COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Department of Public Works
John Diodati, Director
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works
County Govt Center, Room 206 | San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 | (P) 805-781-5252 | (F) 805-781-1229 [email protected] | slocounty.ca.gov
April 18, 2024
EMAIL ONLY
To: Ben Fine, Pismo Beach Public Works Director, Greg Ray, Grover Beach Public Works Director, [email protected] Bill Robeson, Arroyo Grande Public Works Director, [email protected] Dear Central Coast Blue Partner,
It has come to my attention that the Central Coast Blue Project (CCB), which will construct an facility for both the Pismo Beach and South San Luis Obispo County being discharged to the ocean, is on pause and at risk of being terminated. insurmountable, as we’ve witnessed recently in Los Osos, Morro Bay, and Cayucos. I urge you to of other water resiliency
options infeasible if communities have not upgraded their wastewater facilities to treat and recycle -stone to develop
other water supply or conservation projects, and I want to make you fully aware this may risk you In our department’s review of successful desalination projects, implementation of recycled water projects is a prerequisite1
. Per the State’s guidance2, the need for desalination is demonstrated when showing that conservation and recycled water use is optimized:
“…describe the extent to which the applicable municipality, water agency, or other water supply entity has optimized the use of all available conservation measures and water supply alternatives
desalinated water.”
“…availability or planned use of all water supply sources including alternative sources such as stormwater capture and recycled water…” 1
(https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/10/Th10a/Th10a-10-2022-report.pdf) and the denied Huntington Beach Desalination Facility, pg. 10-11 (https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/5/Th9a10a/Th9a10a-5-2022- ). 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/ocean/desalination/docs/desal-siting-streamlining-report-dec2023.pdf, pgs. 10-11.
Department of Public Works
County Govt Center, Room 206 | San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 | (P) 805-781-5252 | (F) 805-781-1229 [email protected] | slocounty.ca.gov
2 of 3
If you abandon CCB, an unintended consequence of this decision may result in the Five Cities area as an infeasible location for a desalination plant or the communities in this region as ineligible recipients of desalinated water because you will not have met the permittable threshold of regulatory agencies. As you are aware, the County has started desalination planning, and this will likely focus on regions and water purveyors that meet State guidance if your recycled water project is not pursued to completion.
I also want to caution you about the concept of increased reliance on State Water as a fallback source of additional water. While we have had two consecutive wet years, State policies indicate a preference for reduced reliance due to the health of conveyance waterway ecosystems and changing hydrologic patterns3
. Because its availability year to year varies, State Water must be viewed as a supplemental source rather than a source that is more predictably available for consistent urban water needs (i.e., housing and businesses). For example, even after the rain this year, State Water allocations for 2024 are currently only 30%.
I know from experience how challenging it is to implement a new water supply source and appreciate your leadership on CCB to build a resilient water supply for your community. Since you are a partner in the County’s regional desalination project, my intent is to highlight the need to ng
desalination a long-term water supply option, and caution that State Water should not be considered an additional primary water supply source for the Five Cities area.
If you decide to terminate CCB, please consider redesign options, a scaled back project or expanding the user/benefactor network that could make project implementation more feasible. I would be happy to discuss this further and plan on reaching out to coordinate a forum where we can collectively discuss your project and the relationship to the County’s desalination project. We are stronger as a region if we work together to secure our long-term water supply.
Please reach me at [email protected] or (805) 781-5252.
Sincerely,
JOHN DIODATI
Director of Public Works
c: Jorge Garcia, Pismo Beach City Manager, [email protected] Matthew Bronson, Grover Beach City Manager, [email protected] Matthew Downing, Arroyo Grande City Manager, [email protected] [email protected]
Kate Ballantyne, SLO County Public Works Deputy Director, [email protected] 3 -management/09202016%20Reducing%20Reliance%20on%20the%20Delta.pdf Department of Public Works
County Govt Center, Room 206 | San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 | (P) 805-781-5252 | (F) 805-781-1229 [email protected] | slocounty.ca.gov
3 of 3
Courtney Howard, SLO County Water Resources Division Manager, [email protected] Supervisor Jimmy Paulding, [email protected] Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg, [email protected]
File: CF 910.10.01
L:\Management\2024\April\CCB ltr.docxKBsb
From: Brenda
To: Karen Bright; Zach Zimmerman; Daniel Rushing; Clint Weirick; Robert Robert Cc: BJ Auer
Subject: Water
Date: Saturday, April 20, 2024 4:17:47 PM
Attachments: IMG 7869.jpg
Hello All,
I ask and pray you read the water report carefully.
How can any charts assume a drought in 2024? That is not possible! Please request accurate bias analysis from the people who are making these assumptions! How much of our money is going towards misinformation (like this report) ? Where are up to date studies.
The lake is full might be full for the next 20 years!
All I know is 2014 could never be a drought year.
Think about what you’re being shown here!
If we could turn back time would we go back 3 million dollars ago! Please ask for real unbiased reports and feel free to say I requested it? Do any of you have the same questions as I do because if you keep reading there is much more to ask about!
Please again I pray you opt out of CCB and the JPA take a break for 30 days and ask the right questions before we move forward!
Let’s not spend more money on a dead horse!
Thank you
Brenda Auer/ Auer Real Estate
DRE #01310530
104 W Branch St.
Arroyo Grande,CA 93420
(805) 801-6694
From: victor early
To: Karen Bright
Subject: Central Coast Blue (CCB)
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:07:57 AM
We would like to provide some thoughts prior to your council vote on CCB. The staff report has a lot of good information but also deserves some challenge and independence in oversight. As the chair, you have the ability to set the tone for good oversight and governance decisioning.
Overall Challenge of Staff Options: There appears to be a good pro and con analysis of various non-CCB projects and a good start. However, it is glaring that the risks and issues for CCB are not equally disclosed. A more robust, and balanced, pro and con for options would be beneficial. The Council can ask a lot of questions:
1. Why does CCB not model extended droughts? CCB has been unable to answer these questions. Logically, the benefits would last less than a year in an extended drought and many professionals have opined on this.
2. Why is there not a proper cost benefit analysis for each viable option?
3. Why include Phase 2 for drought claims when this can not happen currently logically? Without Phase 2, have risks been articulated properly? What is the cost and what is the plan to get the protection your staff is projecting?
4. Why is your staff not considering the community input that should happen with your lower income community cost concerns and inequity that will occur in the areas of displacement, pollution, noise and oder? Social impacts should be considered with each option.
5. Why did Grover Beach not ask for concessions for the use of land? Will land use apply still to other options? Other land use or social concerns?
6. WSC now mentions only 700AFY and only three injection wells, why is this not updated in the analysis? Is the data accurate? 2009 was date of seawater interaction at massively more pumping, not 2019, lots of technical to challenge and can elaborate more if your like. Seems a slanted report in many ways.
7. Why have all other options been listed but not explored more that many have equal or less risk or cost than CCB? These include finding a balanced allocation for state water, more conservation or spillwater, direct potable among other options.
CCB Ongoing “Undisclosed” Risks: Per CCS’s peer review and independent professionals have also looked into the project’s modeling data and grants with a compliance view too. The modeling data is not being challenged, it’s the marketing, slanted disclosure and the elements not disclosed for balance of proper decisions that should be challenged. We can clearly surmise the project is primarily for additional water in normal conditions (not extended droughts). The claims of protection to Grover Beach and regional benefit are exaggerated and several statements are incorrect or misleading to the detriment of the public impacted. The project has been tailored to Pismo by a host of consultants and admittedly lacks transparency. The technical data that was provided is not challenged, but much is “not said” in marketing is deficient and should be challenged, as AG did:
1. Why has your staff not independently challenged CCB? What is really going on here?
1. What does “drought proof mean” as indicated by CCB? What will be the allocation in an actual sustained drought after 5, 7, 10 years and your numeric component for each year allocated to GB modeled for all water sources? When does the well run dry? When would pumping need to slow or stop to not put Pismo or others at risk for seawater intrusion? Why promise Phase 2 benefits when this is not Phase 2 cost?
2. Will it work? Do you understand the limits with test well and waterboard concerns?
3. Why is this protecting the Pismo Well as the focus? The only well getting rebuilt and geared to pump more and trying to avoid seawater intrusion that occurs with a new normal of pumping. The only ones to get better water quality. The only one that injection wells were modeled around and needed to be placed as close to the ocean and in sensitive areas to protect regardless of impacts to lang, wildlife and people. What is the risk of this well to others in region in a drought as the new normal cannot be sustained?
4. AG clearly provided alternatives and discussed the risks and limits in any protection of CCB overstatements in a drought, hope your council does the same.
2. Why are some so desperate to do a project that will not really help in a sustained drought for this kind of money? Why is staff not seriously considering other projects more? At over $10,000 AFY this is ten timely more expensive than most projects. It is clear that Phase 2 is needed to actually get the proposed “protection” in a sustained drought. That will be more like $15-20,000 AFY, as projected. Other options may be equally expensive but would be more guaranteed in a drought and less invasive to the land, environment and people.
COST/RISK/BENEFIT each option more.
3. Is Pismo purposely misleading everyone, or is your staff understanding the benefits to Pismo primarily, and at a cost to Grover Beach, and turning a blind eye? Is it because you are already using a larger percentage of groundwater than expected and feel obligated or made promises? Why have staff not disclosed that you and public should know to make the recommendation make more sense?
4. How will you assure transparency and conflicts will be understood if this proceeds with Pismo Beach as lead agency?
Think about your ratepayers as “humans":
1. Concession for land use: Where is Grover Beach's concession for being “used” for land use, with the potential loss of tax revenue that could be gained with a potentially better land use for development without a RO wastewater plant. Why is the social disruption to mediate not called out as the significant concern it is? The bulk of this will be built in Grover Beach. Is it worth it to cozy up with Pismo with no independence for to get what is rightfully owed your community? At a minimum you should renegotiate the cost share to address the gross inequity that is occurring from a social justice perspective for your “community”.
2. Social and Environmental Impact: Many will be displaced and lots of new and continuing disruptions, pollution and hazards. Why are the negatives, which the council will need to address now or later? CCB seemed unaware of most negatives, even in January, as we had to point this out to Geoff English who elected to dismiss social concerns. Much is in the EIR and other technical documents, he made us read hundreds of pages, and we still may be missing some negatives as a result of this lack of disclosure and transparency.
3. Unanswered social risks: Questions on residual impacts remain unanswered.
Why no understanding of the remaining residual impacts? No community outreach to those impacted - why? Combined CDP with no public understanding of direct impacts to many. These are the important remaining negative impacts and risks to understand a and decisions you are entrusted to make for your community.
4. CCB power push: Why did Pismo not engage you more on the move and placements in low income neighborhoods as you would expect with SB1000? Why instead, is your staff actually claiming social considerations are not applicable to Grover Beach when arguably they are critical and relevant.
Regardless the legal debate on SB1000 application missing in your community, it remains the “human” thing to do to “care" and let's not pretend CCB impacts are nothing major and all positive. I believe you will be disappointed with the public backlash if this goes forward in low income areas without better consideration and planning. Do you think Pismo would have allowed a build in their city in reverse if you were trying to build this in their backyard? Why is the social power to potentially take advantage of lessor communities “ok” in any way? You are in a powerful position with the land use to get appropriate and expected concessions for Grover Beach if you move forward with any project that “uses” you.
5. Changing Grover Beach culture: social cost: Most of your census is lower income. Pismo can take the financial hit more as a more affluent community but not sure it is good for Grover Beach based on public outcry without more vetting with your community members? Is your staff trying to be like Pismo Beach and push out lower income for more affluent? If you include Phase 2 to actually protect more in a drought, as promised, your rates may go up as much as tenfold running the numbers. For a tiny amount of protection and water? Is that worth it compared to other longer term options that will be expensive but more water and without “using” and disrupting Grover Beach community culture? A harder look at projects with less impact and less cost per AFY is warranted due to the social cost.
6. Lack of Transparency: Why can’t budgets and information on projections, or even grant applications be easily obtained? Why does it seem there is a push with no transparency? Why so much “hot potato” on questions that should be easy to answer?
In summary, a water project is likely the biggest project the region has seen in years and should be vetted with public input and independent governance transparently. A true regional approach is applauded but not sure you need a CCB stricture and JPA to do that at this juncture. The city managers and agencies are already meeting to discuss options. You can get a public win but continuing efforts but with a true pause of CCB and costs. CCB can and should remain an option, but eliminate the sales culture and push and remain objective. You can jump back in when, and if, CCB becomes the “right thing” after careful vetting of options completely and objectively with more input independently.
Caren Ray Russom did a great job setting the stage for independence from staff reports which equally did not address cost benefit and project drought risk. The staff was responsive to the council and vetted options with cost/benefit and challenge demonstrated “good independence and oversight”. It is unclear why your staff has given you a report that does not appear independently completed. You and your public deserve balanced options and answers to questions. You can set the stage: ask the questions on social justice concerns and ask what price is too high for each of them? Challenge CCB on project efficacy and account for the negative social justice concerns that will occur if this continues, instill “compassion” for those impacted. Demand Pismo/CCB care because right now from what we see they do not and are actually dismissive of anything that is not a project pro. As professionals in finance/compliance and geology, and with our concerns validated with other agency reviews and professionals independently, a continued push without addressing the negatives more completely is perplexing.
I would also point out you don’t need the JPA to continue to collaborate with partners and can reform a structure of oversight and operations when needed with a better regional approach.
Save your taxpayers some money. Use the current meetings with TAC or NCMA to continue to address alternatives and disband the extra legal structure not needed. Staff of the JPA have limited duties and market CCB right now with admitted inadequate transparency and therefore appear to lack true caring for those that will be heavily impacted. They are an extra intermedaiary as they are detached from the lead agency and consultants they are to oversee, all of who may hold balanced knowledge that remains untold but would be useful in decisioning. Demand transparency, with independence and human caring, for your community members impacted. It’s a critical decision. There is a lot riding on your shoulders and we understand that and support you in doing what is right.
Deb&Vic Early
From: victor early
To: Daniel Rushing
Subject: Grover Beach Water Supply and Demand Report by Staff Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 12:21:04 PM
Councilman Rushing:
We ask that you demand a deeper technical and social independent review prior to decisioning in favor of CCB.
Regarding your staff report and analysis on Grover Beach water demand and supply, we have the following comments to highlight:
1. The report notes that during an extended drought, there would be an expected 510 AFY available as groundwater to GB from the CCB project. CCB has not substantiated this claim with modeling. During an extended drought pumping in the entire basin from all users would need to decrease rapidly to avoid seawater intrusion, even with the proposed 900 AFY (now 700 AFY) recycled water injection. CCB needs to show how the basin would react to needed pumping and diminished injection in an extended drought. All basin users will be affected, and all allocated pumping would diminish rapidly due to the low storage capacity of the aquifer. Demand CCB provide “numeric performance objectives” of the project during drought conditions.
2. The report does not mention Phase II of the CCB project, which initially proposed 4392 AFY of injection through 7 wells. The main selling point of the CCB project is “drought resiliency” and a “drought proof water supply”. It appears that CCB claims of “drought resiliency” and a “drought proof water supply” were based on Phase II injection. The currently proposed (Phase I) 700 AFY and 3 injection wells would not provide drought resiliency in an extend drought. What is the cost of Phase II to meet the goal outlined by staff?
3. Cost benefit each viable option more fully. As the options are all cast aside in favor of CCB’s drought protection which needs review as noted above, there is not a complete and balanced picture of options, risks and costs.
Demand an equal picture of options, impacts, costs and drought scenarios. Question why this is being pushed more, without data, than other options and without identifying full costs and other social and environmental issues in the project. Do you know the negatives of CCB? Why are they not listed too?
4. Demand a review of social impacts for your community in any water project arrangement. Why are you not getting compensated for the land use and impacts to your residents which are more pronounced that other JPA members? Do you know why SB1000 was not implemented in Grover Beach and do you agree with that approach taken by city staff? Do you really wish to dismiss impacts to those less fortunate? How do you want to protect your community interests?
A water project of this magnitude is likely the biggest project the region has seen in years and should be vetted with public input and independent governance transparently. A true regional approach is applauded but not sure you need CCB and JPA to do that at this juncture. The city managers and agencies are already meeting to discuss options. You can get a public win by taking a break from unnecessary public spending for a project geared for Pismo and its consultants by opting out of the cost sharing. CCB can and should remain an option, but do eliminate that sales push and culture and demand a transparent and objective view to the project. You can jump back in when, and if, CCB becomes the “right thing” after careful vetting of options completely and objectively with more input independently.
You and your public deserve balanced options and answers to questions. Challenge CCB on project efficacy and account for the negative social justice concerns that will occur if this continues. instill “compassion” for those impacted. Demand Pismo/CCB provide “balanced disclosure" because right now from what we see they do not and are actually dismissive of anything negative. As professionals in finance/compliance and geology, and with our concerns validated with other agency reviews and professionals independently, a continued push without addressing the negatives more completely is perplexing. We have completed a lenghy independent review if you are interested in obtaining a copy.
We would also point out you don’t need the JPA to continue to collaborate with partners and can reform a structure of oversight and operations when needed with a better regional approach. Save your taxpayers some money. Use the current meetings with TAC or NCMA to continue to address alternatives and disband the extra legal structure not needed. Staff of the JPA have limited duties and market CCB right now with admitted inadequate transparency.
They are an extra intermedaiary, detached from the lead agency and consultants they are to oversee, all of who may hold the more balanced knowledge that remains untold.
Demand transparency, with independence and human caring, for your community members impacted. It’s a critical decision. There is a lot riding on your shoulders and we understand that and support you in doing what is right.
Vic and Deb Early
From: victor early
To: Robert Robert
Subject: Central Coast Blue (CCB)
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 6:22:31 PM
Councilman Robert:
Thank you for your support of the people and hearing concerns in past discussions on CCB. We have identified 4 core issues with CCB and the staff report that we would like to call your attention to. An independent review and challenge is recommended. As a councilman you can make a difference by role modeling good questions and assuring good governance over staff and CCB reporting. Two weeks ago Arroyo Grande showed how a good board can challenge staff reports and vet issues independently, which also included hearing and capturing public comments.
We have the following material technical, financial and social impact concerns to highlight that we fee are not well articulated in the staff report:
1. The report notes that during an extended drought, there would be an expected 510 AFY available as groundwater to GB from the CCB project. CCB has not substantiated this claim with modeling. During an extended drought pumping in the entire basin from all users would need to decrease rapidly to avoid seawater intrusion, even with the proposed 900 AFY (now 700 AFY) recycled water injection. CCB needs to show how the basin would react to needed pumping and diminished injection in an extended drought. All basin users will be affected, and all allocated pumping would diminish rapidly due to the low storage capacity of the aquifer. Demand CCB provide “numeric performance objectives” of the project during drought conditions.
2. The report does not mention Phase II of the CCB project, which initially proposed 4392 AFY of injection through 7 wells. The main selling point of the CCB project is “drought resiliency” and a “drought proof water supply”. It appears that CCB claims of “drought resiliency” and a “drought proof water supply” were based on Phase II injection. The currently proposed (Phase I) 700 AFY and 3 injection wells would not provide drought resiliency in an extend drought. What is the cost of Phase II to meet the goal outlined by staff? Are you aware of the concerns by the Waterboards on the efficacy of this program based on the test well? Do you know the actual impacts to Grover Beach vs Pismo Beach the lead agency but also the primary beneficiary of the project? The risks that a new normal of pumping by Pismo Beach will create without a Phase 2? The lack of involvement in lessor communities in placing injection wells to protect its interest? Other potential conflicts not disclosed?
3. Cost benefit each viable option more fully. As the options are all cast aside in favor of CCB’s drought protection which needs review as noted above, there is not a complete and balanced picture of options, risks and costs.
Demand an equal picture of options, impacts, costs and drought scenarios. Question why this is being pushed more, without transparent data on droughts. Why are other options not considered more serious, some at a tenth of the cost, and why CCB without identifying full costs and other social and environmental issues in the project that should be evaluated. Do you know the negatives of CCB? Why are they not listed too? This project is now more than $10,000 AFY, with a shrinking project. Add drought protection with a needed Phase 2 and rough numbers put the cost much higher at $200 Million as a rough estimate. Other options, including direct potable and inland recharge or irrigation should also be added to the list.
4. Demand a review of social impacts for your community in any water project arrangement. What are the negative social, environmental and hazard considerations requested by the Coastal Commission and public not highlighted? Why are you not getting compensated for the land use and impacts to your residents which are more pronounced that other JPA members? Do you know why SB1000 (Environmental and Social Justice) was not implemented in Grover Beach and do you agree with that approach taken by city staff who continue to minimize any impacts and not engage the public impacted? Did you know that many will be displaced and pollution and noise will increase? Did you also know that these impacts were found by the public and not disclosed by CCB in questions, and when identified independently were further dismissed as “nothing major”? We can guarantee the impacted residents will not feel the same, will feel significant, and most are in your poorest census blocks. Do you really wish to dismiss impacts to those less fortunate? How do you want to protect your community interests? A water project of this magnitude is likely the biggest project the region has seen in years and should be vetted with public input and independent governance transparently. A true regional approach is applauded but not sure you need CCB and JPA to do that at this juncture. The city managers and agencies are already meeting to discuss options. You can get a public win by taking a break from unnecessary public spending for a project geared for Pismo and its consultants by opting out of the cost sharing. CCB can and should remain an option, but do eliminate that sales push and culture and demand a transparent and objective view to the project. You can jump back in when, and if, CCB becomes the “right thing” after careful vetting of options completely and objectively with more input independently.
You and your public deserve balanced options and answers to questions. Challenge CCB on project efficacy and account for the negative social justice concerns that will occur if this continues. instill “compassion” for those impacted. Demand Pismo/CCB provide “balanced disclosure" because right now from what we see they do not and are actually dismissive of anything negative. As professionals in finance/compliance and geology, and with our concerns validated with other agency reviews and professionals independently, a continued push without addressing the negatives more completely is perplexing and troubling. We have completed a lengthy independent review if you are interested in obtaining a copy. We also have gathered questions from the public who is largestly unaware of the impacts of this project beyond cost, including those in the hard hit areas of Grover Beach and Oceano and have a list 20 pages long of concerns and public questions that are not sufficiently answered.
We would also point out you don’t need the JPA to continue to collaborate with partners and can reform a structure of oversight and operations when needed with a better regional approach. Save your taxpayers some money. Use the current meetings with TAC or NCMA to continue to address alternatives and disband the extra legal structure not needed. Staff of the JPA have limited duties and market CCB right now with admitted inadequate transparency.
They are an extra intermediary, detached from the lead agency and consultants they are to oversee, all of who may hold the more balanced knowledge that remains untold.
Demand transparency, with independence and human caring, for your community members impacted. It’s a critical decision. There is a lot riding on your shoulders and we understand that and support you in doing what is right.
Vic and Deb Early
From: victor early
To: Clint Weirick
Subject: Central Coast Blue (CCB)
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 6:25:49 PM
Councilman Weirickt:
Thank you for your support of the people and hearing concerns in past discussions on CCB. We have identified 4 core issues with CCB and the staff report that we would like to call your attention to. An independent review and challenge is recommended. As a councilman you can make a difference by role modeling good questions and assuring good governance over staff and CCB reporting. Two weeks ago Arroyo Grande showed how a good board can challenge staff reports and vet issues independently, which also included hearing and capturing public comments. Continue your good work as you have in the past.
We have the following material technical, financial and social impact concerns to highlight in advance for your consideration:
1. The report notes that during an extended drought, there would be an expected 510 AFY available as groundwater to GB from the CCB project. CCB has not substantiated this claim with modeling. During an extended drought pumping in the entire basin from all users would need to decrease rapidly to avoid seawater intrusion, even with the proposed 900 AFY (now 700 AFY) recycled water injection. CCB needs to show how the basin would react to needed pumping and diminished injection in an extended drought. All basin users will be affected, and all allocated pumping would diminish rapidly due to the low storage capacity of the aquifer. Demand CCB provide “numeric performance objectives” of the project during drought conditions.
2. The report does not mention Phase II of the CCB project, which initially proposed 4392 AFY of injection through 7 wells. The main selling point of the CCB project is “drought resiliency” and a “drought proof water supply”. It appears that CCB claims of “drought resiliency” and a “drought proof water supply” were based on Phase II injection. The currently proposed (Phase I) 700 AFY and 3 injection wells would not provide drought resiliency in an extend drought. What is the cost of Phase II to meet the goal outlined by staff? Are you aware of the concerns by the Waterboards on the efficacy of this program based on the test well? Do you know the actual impacts to Grover Beach vs Pismo Beach the lead agency but also the primary beneficiary of the project? The risks that a new normal of pumping by Pismo Beach will create without a Phase 2? The lack of involvement in lessor communities in placing injection wells to protect its interest? Other potential conflicts not disclosed?
3. Cost benefit each viable option more fully. As the options are all cast aside in favor of CCB’s drought protection which needs review as noted above, there is not a complete and balanced picture of options, risks and costs.
Demand an equal picture of options, impacts, costs and drought scenarios. Question why this is being pushed more, without transparent data on droughts. Why are other options not considered more serious, some at a tenth of the cost, and why CCB without identifying full costs and other social and environmental issues in the project that should be evaluated. Do you know the negatives of CCB? Why are they not listed too? This project is now more than $10,000 AFY, with a shrinking project. Add drought protection with a needed Phase 2 and rough numbers put the cost much higher at $200 Million as a rough estimate. Other options, including direct potable and inland recharge or irrigation should also be added to the list.
4. Demand a review of social impacts for your community in any water project arrangement. What are the negative social, environmental and hazard considerations requested by the Coastal Commission and public not highlighted? Why are you not getting compensated for the land use and impacts to your residents which are more pronounced that other JPA members? Do you know why SB1000 (Environmental and Social Justice) was not implemented in Grover Beach and do you agree with that approach taken by city staff who continue to minimize any impacts and not engage the public impacted? Did you know that many will be displaced and pollution and noise will increase? Did you also know that these impacts were found by the public and not disclosed by CCB in questions, and when identified independently were further dismissed as “nothing major”? We can guarantee the impacted residents will not feel the same, will feel significant, and most are in your poorest census blocks. Do you really wish to dismiss impacts to those less fortunate? How do you want to protect your community interests? A water project of this magnitude is likely the biggest project the region has seen in years and should be vetted with public input and independent governance transparently. A true regional approach is applauded but not sure you need CCB and JPA to do that at this juncture. The city managers and agencies are already meeting to discuss options. You can get a public win by taking a break from unnecessary public spending for a project geared for Pismo and its consultants by opting out of the cost sharing. CCB can and should remain an option, but do eliminate that sales push and culture and demand a transparent and objective view to the project. You can jump back in when, and if, CCB becomes the “right thing” after careful vetting of options completely and objectively with more input independently.
You and your public deserve balanced options and answers to questions. Challenge CCB on project efficacy and account for the negative social justice concerns that will occur if this continues. instill “compassion” for those impacted. Demand Pismo/CCB provide “balanced disclosure" because right now from what we see they do not and are actually dismissive of anything negative. As professionals in finance/compliance and geology, and with our concerns validated with other agency reviews and professionals independently, a continued push without addressing the negatives more completely is perplexing and troubling. We have completed a lengthy independent review if you are interested in obtaining a copy. We also have gathered questions from the public who is largestly unaware of the impacts of this project beyond cost, including those in the hard hit areas of Grover Beach and Oceano and have a list 20 pages long of concerns and public questions that are not sufficiently answered.
We would also point out you don’t need the JPA to continue to collaborate with partners and can reform a structure of oversight and operations when needed with a better regional approach. Save your taxpayers some money. Use the current meetings with TAC or NCMA to continue to address alternatives and disband the extra legal structure not needed. Staff of the JPA have limited duties and market CCB right now with admitted inadequate transparency.
They are an extra intermediary, detached from the lead agency and consultants they are to oversee, all of who may hold the more balanced knowledge that remains untold.
Demand transparency, with independence and human caring, for your community members impacted. It’s a critical decision. There is a lot riding on your shoulders and we understand that and support you in doing what is right.
Vic and Deb Early
From: Jill Stegman
To: CouncilMembers
Subject: Central Coast Blue
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 10:36:42 AM
I want to voice my support of our Grover Beach City Council in whatever direction you decide to take to secure our future water supply. I am so impressed by the improvements that have come to our city under your rutledge. I also applaud the efforts of CityManager, Matt Bronson and his staff. Thank you all.
Jill Stegman
Grover Beach