|
Project Description |
Water Yield |
Cost Parameters
(1998 dollars) |
Project Timing and Life |
Environmental Issues |
Conclusions and Other
Comments * |
|
Obtain additional water rights from SWRCB, including
Pueblo Rights |
Unknown. Depends on SWRCB determinations on Table
13 applicants, and Cal-am production to serve Carmel Valley. |
Legal fees; no facility costs. |
At least 2-4 years for EIR and hearings.
Litigation on 1995 decisions has been settled. |
Increased rights would legalize more diversions
from Carmel River, which impact fish and wildlife. |
Additional rights other than Table 13 not reasonably
foreseeable. Speculative to predict Table 13 outcome. This evaluation
assumes only existing rights. |
|
Change relationship between land use and water
availability. Concepts include coordinating land use and supply,
restricting certain and uses, and changing MPWMD allocation program |
None anticipated. Focus of these efforts would
be to constrain growth to within existing supply. |
Unknown. No facilities needed; ordinance enforcement
and planning costs.
Litigation costs are likely with some suggested
provisions. |
Unknown. Assume 6 months to several years for
ordinance development and major changes to general plans. |
If permanent reduction in allocation, could help
reduce impacts to Carmel River. |
Not reasonably foreseeable option if it entails
"taking" of legal lots or discrimination. Change in
political climate for planning could occur, but is difficult
to predict. |
|
Reduce impacts to Carmel River environment by
refining Cal-Am delivery system and watershed management |
No yield involved; focus is improvement of river
habitat. |
Not defined at present; studies and planning
efforts are have just begun. |
1-4 years; system improvements and HCP expected
in near future. |
Potential improvement to streamflow and habitat
for threatened species. |
Expected to occur in next 1-4 years. Cal-Am improvements
are required by SWRCB, if feasible. ESA Section 10 requires Habitat
Conservation Plan for threatened species. |
|
No action to address problem |
Assume 60% permanent rationing due to enforcement
of Order WR 95-10 by SWRCB. |
Unknown. Significant economic impact to community. |
Unknown. CPUC or other entity likely to take
action. |
Public health and safety concerns; socio-economic
impacts to residents and businesses. |
Not reasonably foreseeable as CPUC has stated
such an option is unacceptable. Action of some sort would occur. |