Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident group accuses Sweetwater Authority of misleading the public on floating solar size
Summary
At Monday's National City Council meeting, Save Sweetwater Reservoir representative Charmaine Estolano said FOIA documents show a discrepancy between an initial public project description (3.75 MW, 9.5 acres) and materials promoted to Sacramento (she said 80 MW, ~200 acres), calling the difference “monumental” and urging more transparency; Sweetwater representatives said the project remains under study.
Charmaine Estolano, a National City resident and representative of Save Sweetwater Reservoir, told the council that public records obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show a striking difference between the floating solar project size initially described to ratepayers and the materials circulated to state lawmakers.
"Initially, we were told this would be a 3.75 megawatt project covering 9.5 acres. However... the flyer I gave you stating the plan is for 80 megawatts spanning almost 200 acres," Estolano said, adding that the discrepancy raises “serious questions about the integrity and honesty of this project.”
At the meeting, Sweetwater Authority matters were discussed in several places: a Sweetwater representative reminded the council that the Authority approved a $63.8 million budget for FY2024–25 prioritizing service reliability, and council members referenced ongoing study work on the floating solar proposal. Mayor Morrison acknowledged both enthusiasm for renewable energy and concerns about protecting drinking water and noted the project has not previously been deployed at a potable-water reservoir in the United States; he framed the proposal as novel and subject to careful review.
A Sweetwater-affiliated speaker responding later in the meeting said the floating solar concept is under study and framed the effort as a potential tool to mitigate ratepayer costs. “We don't know what's gonna happen. We're looking at it to mitigate cost on how we can save our ratepayers,” the representative said, and denied that Authority members were lobbying for an outcome beyond seeking information and funding opportunities.
The exchange at the council meeting did not produce a formal action on the project. Council members and staff urged public engagement and additional transparency; Estolano urged the council to investigate the discrepancy in project descriptions and to ask the Authority for clearer, timely information for ratepayers.
The council did not vote on the floating solar project at Monday's meeting. A Sweetwater Authority representative told the council the proposal remains an item under study and no sole-source contracting or final approvals were before the council that evening.
Estolano characterized the information mismatch as a trust issue for ratepayers and called for the council to "become informed about this project and to speak up." Mayor Morrison and other council members said they expect staff and the Authority to provide clear details to the community as the review continues.
