Page 19 - gateking051309
P. 19

B.  The Evidence

                       The City’s EIR/FAA for Gate King’s proposed project includes a broad overview

               of the SWP, a review of the historical deliveries of SWP water to CLWA and other local

               contractors, and DWR’s projections of SWP water supplies which will be available for
               delivery to CLWA (which were projected for “average/normal” conditions, and “a single

               dry year . . . based on a repeat of the worst-case historic hydrologic conditions of 1977,”

               and “a multiple dry-year period . . . based on a repeat of the worst-case historic four-year

               drought of 1931-1934”).

                       The City’s EIR/FAA for Gate King’s proposed project also includes an extensive
               review of the myriad of litigation arising from the Monterey Agreement and Monterey

               Amendments, and the transfer of 41,000 AFY from KCWD to CLWA, and includes the

               accurate observation that “[n]o court has ordered any stay or suspension of the Monterey

               Agreement pending certification of a new EIR,” and that no court has ordered any stay or

               suspension of the 41,000 AFY from KCWD to CLWA.  The City’s EIR/FAA further
               notes (correctly) that DWR and its contracting water agencies “continue to abide by the

               Monterey Agreement[,] as implemented by the Amendments, as the operating framework

               for the SWP.”

                       We are satisfied that the evidence summarized above supports the City’s finding

               that the 41,000 AFY of water from KCWD to CLWA is reliable for planning purposes,
               and we consider CWIN’s real objection not to be that there is an absence of substantial

               evidence in support of the City’s conclusions, but that City’s conclusions are, themselves,

               wrong.  Where, as here, substantial evidence supports an agency’s findings, we will not

               substitute our conclusions for those of the agency.

                       Finally, even assuming we were inclined to discard the City’s conclusions, and to
               take it upon ourselves to make our own independent conclusions based on the evidence,

               our decision would be the same.  Although CWIN is abstractly correct that DWR’s new

               EIR for the Monterey Agreement/Monterey Amendments may (if and when feasible

               mitigation measures are adopted) affect the amount of SWP water which will be

               delivered to CLWA pursuant to the transfer of 41,000 AFY of water from KCWD, that


                                                             19
   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24