For twenty years, water planning on the Monterey Peninsula has been in a stalemate, as local voters have turned down proposals to increase the water supply in the region. Now, a bill moving through the legislature may finally bring resolution to the matter - or complicate things further. The bill, AB 1182, by Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Santa Cruz, would require a special election to choose between either building a dam on the Carmel River or moving forward with a plan developed by the Public Utilities Commission to develop water resources without building a dam. The original bill - which has since been amended numerous times - would require the election in November 2000, although that date may change in the final bill. While the rest of California enjoys a respite from the drought, water conservation measures are currently in effect in the Monterey area, with outdoor watering limited to two days a week. A local water company is seeking a moratorium on building from the PUC and also approval for a mandatory rationing plan if it's needed. The problem is not a lack of water, but a lack of storage facilities for the water. The Carmel River, which runs through the region, provides three times the amount of water the region needs, according to Fran Farina, former chair of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, a special district created by the state in 1978 to manage water issues. But voters turned down the proposed 24,000-acre foot-New Los Padres Dam on the river in November 1995, with 57% casting no votes. They also gave a thumbs down to building a desalination plant in 1993. It was a turnaround from the height of the drought in 1987, when voters in the district had approved an advisory measure to build a dam by a 2-1 ratio, Fuerst said. The district is made up of the cities of Seaside, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, Pacific Grove, Monterey, Carmel, and unincorporated areas of the peninsula, including Pebble Beach and Carmel Valley. It serves about 115,000 people in an area of 170 square miles. The district planned to finance the dam with bonds and then sell the water to the local water company, California-American Water Company, known as Cal-Am. But after the voters turned down the project and with the passage of Proposition 218, Cal-Am announced that it would build the new dam without public funding. The dam that Cal-Am currently is proposing would hold the same amount of water, but would not set aside 3,400-acre feet for new construction and remodeling as the earlier proposal did. Cal-Am has been scrambling for a secure water supply for several years. In July 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board ruled that Cal-Am did not have valid rights to 70% of the water it delivered to the area. Most of that water is taken from the Carmel River. Cal-Am is currently supposed to use 80% of its previous water allocation, but went over that amount in 1997, and was ordered to pay a fine of approximately $170,000. Two small dams already exist on the river, but both are old. Environmentalists, who oppose the new dam, have proposed dredging the older dams of silt, to create more storage capacity. "It kind of points out how dams don't work," said Gillian Taylor, chair of the local chapter of the Sierra Club. "They silt up." Taylor said other ideas for increasing the water supply are to inject stormwater runoff into an aquifer in Seaside, and to study desalination again. The district is currently in the middle of a pilot project to test the feasibility of using the Seaside aquifer, Fuerst said. Taylor said that dams harm fish runs and are growth-inducing. Cal-Am has promised that its new dam will be used for only drought protection and environmental protection, not for growth, Fuerst said. But Taylor said she doesn't believe that will happen once a supply of water is available. The water district argues that the Keeley bill would usurp local control, and would complicate and delay the Cal-Am dam project, whose supplemental EIR is due in October. The district is the lead agency for CEQA, and would have to review the EIR. If the EIR is approved, it would then be sent to the PUC for final approval. That process is supposed to be completed in the spring of 2000. Farina said the proposed law is about changing "how the game is played." "If they do it to this community, will they do it to your community?" she asked. But Cal Am's proposal to build a dam is something that the PUC ultimately decides, Keeley noted. "That's hardly local control," he said. And Taylor noted that voters opposed the dam in 1995, and Cal Am still resurrected it. "That's about as undemocratic as you can get," she said. In a letter that the district's board sent to the Senate's Local Government Committee in late June, the board also expressed legal concerns. "By not offering the voters a no-project choice, AB 1182 exposes the vote between the Cal-Am and PUC water supply proposals to potential legal challenges," the letter said. But Keeley said with Cal-Am under pressure to procure new water, "doing nothing is not a choice." The assemblyman called the water district "an utter failure," charging that it has spent $40 million over 20 years and "hasn't produced a drop of water." AB 1182 easily passed the full California Assembly in May on a 55-7 vote. Two days after the district voted to oppose the measure, it was approved in the Senate Local Government Committee on a 5-3 vote. The measure was then referred to the Senate Agriculture and Water Committee, where no vote had yet been scheduled in late July. Senator Jim Costa, D-Fresno, is chair of that committee, and voted against the bill when it was before the Local Government Committee. Keeley said in late July that he'd met with Costa three times since the vote, and that the bill continues to be amended. Representatives of local groups ranging from the chamber of commerce to the Sierra Club, have been meeting to try to reach consensus on the bill as well, he said. Taylor said the alternatives that are being proposed by environmentalists would provide solutions if taken as a whole. "You may be able to get 2,000 acre-feet from dredging, " she said. The conventional wisdom on dredging, she said, is that it's too expensive. But it's one of the options that deserves further study, she said. Contacts: Gillian Taylor, Sierra Club, (831) 659-0298. Darby Fuerst, General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, (831) 649-4866. Fran Farina, (831) 625-5544. Assemblyman Fred Keeley, (916) 445-8496.