The Santa Cruz City Water Commission meets tomorrow evening, and will be reviewing its role in what the City is now calling a “Water Supply Project.” To be less coy, what the City is now calling a “Water Supply Project” is actually the City’s proposed desalination plant. I continue to be surprised by the City’s unwillingness to be forthright. There are, in fact, some good arguments in favor of desalination, but there are some very good arguments on the other side, too. It would be the best for everyone, I think, if the City would frankly acknowledge what is going on.

To summarize, the City’s “Water Supply Project” used to be called the City’s proposed “desalination plant.” Changing the name (which began with the City’s last budget) doesn’t change the essence of the project. Similarly, the City has made an official commitment to accommodate future UCSC growth by building desalination facilities. At times, City officials have denied that commitment, but it’s down in black and white, as an Exhibit to the “Comprehensive Settlement Agreement” between the City, UCSC, and other parties. Again, there are some good arguments favoring continued UCSC growth, but there are also good arguments on the other side. A full, frank, and fair discussion would be to everyone’s advantage. At least, that is my personal view. Links to the Water Commission agenda can be found below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• The City Water Commission Agenda
• Staff Report on “Water Supply Project”

Last Friday, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting, to decide whether or not to claim a place on the Governance Committee of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. The Authority hopes to coordinate local government responses to a proposed desalination project advanced by the California-American Water Company, a private corporation.

One important issue in Monterey County is whether any new desalination project should be “public,” or “private.” An existing county ordinance requires public ownership of any new desalination project. However, Cal-Am and the Public Utilities Commission take the position that this ordinance is unenforceable. Some Monterey County residents think that the Regional Water Authority is conceding the point. They want the County to act independently and to insist on public ownership.

Santa Cruz County listeners may be amazed that the public would entrust its water future to a multi-national corporation that has profit as its main motive. In Santa Cruz County, all major water supply agencies are public agencies. In Felton, local citizens organized to “buy out” Cal-Am, which previously operated a private water system there.

Things are different in Monterey County, and Monterey County residents who care about the public versus private issue should let the Board of Supervisors know what they think.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• LandWatch Website
• Agenda Materials, Monterey County Board of Supervisors
• LandWatch Monterey County Alert on Public/Private Water Debate
• Pine Cone Article – See Page 21A
• Monterey County Herald Article on Cal-Am Water Project

If you would like to see your elected officials in action, as they discuss key transportation policy issues affecting the future of Santa Cruz County, then make a note in your calendar that tomorrow is the regular monthly meeting of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. The Commission will meet on the Fifth Floor of the County Government Center, located at 701 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz, beginning at 9:00 a.m. There is a link to the Commission’s agenda in today’s blog transcript. You can almost always find more information on any topic featured on the Land Use Report by checking below.

Tomorrow’s meeting agenda doesn’t feature lots of “high-profile” items. However, if you are interested in seeing how this very important agency works, checking out a “normal” meeting is probably the very best way to get an accurate idea of how the Commission operates. Tomorrow, the Commission is getting an update on construction projects underway, including the Highway One widening project, and will discuss possible amendments to the overall budget and work program. The Commission is anticipating that the Santa Cruz Branch Line railroad will soon officially be in public ownership, so there is an agenda item on a “celebration train,” to commemorate the acquisition.

Check out these, and other items, that will be heard tomorrow at the Transportation Commission meeting.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• October 4, 2012 SCCRTC Agenda

Yesterday, I told listeners about the Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission meeting that is being held this morning at the Santa Cruz County Governmental Center. There is still time to go.

I wish I could send Monterey County listeners off to a comparable meeting this morning. However, the Transportation Agency For Monterey County, or TAMC, which handles transportation planning in Monterey County, won’t meet again until October 24th. If you’d like to mark your calendar that far in advance, please do so. It is definitely worth seeing your elected officials in action, as they make decisions about the key transportation projects that will have such a major impact on our future.

In lieu of recommending a Monterey County meeting on transportation, let me recommend that you check out some of the materials I reference in today’s transcript, which focus on a proposed toll road that TAMC is thinking about creating on Highway 156, between Highway 101, near Salinas, and Highway One, near Castroville.

Today’s transcript has a link to an audio presentation, and links to an overview of the Highway 156 toll road project. The proposal has two components. First a new four-lane highway would be built; later, a new interchange would be added at Highway 101. The cost of the toll road project is currently estimated at around $250-million dollars. Find out more about this proposed project below.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• October 4, 2012 SCCRTC Agenda
• TAMC Agenda Materials
• Exploring The Toll Road Proposal – Audio And Text
• TAMC Toll Road Description

Let me remind listeners about the powerful resources available on the state’s “LegInfo” website. That information includes:

• Today’s Events (including all the hearings and other events taking place in the State Capitol).
  
  
• Bill Information (including the text of every bill introduced, every amendment made, every committee or floor vote, and the analyses prepared as the bill goes through the legislative process).
  
  
• California Law (including every one of the California Codes, with search ability).
  
  
• Your Legislature (including committee assignments, FAX addresses, and other information on members of the Legislature, plus a description of how the legislative process works).
  
  
• Legislative Publications (including the “Daily File,” a sort of Farmers’ Almanac of the California State Legislature, plus other publications); and
  
  
• New Laws (including lists of new laws for the last several legislative sessions, particularly pertinent right now, since there are a whole lot of recently-enacted laws, approved by the Governor, that will soon go into effect).

Here is a legislative research question for you. What is the status of AB 1614, authored by Assembly Member Bill Monning, which would extend the life of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority? At the time I recorded this Report, it wasn’t clear whether the Governor had signed the bill. The future of Fort Ord is of critical importance. You can find out what happened on the LegInfo website.

More Information:

• Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog
• State’s “LegInfo” Website
• Bill Status – AB 1614