MONTEREY >> A Monterey County Superior Court judge has struck down a lawsuit filed by three water agencies and one city against the California Coastal Commission for conditionally approving a desalination plant in Marina. But it is an “intended ruling” and is subject to challenges prior to a final ruling.

The 118-page decision by Superior Court Judge Thomas Wills was issued March 28. But attorneys for the Marina Coast Water District, the city of Marina, the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District on Friday filed a total of 47 objections to Wills’ intended ruling.

The objections were filed by David Laredo with the Pacific Grove firm of De Lay and Laredo, who represents the Water Management District; Howard Wilkins with the Sacramento law firm of Remy Moose Manley, who is the lead attorney for Marina Coast Water District, the Peninsula Water Management District and the groundwater sustainability agency; and Paul Spalding III with the San Francisco law firm of Shartsis Friese which represents the city of Marina.

The Coastal Commission is represented by Joel Jacobs with the California Attorney General’s Office. He represents state agencies in matters of environmental law. California American Water Co., which is planning the Marina desal project, is represented by four attorneys led by Duncan Moore with the firm of Latham and Watkins in Los Angeles.

The Coastal Commission is the respondent (defendant) and Cal Am is listed as a “party of interest.” The Herald reached out to Jacobs, the commission’s attorney, but he did not immediately return a request for comment. The commission, in prior requests for statements, has stated it does not comment on pending litigation.

If Wills agrees with any of the objections, it could result in modifications to the intended filing before it becomes final, Laredo said.

“Proper objections include those contending that the proposed statement of decision omits or fails to resolve specifically identified controverted issues, that the explanation of the basis for the decision on an issue is ambiguous, or that the statement relies on facts that were not proven or are outside the record,” according to the filing of objections that Wilkins provided to the Herald on Tuesday.

Much of Wills’ reasoning in the intended ruling contains language that confirms the Coastal Commission’s adequate due process in reaching its 2022 conditional permit for Cal Am’s desal project. Much of it is technical and cites several state statutes and prior court precedents to support his ruling.

“In other words, as (the Coastal Commission) has pointed out, the responses addressed and explained the Commission analysis on exactly the substantive topics which (the plaintiffs) have challenged in this action,” Wills wrote in his intended ruling.

Cal Am on Wednesday issued a strongly worded statement that the city of Marina and the Marina Coast Water District have “repeatedly, expensively opposed the project in court.

“They have lost seven times since the project was proposed in 2013,” said Josh Stratton, Cal Am’s manager of external affairs. “Courts have consistently found that the project meets all the requirements for this stage and that the Coastal Commission, (California Public Utilities Commission) and other regulating authorities have acted appropriately in assessing the project and issuing the relevant permits.”

Stratton went on to say that the failed lawsuits cost residents money and delay Monterey Peninsula’s water security.

However, the Peninsula Water District has had court successes, including a November 2024 ruling by Monterey County Superior Court Judge Vanessa Vallarta that the water district can move forward with its eminent domain case against Cal Am.

One of the objections in Friday’s filing is that Wills’ intended ruling did not address public access to the beach when the desal plant is constructed, the filing alleges. The Coastal Act — the legislation that established the Coastal Commission — “prohibits private development from interfering with the public’s constitutional right of maximum access to the coast for recreation and other purposes.”

The attorneys for the water districts and Marina cite one of 20 conditions placed on the project when the commission approved the coastal development permit for the desal project in 2022. Condition 17 of the commission’s 157-page staff report requires that Cal Am provide a Community Engagement Plan describing measures the company will take to “engage with representatives and residents of (Marina) to develop the Public Access and Amenities Plan.”

But this condition “improperly defers consideration of public access and recreation issues to some later point in time, in violation of the Coastal Act,” the objection reads. The attorneys are asking Wills to address the concern for public access that they say he did not do in his intended ruling.

Desal project detractors note that the 20 conditions tagged on to the Coastal Commission permit are huge mountains for Cal Am to scale before the first shovel hits the dirt. For example, one or more of the conditions require Public Utilities Commission approval. That is far from certain.

In 2019 Coastal Commission staff recommended denial of the project then came back three years later and recommended approval with conditions

Another heady condition is Cal Am must secure cooperation from the city of Marina to lay down some of the infrastructure that will be located within the city. It also must make a deal with Monterey One Water to use its marine outflow system to discharge the brine generated by the desalination process.

Much of Wills’ intended ruling is based on whether or not something was plausible, said Monterey Peninsula Water Management District General Manager Dave Stoldt. For example, Wills’ decision stated that it was plausible the region in the future would need an additional water source besides the Pure Water Monterey water recycling project, despite water district evidence to the contrary, Stoldt said.

Cal Am has submitted evidence showing an additional water supply — the desal project — will be needed in the next few decades. The determination of which set of evidence is factual will be determined sometime this spring by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Stoldt said the existence of something being plausible or not creates gray areas in the ruling. Because of that, Stoldt said the district is leaning against an appeal. He emphasized he was speaking about the MPWMD, not any other districts or agencies. One way or another nothing will be decided about an appeal until the question goes before the district’s board of directors. The same is likely true of the other water agencies and the city of Marina.