We are not persuaded to order a moratorium at this time. We reach that conclusion for several reasons. From the pubic and party input we have received, there is widespread local government and community opposition to a moratorium, no formal support, and almost no informal support. MPWMD already limits new and expanded water uses, and our imposing a moratorium would add little value but considerable complexity. A moratorium is likely to be disruptive and potentially damaging to the local economy. Experience has demonstrated that overconsumption leading to violation of SWRCB-mandated production limits, the problem a moratorium was intended to address, has not recurred since CalAm and local stakeholders successfully came to grips with it beginning in 1998. Lastly, the conservation rate design we imposed in July 2004, combined with other conservation incentives and an intensive community outreach campaign, was shown to be effective for addressing potential overconsumption during the 2004 water year.
In lieu of ordering a moratorium at this time, we will require CalAm to evaluate its current Monterey District Tariff Rule 14.1 to determine whether, in its judgment, revisions are needed to ensure future water production does not violate State Water Resources Board Order WR 95-10. In doing so, CalAm should consult with MPWMD, ORA, and the Commission's Water Division. If CalAm determines that revisions to Tariff Rule 14.1 are needed, it should propose those changes in an application for Commission approval.6
Under Rule 44.4, "The filing of a protest does not insure that an evidentiary hearing will be held. The decision whether or not to hold an evidentiary hearing will be based on the content of the protest." The content of the protests in this proceeding does not persuade us that an evidentiary hearing is needed. To the extent ORA may want an evidentiary hearing to examine alternative or additional measures, it should advocate including the issue in the scope of the Monterey District general rate case, A.05-02-012, now getting underway.
6 While Tariff Rule 14.1 is currently modeled on MPWMD's Ordinance 92, the Commission may order such changes to the Rule as it finds to be in the public interest.