|
Water Supply Alternative |
Consider Further? |
Comment |
|
Reservoirs |
|
|
|
Mainstem |
Yes, CRDRP |
CRDRP is proposed project; its precursor (NLP)
has received state and federal permits. Viability of other dam
sites is questionable or conclusively not viable. |
|
Tributary and offstream, pumped storage |
No |
Operations/size provide inadequate streamflow
to compensate for impacts; technical problems. |
|
Desalination |
|
|
|
3-6 MGD at Sand City |
Yes |
Previous studies indicate that these sizes are
feasible. |
|
7-14 MGD at Marina and Moss Landing sites |
Yes |
Note that questionable feasibility was identified
for plants larger than 6 MGD (Parsons Engineering Science 1997). |
|
Dredging |
|
|
|
Los Padres Reservoir |
Yes |
Goal is reclaiming 854 af of lost storage. |
|
San Clemente Reservoir |
No |
Interagency oversight group concurred that preferable
alternative to manage sediment includes sluice gates, not dredging.
See separate EIR on Seismic Retrofit Project for San Clemente
Dam. |
|
Groundwater Development |
|
|
|
Carmel Valley |
No |
SWRCB prohibitions for alluvial sources; inadequate
or unproven production capability in upland areas. |
|
Seaside Basin |
Yes, only if injection/recovery |
Seaside Coastal Subareas are areas with development
potential; inland basin not viable because of hydrogeology, water
quality, and safety concerns. |
|
Conservation and Reclamation |
|
Combined additional permanent savings above and
beyond present efforts are estimated at 800 AF (300 af reclamation
and 500 af conservation); conservation potential to be confirmed
by planned MPWMD study in 1999. |
|
MPWMD programs |
Yes |
Programs already substantively implemented; study
planned to assess future savings potential, which may be limited
based on preliminary data. |
|
Cal-Am programs |
Yes |
Programs already substantively implemented; in
1998 CPUC denied, without prejudice, an accelerated leak detection
and conservation education program. |
|
Military/government programs |
Yes |
Already substantively implemented; limited new
potential savings. |
|
Local water marketing (fair use management) |
No |
Concept has merit but is not a means for permanent
conservation; water targets rise and fall with hydrologic conditions. |
|
Permanent mandatory rationing |
No |
Not deemed as an acceptable option by CPUC; legal
issues if rights of legal lots of record are ignored. |
|
Reclamation—Pebble Beach project |
Yes |
Project implemented; estimated 85 af additional
savings potential if expansion to serve Pacific Grove turf areas. |
|
Reclamation—Regional treatment plant |
Yes |
Estimated 215 af savings potential in Cal-Am
system. |
|
Reclamation—Carmel Valley sewering; golf
course applications; recharge aquifers |
No |
Health department restrictions; would not legalize
Cal-Am use as Carmel Valley golf courses not supplied by Cal-Am;
nearly all courses served by Cal-Am are on already reclaimed
water. |
|
Subpotable supplies |
Yes |
Several projects already implemented or underway;
limited new savings; competes with reclamation for receptor sites. |
|
Stormwater reuse |
No |
Many technical and regulatory problems at present;
collection, storage, treatment, and distribution problematic;
limited receptor sites; health department constraints on aquifer
recharge. |
|
Importation and Marketing |
|
|
|
Central Valley—San Luis Reservoir |
No |
Regulatory and water rights constraints; ballot
measure prevents action by PVWMA for 10 years; right of first
refusal by other agencies may preclude access to water. |
|
Salinas Basin/Arroyo Seco River |
No |
Regulatory and legal constraints; County policy
prohibits water transfers out-of-basin; litigation; would exacerbate
Salinas Basin water quality problems. |
|
Big/Little Sur Rivers |
No |
Regulatory and legal constraints; protected rivers;
out-of-basin transfer prohibited by County. |
|
Carmel Valley/Rancho San Carlos |
No |
Technical feasibility is questionable; water
is not for sale; Rancho San Carlos Partnership plans to use supply
for approved development projects. |
|
Fort Ord/FORA |
No |
Regulatory issues; water not for sale by FORA;
all water is slated to be used for Fort Ord Reuse Plan implementation. |
|
Water Bags from Washington |
No |
Lack of water rights and unproven technical feasibility
for pacific Ocean; presently in R&D phase in United States |
|
Legal, Regulatory |
|
|
|
Additional water rights from SWRCB |
Not until Table 13 rights resolved |
Regulatory constraints; SWRCB hearing to define
rights of Table 13 applicants; additional non-recognized rights
and Pueblo rights dismissed by SWRCB. |
|
Change land use/water supply policies |
No |
Legal and regulatory issues; "taking"
and discrimination concerns; change in policy possible, but appears
unlikely in reasonably foreseeable future. |
|
Reduce impacts within watershed |
Yes |
Does not provide new supply but helps address
public trust issues. |
|
No action |
|
Would result in permanent 60% rationing; unacceptable
to CPUC and questionable whether community would or could attain
such a reduction as permanent condition. |