EXHIBIT 16-A

CEQA Environmental Checklist

MPWMD ORDINANCE NO. 146

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Project Title:	Adoption of Ordinance No. 146: Tolling the Expiration Date for Water Use Credits for the Duration of a California Public Utilities Commission Ordered Moratorium Limiting Their Use
Lead agency name and address:	Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, PO Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 [Street address: 5 Harris Court, Bldg. G, Monterey, CA 93940]
Contact person and phone number:	Stephanie Pintar, 831/658-5630
Project Location:	Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, see Attachment 1, map
Project sponsor’s name and address:	Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, PO Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 [Street address: 5 Harris Court, Bldg. G, Monterey, CA 93940]
General plan description:	Varies throughout District
Zoning:	Varies throughout District
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.)	Proposed Ordinance No. 146 (Attachment 2) tolls (or suspends) the expiration of a Water Use Credit for the duration of a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ordered moratorium on the California American Water Distribution System that prohibits the use of Water Use Credits.
Surrounding land uses and setting; briefly describe the project’s surroundings:	Land uses within the District range from urban and suburban residential and commercial areas to open space/wilderness. The District encompasses the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, portions of Monterey County (primarily Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach and the Highway 68 corridor), and the Monterey Peninsula Airport District. Each of these jurisdictions regulates land uses within its boundaries. The District does not regulate land uses. The Monterey Peninsula is dependent on local sources of water supply, which (directly or indirectly) are dependent on local rainfall and runoff. The primary sources of supply include surface and groundwater in the Carmel River basin, and groundwater in the Seaside Basin (Attachment 3). Vegetation communities on the Monterey Peninsula include marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats; fresh emergent and saline emergent (coastal salt marsh) wetland communities; riparian communities, particularly along the Carmel River; a wetland community at the Carmel River lagoon; and upland vegetation communities such as coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, mixed hardwood forest, valley oak woodland, and annual grassland. These communities provide habitat for a diverse group of wildlife. The Carmel River supports various fish resources, including federally threatened steelhead fish and California red-legged frog.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):	None

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 3 for additional information.

Aesthetics	Agriculture and Forestry	Air Quality
Biological Resources	Cultural Resources	Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions	Hazards and Hazardous Materials	Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning	Mineral Resources	Noise
Population/Housing	Public Services	Recreation
Transportation/Traffic	Utilities/Service Systems	Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required

Signature:	Date:
Printed Name:	For:

CEQA Environmental Checklist

This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.

	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
XV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ITEMS: This discussion first describes the MPWMD Water Use Credit program and recent action that affects the California American Water (CAW) system, followed by the potential effects of proposed Ordinance No. 146.

Water Use Credits

Water Use Credits are documented when there is a Permanent Abandonment of Capacity (MPWMD Rule 25.5-E). The process allows the reuse of the entire reduced increment of water on the same Site. Non-Residential Water Use Credit may be transferred to another Site that has an expanding use, or may be transferred into a Jurisdiction’s Allocation. The latter two options can only occur only when the Water Use Credit has been transferred pursuant to Rule 28 and are not components of this project.

A Water Use Credit is calculated in one of three ways: (1) by using the District’s factors as displayed in either Rule 24, Table 1: Residential Water Use Factors, or (2) by using Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors, or (3) by using water savings factors that are recognized by the California Urban Water Conservation Council or that are clearly more accurate based on clear and convincing evidence. Water Use Factors are used to document Water Use Credit upon demolition of a building or use that has been recognized by the District as being a lawful water use; upon the permanent disconnection of a lawful water use from a Water Distribution System; and upon removal of Residential water fixtures. The Non-Residential Water Use Factors are based on regional averages; therefore actual water use may be higher or lower than the factored use. Water Use Credits may also be determined using equipment-specific water savings for Ultra-Low Consumption Technology.

A Water Use Credit allows the reuse of the reduced increment of water for up to ten years (up to 20 years at Redevelopment Project Sites) unless that credit is transferred to a Jurisdiction’s Allocation, at which point it does not expire. The Water Use Credit rule was adopted to accommodate reconstruction of demolished buildings if the Water Use Credit was not abandoned or expired or moved to another Site or Allocation. The District’s Water Use Credit rules were also designed to provide incentives for undertaking extraordinary retrofitting and/or installation of proven new technology and to provide a mechanism for offsetting potential intensification in use.

California American Water System

A Cease and Desist Order (CDO) was issued on October 20, 2009, by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) against California American Water (CAW). The CDO (SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060) prescribes a series of significant cutbacks to CAW’s pumping from the Carmel River from 2010 through December 2016. CAW customers may be subject to water rationing, a moratorium on Water Permits for new construction and remodels, and fines if pumping limits are exceeded. The CDO is expected to remain in place until a permanent supply of water replaces the unlawful diversions of Carmel River water.

In the CDO, CAW was ordered by the SWRCB to not connect water meters to any new projects or remodels that intensify water use. On May 27, 2010, CAW submitted an Amended Application to the CPUC to authorize CAW to refuse to connect new customers in certain areas of its Monterey County District, and to institute a moratorium on new or expanded water service connections for projects that obtained all their necessary governmental permits after October 20, 2009.

On January 25, 2011, a proposed decision on CAW’s request for a moratorium was issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gary Weatherford. The draft decision grants CAW’s moratorium request, including a moratorium on the use of Water Use Credits. Specific exceptions include: (a) customers who receive Entitlements of water from the Pebble Beach Wastewater Reclamation Project; (b) Security National Guarantee, Inc.; (c) meter splits at apartments, commercial and industrial settings that do not result in increased water use; and (d) certain named water systems, including the Bishop, Hidden Hills and Ryan Ranch systems along the Highway 68 corridor. The moratorium is proposed to last until either: (a) Cal-Am shows the CPUC written confirmation from the SWRCB that Cal-Am has obtained a permanent supply of water to replace its unpermitted diversions from the Carmel River, or (b) until litigation on the CDO results in the Court overturning the CDO, whichever comes first.

In addition to the CDO, California American Water’s ability to supply water to the community is constrained by the Seaside Basin adjudication decision. This decision by the Monterey County Superior Court (California American Water v. City of Seaside et al., Case No. M66343) determined that the basin was in overdraft and established an initial operating yield for the basin (5,600 acre-feet per year (AFY)) and natural safe yield for the basin (3,000 AFY). By 2021, groundwater pumping from the basin must be reduced by 2,600 AFY to bring the basin into balance (i.e., pumping less than 3,000 AFY) and reduce the risk of seawater intrusion.

Potential Impacts Mitigation – Rule 25.5-K

The subject of this environmental review, Ordinance No. 146, delays, suspends or “tolls” the expiration date of a documented Water Use Credit until after a CPUC-ordered moratorium has been lifted, there is full compliance with the Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision and additional water supplies have been developed and released in a quantity that is sufficient to offset all documented Water Use Credits. At such time, tolled Water Use Credits will be reinstated with the same value and remaining term as available on the date of tolling. The sufficiency of supply is determined by the General Manager and approved by the District Board in a noticed public hearing.

To prepare this Initial Study, MPWMD reviewed its records of documented Water Use Credits for a ten year period, from November 1, 2001 through October 2010. This process identified approximately 67 acre-feet of valid Water Use Credits documented as of October 31, 2010. Almost two-thirds of the Water Use Credit was documented for Non-Residential reductions in use. The remainder of the Water Use Credit is Residential. Although 67 acre-feet is a relatively small amount of water in comparison with the overall demand (only about one-half of one percent of the total production limit), any unnecessary use of water has the potential to contribute to non-compliance with the CDO and the Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication. Both regulatory actions have regularly scheduled cutbacks in production that increase the risk of a Water Use Credit being the cause of non-compliance.

Tolling Water Use Credits increases the likelihood that some portion of water that would otherwise have been returned to the community as reduced demand upon expiration (i.e. conservation savings) will be reused. MPWMD has identified the current holders of documented Water Use Credits and has also identified the potential for significant additional documentation of Water Use Credits in the future. While 67 acre-feet has been identified during this Initial Study, an unknown, but potentially large, quantity of Water Use Credit has not been documented. Some of these undocumented credits originate from voluntary conversion of non-Ultra Low Flush and Ultra Low Flush Toilets to High Efficiency Toilets, installation of High Efficiency Washing Machines and Dishwashers, and numerous Non-Residential plumbing retrofits with significant water savings. As no time limit exists regarding application for a Water Use Credit, it is likely that there will be some level of new applications for Water Use Credits for qualifying reductions that have taken place within the past ten years. Until an application for a Water Use Credit is made to MPWMD, these savings cannot be quantified. Allowing the reuse of tolled Water Use Credits before water is available to accommodate new and expanded use could potentially place a further burden on the existing users to maintain water demand within available supply.

The original ordinance contemplated tolling Water Use Credits until a CPUC-ordered moratorium was lifted. However, there would be a potentially significant impact associated with concluding tolling before new water supplies are available, particularly if the use of pent up Water Use Credits creates additional unlawful diversions from the Carmel River or extractions from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. To counteract a potential increase in demand associated with Water Use Credits that could in turn result in additional non-compliance with California American Water’s Water Rights for the Carmel River and the Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision, the project adds Rule 25.5-K. This rule continues the tolling of Water Use Credits until sufficient new water supplies are available to offset the potential burden of increased demand resulting from tolling.

Potential Impacts Mitigation – Rule 25.5-B

Ordinance No. 146 amends Rule 25.5-B to expire Water Use Credits when the fixture becomes mandated by MPWMD, State or Federal conservation programs. This amendment to Rule 25.5-B eliminates many of the currently undocumented Water Use Credits and will reduce the potential quantity of tolled Water Use Credits in the event of a CPUC-ordered moratorium. As proposed in Ordinance No. 146, Water Use Credits expire upon the date mandated despite tolling during a CPUC-ordered moratorium.

The amendment to MPWMD Rule 25.5-B proposed in Ordinance No. 146 reduces the quantity of Water Use Credits that would potentially be tolled during a CPUC-ordered moratorium resulting from new requirements of MPWMD and the State of California. MPWMD revised its Conservation Regulation (Regulation XIV) in 2009 to require significant Non-Residential retrofits by 2013. California’s Health and Safety Code §17921.3, amended by AB715 (Laird) on October 11, 2007, requires all toilets sold or installed in the state to meet the High Efficiency Toilet (HET) standard by January 1, 2014. Installation of non-mandated water fixtures that result in permanent reductions in use can be documented as Water Use Credits. The amount of potential new Water Use Credit as a result of the new mandates is not quantified. However, given that Non-Residential retrofits tend to result in greater water savings than Residential uses, the potential for this impact to be noteworthy is high. Further, property inspections by MPWMD during 2011 are documenting a large number of voluntary HET installations that could result in Water Use Credits.

Conclusion

Based on the new and revised components of the MPWMD Rules & Regulations included in Ordinance No. 146 to safeguard the adequacy of the water supply, as described above, MPWMD finds that the project, Ordinance No. 146, will not have a significant environmental impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2011\20110224\ActionItem\16\item16_exh16a.doc