The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on June 16 upheld approval of Cambria’s Water Reclamation Facility coastal development permit and rejected six appeals challenging the project, keeping intact a key regulatory decision that now opens the door to potential review by the California Coastal Commission.
Credit: FILE PHOTO BY JAYSON MELLOM
The vote maintains county approval for a facility that began as an emergency drought-response project in 2014 and has since been proposed for permanent operation as part of Cambria’s long-term groundwater management system.
County staff and Cambria Community Services District officials said the project is necessary to protect the community’s coastal aquifer from seawater intrusion during prolonged drought.
Opponents argued that the environmental record is incomplete and that critical components, particularly brine disposal, remain unresolved.
The facility was originally constructed under an emergency coastal development permit issued during California’s drought emergency, allowing rapid installation of water supply infrastructure to stabilize groundwater conditions. It has operated since then while undergoing environmental review for permanent authorization.
Mason Dennings, senior planner with the county Department of Planning and Building, told supervisors during the meeting the project would formalize that emergency system into a permanent water reclamation facility that treats groundwater and reinjects it into the San Simeon Creek basin to support existing demand.
“The WRF [water reclamation facility] was built as an emergency drought response project to help stabilize groundwater conditions during these dry periods,” Dennings said. He said the facility “does not expand service capacity or modify the urban reserve line” and is not intended to induce growth of development in the community.
Dennings said the project is supported by a 2017 subsequent environmental impact report and a 2025 addendum, which concluded it would not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. He also said the project relies on more than a decade of monitoring data and is governed by an adaptive management plan tied to groundwater levels, lagoon conditions, and habitat indicators.
He told supervisors, “The project description is adequate for review,” and said the environmental record supports approval under the California Environmental Quality Act and the county’s Local Coastal Program.
Appeals were consolidated into nine issue areas, including biological resources, ESHA environmentally sensitive habitat area] consistency, groundwater impacts, energy use, alternatives analysis, and project feasibility. Staff recommended denial of all appeals.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the permit in February 2026, adding conditions related to landscaping, screening, and operational details. The commission received 24 comments, with 18 in support and six in opposition.
Opponents told supervisors the project still lacks clarity on key issues, particularly brine disposal and zero-liquid discharge technology.
Christine Heinrichs said the project remains incomplete despite years of review.
“After 14 years, more than $30 million spent, this application remains incomplete and inadequate,” she told the board.
She questioned whether the proposed zero-liquid discharge system is feasible and argued monitoring is too limited to detect ecological impacts.
“The monitoring that’s included describes opportunities of observation of two to four hours every four months,” Heinrichs said.
Tina Dickason raised similar concerns about waste handling, and said the district lacks a viable method to manage roughly 50,000 gallons per day of brine. She said trucking and ocean outfall disposal are not realistic options and argued that the system has not been proven at scale.
“The CCSD does not have a feasible and affordable means of disposing of 50,000 gallons per day of brine waste,” she said.
Other speakers raised concerns about impacts to private wells, streamflow in Van Gordon Creek, and sensitive habitats.
Cambria Community Services District General Manager Matthew McElhenie defended the project as necessary to prevent long-term damage to the coastal aquifer.
“Seawater intrusion is not merely a temporary water quality issue,” McElhenie said. “It can permanently degrade a groundwater basin and require decades of recovery, if recovery is possible at all.”
He said opponents mischaracterized the facility as a future development project rather than an existing system seeking permanent authorization.
With the board’s decision, the project now enters a 10-working-day appeal window during which eligible parties may file an appeal with the California Coastal Commission. If accepted, the commission would first determine whether the case raises a “substantial issue” before deciding whether to take up a full new review of the project. ∆
This article appears in June 25 – July 2, 2026.
