD Board President makes this statement?: "We’ve all known about the presence of old mercury mines in the Santa Rosa Creek watershed for decades."

If that's the case, it prompts a question. Why did he not see to it that mercury was considered some years ago in the environmental review of the million dollar plus Water Master Plan for which Cambria rate payers wrote the checks? Mercury mining certainly should have been considered as part of the history and background of the town's overall water situation . . . in both San Simeon and Santa Rosa Creeks. The exact location of any proposed future desal plant did not need to be known in order to assess the potential for environmentally damaging mercury impacts related to any possible beach wells at the end of either Santa Rosa Creek or San Simeon Creek . As a CCSD director for almost eight years and a past and current president, Sanders, it seems, bears a major responsibility for what appears to be a blunder of fairly significant proportions . . . overlooking mercury!

With Sanders' admission of having knowledge of mercury in the watershed, what excuse can he, as a senior director—Chaldecott, too—offer rate payers for by-passing this potent mercury issue while serving as the directors who oversaw RBF Consulting when they did the costly and, evidently, incomplete environmental review of the Water Master Plan? Either the RBF consultants or the Directors or the District Engineer could have simply done an internet search; googling "Cambria and mercury," as this reporter did, to find a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) report on mercury in the Santa Rosa Creek and San Simeon Creek watersheds. Was it not their professional and public service responsibilities to recognize that the matter needed some attention? [Note: In an earlier, still pending lawsuit, LandWatch focused on deficits in the District's Water Master Plan environmental review.]

Had rate payers been supplied with a fuller environmental review of the Water Master Plan, including mercury issues, it's likely the debate about desal, which Sanders now says he invites, would have occurred long ago. It is doubtful that the majority of rate payers would have allowed the spending of huge sums—much of it just for lobbyists—to pursue a long-term water supply alternative which potentially contains such a heretofore unexamined poison pill.

Now Sanders, who seems to have done little or nothing himself to investigate or to allay legitimate concerns about the mercury issue, finds fault with another citizen's initiative to educate rate payers about some of the potential realities and implications concerning mercury in Santa Rosa Creek's Watershed. Ironically, Mr. Sanders gives some deserved credit to the Coastal Commission for taking heed and requiring testing for mercury beyond what the Regional Water Quality Board requires. All the while, however, when it came to dealing with this possibility for contamination, CCSD Director Sanders himself has apparently been as inert as mercury is potentially mobile!

What were Directors Sanders and Chaldecott thinking all this time, if they knew that mercury was a reality in Cambria's watersheds? Perhaps, they might be asked to explain why they didn't actively call for testing long before the Army Corps was ever involved?

Common sense and the Precautionary Principle certainly seem to apply here to make sure that Cambrians aren't spending millions looking for water in all the wrong places. Additionally, the ecological costs of failure to completely evaluate potential environmental impacts and their consequent financial fallout, whether locally or nationally, are way too high to curtail or to abandon any process aimed at securing environmental safeguards. Local environmental advocates maintain that the contagion represented by the SoCal term "environmental clearance" must be challenged vigorously by citizens who rightly press for full environmental analysis and review, whether for contaminant issues or for habitat conservation or for restoring and enhancing all of our treasured coastal resources.

In summary, as a longtime resident put it, the coast deserves—always!—the most meticulous and painstaking environmental review possible prior to taking any actions which might negatively affect it!

The natural beauty and brilliance of this place provide more than enough light to guide the CCSD towards being exemplary, rather than a seeker of exemptions, when it comes to environmental review and stewardship.

Postscript: Just to add to the mix of change at CCSD, here's an article about desalination and wastewater treatment by Forward Osmosis, which appears to be a promising, far less energy intensive technology for the near future. As Cambria has been considering desal for so long, rate payers might want to be careful not to get saddled with yesterday's, behind-the-curve approaches to water supply.