THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
O F T H E M O N T E R E Y P E N I N S U L A
January 24, 2001
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
P.O. Box 85
Monterey, CA 93942
SUBJECT: PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF
ENTITLEMENT WATER
Dear Chair and Members of the Board:
The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula
wishes to submit the following questions for the Board's
consideration:
I. Since the Company did not provide direct initial
funding for the existing reclamation project, does it now
propose to do so by placing the funds derived from the sale
of its surplus "entitlement water" in an operative fund
devoted solely to the completion of the project through
rehabilitation of the Forest Lake reservoir and a new
desalination plant?
2. If the Company still proposes to refinance to pay off
its current bond commitment, presumably the WMD would be
needed as the public agency to ensure tax free status for
the new bond offering. How would these funds fit with the
funds derived from the water sale?
3. What is the total amount of money the Company has paid
to the reclamation project over and above the bond sales
receipts?
4. The Company has restricted any use of its allotment to
the District (45 af) to areas outside the Del Monte Forest.
Is there potential liability from litigation if the Company
sells water at an inflated price to a those who could afford
the cost within the Forest while by-passing Forest residents
on the water waiting list?
5. Is the authority of the District undermined by a
secondary water market controlled by a commercial company
for its own interests, i.e., assurance of irrigation for its
golf courses? How does the new ordinance prohibiting water
credit transfers affect this proposal which would generate
new demand apparently in direct violation of the Rule 95-10
by the SWRCB?
6. If the reclamation project has been recognized as a
legitimate component of the Plan B Alternative by the PUC,
how can its funding outside and apart from the basic funding
required for a new water supply project be justified? Does
this make the proposal premature?
7. Finally, does it reflect sound public policy to permit
discrimination based on financial status in the handling of
a public resources such as water?
The League looks forward to your consideration of these
issues.
Sincerely,
/ss/
Vivian Sala
President
|
