|
Alternative |
Description |
Reasons for Elimination |
|
New San Clemente Dam (Rock fill) |
Rock fill construction method used as "fall
back" if roller - compacted concrete fails |
fall back not needed; also more expensive and
time consuming |
|
45,000-af New San Clemente Reservoir |
Joint use reservoir for MPWMD, Fort Ord, and
Marina |
Rejected by Marina and Ford Ord because of cost;
infeasible without their participation |
|
154,000-af New San Clemente Reservoir |
Flood control, recreation, and water supply dam
proposed by Corps |
Abandoned by Corps because of lack of community
support; flood control and recreation not MPWMD project purposes |
|
Upper Syndicate Dam (Cachagua) |
Analyzed by Corps in 1970s |
Rejected in favor of New San Clemente Dam by
Corps in 1981; resource agency staff recommended against it in
1988 because of loss of highly valued riparian habitat |
|
Lower Syndicate Dam (Pine Creek) |
Analyzed by Corps in 1970s |
Rejected in favor of New San Clemente Dam by
Corps in 1981; would inundate homes and roads; resource agency
staff recommended against it in 1988 because of loss of highly
valued riparian habitat |
|
Klondike Dam |
Analyzed by Corps in 1970s |
Rejected by Corps because of two active faults
in reservoir area; would inundate expensive homes, roads, and
water treatment facilities |
|
New dam at existing Los Padres site |
Analyzed by Corps in 1970s |
Rejected by Corps because of Ventana Wilderness
inundation; marginal site, need to demolish old dam, unreasonably
high costs, and technical feasibility concerns |
|
Buckeye Creek Dam |
2,000-af offstream storage reservoir on Buckeye
Creek; could divert water from San Clemente Dam or the Narrows |
Rejected because of technical problems, fault
near toe of dam, left abutment formed entirely of landslide material,
unsuitable foundation material, and water quality concerns |
|
Fort Ord depressions |
Natural depressions and shallow valleys on Fort
Ord Military Reservation (lined or unlined) could be used as
small reservoirs or infiltration basins |
Rejected because of lack of availability (most
sites are in military firing ranges), water quality and safety
concerns from spent (or unspent) ammunition, high cost of line
depressions, and questionable feasibility to recover infiltrated
water |
|
Seaside Coastal rechargecoastal barrier |
Reclaimed water or fresh water diverted from
Carmel Valley injected into coastal basin could prevent seawater
intrusion and allow greater pumping inland |
Rejected for technical reasons; tests conducted
in 1981 indicated barrier recharge would not be successful |
|
Recharge Seaside Coastal wells |
Recharge and recovery of water through existing
and new wells; water would be diverted from Carmel Valley |
Rejected because of technical in feasibility;
two sets of tests showed that recharge would not be successful
at anticipated quantities |
|
Seaside Inland well development |
Ground water development in the Seaside Inland
Sub basin for use by MPWMD; most of the sub basin underlies Fort
Ord Military Reservation |
Rejected because of questionable supply, lack
of available well fields due to firing ranges on Fort Ord, and
preemptive water rights; an exploratory program concluded that
ground water production potential was poor |
|
Upper Carmel Valley well development |
Construction of new or enlarged Cal-Am wells
in upper Carmel Valley aquifer |
MPWMD Board of Directors adopted a policy not
to pursue additional well development in this environmentally
sensitive area |
|
Lower Carmel Valley well development |
Construction of new or enlarged Cal-Am wells
in lower Carmel Valley aquifer |
Only limited well development is feasible because
fisheries and riparian habitat have been degraded by existing
practices (Note: Additional treatment/pumping capacity could
be required by California Department of Health Services to meet
maximum day [peak] demand as community demand increases); water
rights are questionable |
|
Importation Arroyo Seco |
Build large dam in southern Monterey County;
provide water through a 56-mile canal to the Monterey Peninsula |
Monterey County Board of Supervisors abandoned
project in 1983; a 1990 County study also recommended that it
not be pursued |
|
Importation Lower Salinas Basin |
Build a small diversion dam near Salinas, transmit
water to small regulating reservoirs, and drill a dispersed well
field near Salinas |
Monterey Peninsula is not eligible for this water
because of funding zone limitations and lack of riparian rights;
project not designed with the peninsula in mind |
|
ImportationSan Felipe project |
Purchase water from Pajaro Valley area; source
would be San Luis Reservoir |
Rejected because of lack of available water due
to other agencies prior water rights, high costs for 30-mile
pipeline, and the need to build a storage reservoir because only
off-peak supply would be considered |
|
ImportationBig and Little Sur Rivers |
Construction of dams on these rivers, as well
as pipelines to transmit water |
Rejected because both rivers are protected by
the state; both rivers are also being considered for federal
protection |
|
Reclamation for ground water recharge |
Inject treated waste water into Seaside Coastal
sub basin to increase extraction potential from this area |
Rejected because of long-term health concerns
and reluctance of state and county health departments to issue
permits for projects of this type |
|
Reclamation for turf irrigation
near Old Monterey Plant* |
Apply treated waste water to irrigate turf at
the Naval Postgraduate School and the Old Del Monte Golf Course |
Rejected because of the tenuous nature of the
facilities and economic feasibility (treatment plant was scheduled
for demolition; suit settlement with nearby homeowners entails
treatment plant shutdown once regional system is operational);
cost prohibitive unless Navy participates, but Navy has drilled
its own sub potable wells |
|
Cisterns (residential and institutional) |
Construction of cisterns for all residences and
large commercial or institutional buildings |
Not practicable as a district wide program because
of high cost per acre-foot and marginal benefits; MPWMD does
support and provide information on cisterns to interested members
of the public (voluntary) |