(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The California water plan : projected use and available water supplies to 2010"

state of California 
The Resources Agency 

Department of 
Water Resources 



The California 
Water Plan 

Projected Use and 
Available Water 
Supplies to 2010 



UNfVERSlTY OF CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 



AUG 2 7 1984 



Bulletin 160-83 
December 1983 



HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS 

OF 

CALIFORNIA 



N C - NORTH COAST 
S F - SAN FRANCISCO BAY 
C C . CENTRAL COAST 
L A - LOS ANGELES 
S A - SANTA ANA 
SAN OIEGO 
SACRAMENTO 
SAN JOAQUIN 
TULARE LAKE 
NORTH LAHONTAN 
SOUTH LAHONTAN 
COLORADO RIVER 




^■■f 



\ 






i 



DECEMBER 1982 



Department of 
Water Resources 

Bulletin 160-83 



The California 
Water Plan 

Projected Use and 
Available Water 
Supplies to 2010 



December 1983 



Gordon K. Van VIeck 

Secretary for Resources 

The Resources 
Agency 



George Deukmejian 

Governor 

State of 
California 



David N. Kennedy 

Director 

Department of 
Water Resources 



Copies of this bulletin at $5.00 each may be ordered from: 

Stote of Colifornio 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

P.O. Box 388 

Sacramento, CA 95802 

Moke checks payable to: 

Department of Water Resources 

California residents add 6 percent soles tax. 



ON THE COVER: The Colifornio 

Water Plan comprises the use, control, 
protection, conservation, and 
development of California s water 
resources. These scenes represent the 
central aspect of the plan, the transfer 
of surplus water from oreas of origin to 
satisfy the needs of agriculture and 
cities in water-deficient areas. 




FOREWORD 

This is the fourth in the 160 series of bulletins that contribute to the updating 
of the California Water Plan. It presents information on amounts of water 
currently used in the State, projects water uses to 2010, and identifies some of 
the alternative sources of supplies or potential shortages associated with those 
future uses. It is essentially a technical report, representing some four years of 
intensive effort by the Department's land and water use analysts, economists, 
and engineers. 

Since 1974. when the last report in this series was published, urban and 
agricultural uses of water have increased steadily, and increases by both sec- 
tors are seen as continuing to grow over the next 30 years. Water conservation 
and waste water reclamation can and will help to meet future water needs by 
extending the use of presently developed supplies. Efforts to conserve water 
are projected to reduce needs by 1.6 million acre-feet in 2010. Use of reclaimed 
water is also expected to increase. 

Trends indicate that the State's population will be 1 1 million greater in 2010, 
thus increasing total urban net water use by about 37 percent. The projected 
addition of 700,000 acres of irrigated farmland by 2010 is expected to increase 
total agricultural net water use by about 6 percent. Most of the expansion in 
acreage will occur in the Central Valley, where use in the Sacramento Valley 
will grow by 15 percent and in the San Joaquin River basin, by 10 percent. In 
the Tulare Lake basin, where 90 percent of the irrigable land overlying usable 
ground water is already developed, water use is projected to increase by only 
6 percent. 

In all but a few local areas of the State, available water supplies are sufficient 
to meet current water needs at the 1980 level of development. However, delays 
encountered in constructing needed projects could cause widespread difficul- 
ties in the future. A series of drought years could also create difficulty because 
the present margin of safety narrows as water needs increase. Ground water 
overdraft, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, will continue to worsen until 
surplus Sacramento River water can be imported. 

Generally speaking, the projections in the report indicate considerably less 
population growth for California than did the initial report in this series, pub- 
lished in 1966. However, the growth that is taking place and the current projec- 
tions for growth over the next 30 years indicate that further development of 
water facilities will be necessary to meet the State's urban and agricultural 
water needs. Recommended actions for these facilities will be the subject of 
other Department reports. 

David N. Kennedy 

Director 

Department of Water Resources 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
George Deukmejian. Governor 

THE RESOURCES AGENCY 
Gordon K. Van VIeck. Secretary for Resources 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 
David N. Kennedy. Director 

Alex R. Cunningham Howard H. Eastin Robert E. Whiting 

Deputy Director Deputy Director Deputy Director 

Salle S. Jantz 
Assistant Director 

DIVISION OF PLANNING 

Arthur C. Gooch Chief 

James U. McDaniel Chief. Statewide Planning Branch 

This report was prepared by 

Warren J. Cole Chief. Coordinated Statewide Planning 

Ralph G. Allison Senior Engineer. Water Resources 

Donald K. Cole Research Manager II 

Albert J. Dolcini Special Editor and Advisor 

Guy Fairchild * Supervising Engineer. Water Resources 

Travis Latham Research Writer 

Rose M. Nonini Staff Services Manager II 

Glenn B. Sawyer Supervising Land and Water Use Analyst 

With assistance from 

Nadeil A. Chan Steven Kasower Richard Soehren 

Joseph C. Fitz Steven C. Macaulay James Dee Turner 

Adrian H. Griffin Edward A. Pearson Janet Turner 

Maria J. Hambright David E. Pelgen Richard J. Wagner 

Edward F. Huntley Helen J. Peters James M. Wardlow 

Maurice D. Roos 

Editorial ana proaucnon services were provioed by 

Marjorie C. Bergeron Wora Processing Technician 

Earl G. Bingham Research Writer 

Marge Hutchinson „ Associate Governmental Program Analyst 

Paulyne D. Joe Senior Delineator 

David LaBrie Production Coordinator 

Wii =~ '^ McKane Supervisor of Drafting Services 

Lee r!- Management Services Technician 

Li-c5 .<v. Smith Senior Stenographer 

Susan M Tatayon Editorial Aid 

• Decs 5 =80 



District staff who made major contributions 

NORTHERN DISTRICT, RED BLUFF 

Charles Alenskis * Associate Engineer, Water Resources 

Charles L. Ferchaud Associate Land and Water Use Analyst 

Robert L. McGill Senior Land and Water Use Analyst 

Walter L. Qumcy Research Manager II 

CENTRAL DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO 

Gurdev S. Chima Assistant Engineer, Water Resources 

Richard A. Cocke Associate Land and Water Use Analyst 

Sina Darabzand Junior Civil Engineer 

Harold H. Higgins Senior Engineer, Water Resources 

Raymond F. Hoagland Research Manager II (Economic/Resources) 

Yoshio J. Kono Associate Land and Water Use Analyst 

Lyndon R. Pommells Research Analyst II 

George K. Sato Senior Land and Water Use Analyst 

SAN JOAQUIN DISTRICT, FRESNO 

Mark W. Cowin Assistant Engineer, Water Resources 

Terry L. Eriewine Assistant Engineer, Water Resources 

Lloyd Hartwig Associate Engineer, Water Resources 

W. Max Hubbart Associate Engineer, Water Resources 

Norman A. MacGillivray Associate Land and Water Use Analyst 

Stanley E. Sherman Research Manager II 

Frederick E. Stumpf Senior Land and Water Use Analyst 

Iris M. Yamagata Assistant Engineer, Water Resources 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES 

Jay Federman Research Manager II 

David Inouye Associate Land and Water Use Analyst 

Vern Knoop Associate Engineer, Water Resources 

Diane Sanchez Water Resources Engineering Associate 

John Tenero Associate Land and Water Use Analyst 

■ Deceased 



State of California 
Department of Water Resources 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 

ROY E. DODSON, Chairperson. San Diego 
DANIEL M. DOOLEY, Vice Chairperson. Visalia 

Stanley M. Barnes Visalia 

Thomas K. Beard Stockton 

Merrill R. Goodall Claremont 

Martin A. Matich San Bernardino 

Charlene H. Orszag Sherman Oaks 

Alexandra C. Stiliman Areata 

Jack G. Thomson Bakersfield 

Orville L. Abbott 
Executive Officer and Chief Engineer 

Tom Y. Fujimoto 
Assistant Executive Officer 

The California Water Commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Director of Water Resources 
on all California water resources matters. The nine-member citizen commission provides a water resources 
forum for the people of the State, acts as a liaison between the legislative and executive branches of State 
Government, and coordinates Federal, State, and local water resources efforts. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Foreword iii 

Organization, Department of Water Resources iv 

Membership, California Water Commission vi 

Acknowledgments for Photographs xvi 

Metric Conversion Factors 268 

CHAPTER I. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 1 

Outlool< in 1983 2 

In General 2 

On Growth 2 

On Water Uses 2 

On Present Water Supplies 3 

On Future Water Supplies 4 

Organization and Scope of Report 4 

Planning for Water Resources Development (Chapter II) 5 

Water Use and Water Supply in 1980 (Chapter III) 5 

Future Water Use— 1980 to 2010 (Chapter IV) 5 

Projected Use of Water Supplies to 2010 (Chapter V) 6 

Water Management Options (Chapter VI) 6 

CHAPTER II. PLANNING FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 7 

Early Planning and Development 7 

California Water Rights 10 

Development of Ground Water Resources 11 

Major Urban Water Development 13 

Major Agricultural Water Development 14 

The California Water Plan 15 

Update of the California Water Plan 16 

The 1966 Update 16 

The 1970 Update 17 

The 1974 Update 17 

Water Quality Control Planning 21 

Recent Water Supply Developments 21 

The Drought of 1976 and 1977 23 

Effects of the Drought 24 

Lessening of the Drought's Effects 24 

The Drought's Outcome 24 

Need for and Significance of Water Use Projections 25 

CHAPTER III. WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY IN 1980 27 

Agricultural Water Use 27 

Land Use 27 

Derivation of 1980 Acreage 29 

Principal Changes in Irrigated Land and Crop Acreage, 1972-1980 29 

Factors Causing Changes in Irrigated Acreage and Crop Patterns 32 

Irrigation Water Use 34 

Evapotranspiration 34 

Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 34 

Applied Water 35 

Recent Trends in Irrigation Systems 37 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

CHAPTER III (Continued) Page 

Agricultural Water Conservation 38 

Urban Water Use 41 

Population 41 

Migration 41 

Natural Increase 43 

Inter-County Growth Patterns 43 

Urban Per Capita Applied Water 45 

Gross Per Capita Use of Agency-Supplied Water 45 

Gross Per Capita Use of Self-Supplied Water 45 

Factors Responsible for Changes m Per Capita Applied Water 46 

Trends in Gross Per Capita Use 48 

Water Conservation Efforts 50 

Other Water Uses 50 

Energy Production 50 

Power Plant Cooling 50 

Enhanced Oil Recovery 51 

Water Quality Control 51 

Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Offstream Water Uses 54 

Urban Parks and Landscaped Recreation Areas 54 

Other Parks and Recreation Areas 55 

Waterfowl Management Areas 55 

Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, and Hydropower Instream Water Uses 58 

Protection of Instream Water Uses 59 

Hydropower Projects 59 

Net Water Use 60 

Present Sources of Supply 62 

Recent Surface Water Projects 75 

Local Projects 75 

Federal Projects 75 

Ground Water 76 

Present Knowledge of Ground Water Conditions 76 

Dependable Ground Water Supply and Overdraft 76 

Ground Water Levels and Pumping Costs 76 

Conjunctive Use and Ground Water Management 77 

Reclaimed Urban Waste Water 79 

Present Waste Water Reclamation 79 

Limitations and Constraints 80 

Energy Use 81 

Current Costs 81 

Water Prices 81 

Statewide Hydrologic Balance 85 

Statewide Hydrologic Balance Network 87 

Summaries of Hydrologic Study Areas 91 

North Coast Hydrologic Study Area 93 

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area 94 

Central Coast Hydrologic Study Area 98 

Los Angeles Hydrologic Study Area 101 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

CHAPTER III (Continued) Page 

Santa Ana Hydrologic Study Area 105 

San Diego Hydrologic Study Area 109 

Sacramento Hydrologic Study Area Ill 

San Joaquin Hydrologic Study Area 117 

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area 123 

North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 129 

South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 131 

Colorado River Hydrologic Study Area 133 

CHAPTER IV. FUTURE WATER USE— 1980 to 2010 135 

Assumptions of Water Supply Availability and Prices 137 

Key Assumptions 137 

Agricultural Water Use 138 

Studies and Considerations for Projecting Irrigated Crop Acreages 141 

National Inter-Regional Agricultural Projection Model 141 

Factors Affecting Competition from Other Producing Areas of the U.S 141 

Study of the Livestock Industry and Its Need For Feed and Forage 142 

Central Valley Agricultural Model 143 

Other Information and Considerations 143 

Projections of Acreages of Irrigated Crops 144 

Future Changes in Irrigation Efficiency 150 

Agricultural Applied Water and Net Water Use — 1980 and Projected 151 

Urban Water Use 153 

Population Projections 153 

Population Distribution 154 

Per Capita Applied Water Projections 154 

Projection of Trends (Without Conservation) 154 

Results of Per Capita Applied Water Projections (Without Conservation) 156 

Impacts of Expected Water Conservation on Per Capita Applied Water 156 

Reductions in 2010 Per Capita Use Due to Conservation 159 

Urban Applied Water and Net Water Use— 1980 and Projected 160 

Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, and Related Water Management Needs 160 

Future Use of Fishery Resources 162 

Future Use of Wildlife Resources 163 

Future Water-Associated Recreation 164 

Future Offstream Water Use for Fish, Wildlife and Fresh-Water Recreation 164 

Future Protection and Enhancement of Instream Water Uses 165 

Water Use for Energy Production 165 

Water Use for Power Plant Cooling 165 

Enhanced Oil Recovery 167 

Summary of Applied Water and Net Water Use 168 

Impacts of Water Conservation Assumptions 171 

Water Supply Savings from Water Conservation 171 

Energy Savings from Water Conservation in the Central Valley 173 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

CHAPTER V. PROJECTED USE OF WATER SUPPLIES TO 2010 175 

S^r-ace Water Supp.es 177 

State Water Project Supply 177 

SWP Ground Water Storage Program 178 

SWP Brackish Water Reclamation Progrann 179 

Projected Use of SWP Supply 180 

Federal Central Valley Project Supply 180 

Projected Use of CVP Supply 182 

Impact of Delta Outflow Requirements on Operation of SWP and CVP 183 

Other Federal Water Projects 186 

Colorado River Water Allocation to California 186 

Local Water Supply Projects 187 

Ground Water Availability and Use 187 

Ground Water Use 189 

Reclaimed Waste Water 189 

Legal Requirements and Public Acceptance 189 

Role of the Department of Water Resources 189 

Projected Use of Reclaimed Waste Water 190 

Comparison of Water Supply and Projected Use 190 

Effects of 1976-1977 Drought Period on Estimates of Dependable Supply 193 

Dry-Year Realities 194 

Statewide Summary of 1980 and Projected Net Water Use and Water Supplies 195 

Hydrologic Study Area Summaries of Net Water Use and Water Supply 197 

North Coast Hydrologic Study Area 200 

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area 205 

Central Coast Hydrologic Study Area 209 

South Coastal Region (Los Angeles. Santa Ana, and San Diego Hydrologic Study Areas) 217 

Sacramento Hydrologic Study Area 221 

San Joaquin Hydrologic Study Area 226 

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area 231 

North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 236 

South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 240 

Colorado River Hydrologic Study Area 245 

CHAPTER VI. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 247 

CoDst'Bints on Water Management 247 

The Resource Supply Outlook 247 

The Total Surface Water Resource 247 

The Present Water Supply Situation 248 

The Future Water Supply Situation 248 

Basic Water Supply-Net Water Use Assumptions 248 

Demands on the Central Valley 249 

Water Supply Options 250 

Surface Water 250 

North Coast 250 

Sacramento Valley 250 

Delta Transfer Facility 250 

Colorado River 250 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

CHAPTER VI (Continued) Page 

Ground Water 251 

Sacramento Valley 251 

San Joaquin Valley 251 

South Coastal Region 252 

South Bay Area 252 

Conjunctive Use 253 

Water Reclamation 253 

Brackish Agricultural Drainage Water 253 

Desalting (Sea-Water Conversion) 253 

Weather Modification 254 

Vegetation Management 254 

Nonstructural Water Supply Options 254 

Water Transfers 254 

Supply Dependability and Risk 255 

Water Conservation 255 

Project Costs and Financing 257 

Water Project Construction Costs 257 

Interest Rates 257 

Funding and Financing 258 

Water Agency Roles in Water Management 260 

Local Agencies 260 

State Agencies 260 

Federal Agencies 260 



GLOSSARY 261 



Sidebars 

The Sacramento Valley Rice Bonanza 31 

Land Usfe Survey Procedures 32 

Key Water Use Terms 34 

The Alfalfa Story in Northeastern California 35 

Industrial Water Use 47 

Protection of Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary 52 

The Federal Central Valley Project 68 

The California State Water Project 71 

Ground Water Storage Definitions 77 

Pumping Energy Used for California's Water Supplies 83 

Descriptions of Components of the Hydrologic Balance for California 88 

Potential Impacts of Future Water Prices on Irrigated Agriculture 139 

Effects of Alternative Assumptions for Water Supply and Energy Costs 148 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figures 

No. Page 

1 California's Geography — the Key to Understanding the State's Basic 

Water Problems 8 

2 Comparison of California Population Projections, Bulletin 160 Series 18 

3 Comparison of Total Net Water Use Projections, Bulletin 160 Series 19 

4 Comparison of Irrigated Land Projections, Bulletin 160 Series 20 

5 Historical Development of Reservoir Capacity in California 22 

6 Steps in Determining Present Water Use 26 

7 Destination of California Animal and Vegetable Products Exported in 1979 33 

8 Farm Income and Production Expenses in California, 1972-1980 34 

9 Average Unit Evapotranspiration of Applied Water for Alfalfa at Selected Sites .. 36 

10 Annual Population Growth by Components 42 

11 California Population by Components of Growth, 1940-1980 43 

12 Population Growth by County, 1972-1980 44 

13 Percent of Urban Applied Water by Type of Use 45 

14 Gross Daily Per Capita Water Use for Selected Communities 46 

15 Total New Single and Multi-Family Dwelling Units, 1972-1980 48 

16 Historical Gross Per Capita Urban Applied Water for Selected Cities 49 

17 Streamflow Diversion Sites with Agreements for Fish Flow Releases 58 

18 Number of FERC Notices and Water Rights Applications for Hydroelectric 

Projects Since January 1980 59 

19 Derivation of Net Water Use 61 

20 Effect of improved Irrigation Efficiency on Net Water Use 61 

21 Major Storage Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities 64 

22 Major Features of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project 67 

23a CVP Deliveries for the Period, 1951-1980 69 

23b Sources of Repayment of Project Costs to End of Repayment Period (2050) 70 

24a SWP Deliveries for the Period. 1962-1981 73 

24b Sources of Repayment of Project Costs to End of Repayment Period (2035) 73 

25 Basins Subject to Critical Conditions of Overdraft or With Special Problems 78 

26 Existing Intrastate Water Transfers at 1980 Level of Development 86 

27 Hydrologic Balance Network for California— 1980 88 

28 North Coast Hydrologic Study Area 92 

29 San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area 95 

30 Central Coast Hydrologic Study Area 97 

31 Los Angeles Hydrologic Study Area 100 

32 Santa Ana Hydrologic Study Area 104 

33 San Diego Hydrologic Study Area 108 

34 Sacramento Hydrologic Study Area 112 

35 San Joaquin Hydrologic Study Area 116 

36 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area 122 

37 North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 128 

38 South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 130 

39 Colorado River Hydrologic Study Area 132 

40 Studies and Information Used in Projecting Irrigated Crops 140 

41 Change in State Total Irrigated Acreage, by Crops. 1980 to 2010 145 

42 Change in Agricultural Net Water Use, by HSA. 1980 to 2010 152 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

No. Figures (Continued) Page 

43 Projected Population Increase, by Decades, 1980 to 2010 154 

44 Increase in Urban Net Water Use, by HSA, 1980 to 2010 161 

45 Participation-Days in Various Water-Associated Recreation Activities, 1980 and 

2010 165 

46 Change in Total Net Water Use by HSA, 1980 to 2010 171 

47 Remaining Developable Surface Water in California 176 

48 SWP Projected Water Requirements and Water Supply Sources 178 

49 Potential Ground Water Feasibility Study Areas for State Water Project 179 

50 Annual Delta Inflow and Its Uses, 1980 184 

51 Annual Delta Inflow and Its Uses, 2000 184 

52 Monthly Delta Inflow and Its Uses for an Average and a Dry Year 185 

53 Allocation of California's Colorado River Water Supply 188 

54 Water Year Natural Basin Runoff, October 1, 1976-September 30, 1977 192 

55 Cumulative Unimpaired Runoff for Two Year Droughts for Selected Central Val- 

ley Supply Sources 193 

56 Surface Water Projects — North Coast Hydrologic Study Area 198 

57 Water Supply and Use Summary — North Coast Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 199 

58 Surface Water Projects — San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area 202 

59 Water Supply and Use Summary — San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area, 

1980-2010 203 

60 Surface Water Projects— Central Coast Hydrologic Study Area 206 

61 Water Supply and Use Summary — Central Coast Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 207 

62 Surface Water Projects — Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Hydrologic 

Study Areas 212 

63 Water Supply and Use Summary — Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Hy- 

drologic Study Areas, 1980-2010 215 

64 Surface Water Projects — Sacramento Hydrologic Study Area 218 

65 Water Supply and Use Summary — Sacramento Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 219 

66 Surface Water Projects — San Joaquin Hydrologic Study Area 224 

67 Water Supply and Use Summary — San Joaquin Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 225 

68 Surface Water Projects — Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area 228 

69 Water Supply and Use Summary — Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 229 

70 Proposed Valley Dram 233 

71 Surface Water Projects — North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 234 

72 Water Supply and Use Summary — North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 235 

73 Surface Water Projects — South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area 238 

74 Water Supply and Use Summary — South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 

-2010 239 

75 Surface Water Projects — Colorado River Hydrologic Study Area 242 

76 Water Supply and Use Summary — Colorado River Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 243 

77 Central Valley Surface Water Supply 249 

78 Present Use of Dependable Supply 251 

79 Water Supply Capability — State Water Project with 1982 Facilities 256 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figures (Continued) 

No. Page 

80 Historical and Projected Costs of Water Supply Facilities (1980 Dollars) 258 

81 Historical Federal Reclamation and Flood Control Appropriations in California .... 259 

82 Projected Federal Water Project Appropriation Requirements in California 259 

Tables 

1 Comparison of Irrigated Crop Acreage and Land Area by Hydrologic Study 

Area, 1972 and 1980 29 

2 Area Used to Produce California Crops Exported to Foreign Countries, 1974 to 

1980 33 

3 Estimated Crop Acreage Irrigated by Major Types of Irrigation Systems by 

Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 37 

4 California's Population Growth by Hydrologic Study Area, 1972 and 1980 41 

5 Typical Net Delta Outflow Requirements for Various Types of Water Years 54 

6 Recreation of Selected Water Projects with Over 500,000 Visitor-Days Annually .. 56 

7 Participation in Whitewater Boating and Fishing on 

North Coast Wild and Scenic Rivers 57 

8 Recreation on Selected Northern California Streams 57 

9 Statistics for Surface Water Supply Reservoirs Shown on Figure 21 63 

10 Statistics for Aqueducts Shown on Figure 21 66 

11 Ground Water Storage Capacity by Region, 1980 76 

12 Disposition of Treated Urban Waste Water by Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 79 

13 Reported Intentional Use of Reclaimed Water by Hydrologic Study Area, 1979 .... 80 

14 Average Urban and Agricultural Retail Water Prices by County 82 

15 Examples of Pumping Energy Used for Water Supply 83 

16 Total Applied Water and Net Water Use by Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 84 

17 Changes in Net Water Use by Region, 1972 to 1980 84 

18 Dependable Water Supplies. 1980 Level of Development, by Hydrologic Study 

Area 84 

19 Net Water Use and Water Supply Summary, by Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 85 

20 Comparison of Locally Developed and Imported Net Water Supplies, 1980 87 

21 Net Water Use and Water Supply, North Coast Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 93 

22 Net Water Use and Water Supply, San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Study Area, 

1980 96 

23 Net Water Use and Water Supply, Central Coast Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 .... 98 

24 Net Water Use and Water Supply, Los Angeles Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 101 

25 Net Water Use and Water Supply, Santa Ana Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 105 

26 Net Water Use and Water Supply, San Diego Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 109 

27 Net Water Use and Water Supply, Sacramento Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 Ill 

28 Net Water Use and Water Supply, San Joaquin Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 117 

29 Net Water Use and Water Supply, Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 124 

30 Net Water Use and Water Supply, North Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 129 

31 Net Water Use and Water Supply, South Lahontan Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 131 

32 Net Water Use and Water Supply, Colorado River Hydrologic Study Area, 1980.. 133 

33 1975 Water Costs as a Percentage of Total Crop Production Costs for Selected 

Regions 139 

34 Comparison of^lrrigated Crop Acreage and Land Area, by Hydrologic Study 

Area, 1980 and 2010 144 

35 Irrigated Crop Acreage and Land Area, by Hydrologic Study Area, by Decades 

to 2010 147 



CONTENTS (Continued) 

Tables (Continued) 

No. Page 

36 Examples of Weighted Average Irrigation Efficiencies, by Crop, 1980 and 2010 .... 151 

37 Agricultural Applied Water and Net Water Use, by Hydrologic Study Area, by 

Decades to 2010 152 

38 California Population by Hydrologic Study Area, by Decades to 2010 154 

39 Projected Change in Weighted Average Per Capita Applied Water Without 

Conservation, Statewide and by Hydrologic Study Area. 1980 to 2010 156 

40 Effects of Water Conservation on Weighted Average Per Capita Applied Water 

in 2010, Statewide and by Hydrologic Study Area 159 

41 Urban Applied Water and Net Water Use, by Hydrologic Study Area, by 

Decades to 2010 160 

42 Angling License Sales m California, 1950 to 1980 162 

43 Estimated Angler Participation in California by Type of Fishing, 1980 and 1990 .... 162 

44 Hunting License Sales in California, 1950 to 1980 164 

45 Selected Water-Associated Recreation Activities in California, 1980 and 2000 164 

46 Water Use for Wildlife Management Areas by Hydrologic Study Area, by 

Decades to 2010 166 

47 Water Use in Nonurban Public Parks, by Hydrologic Study Area, by Decades to 

2010 166 

48 Water Use for Power Plant Cooling, by Hydrologic Study Area, by Decades to 

2010 167 

49 Water Use for Enhanced Oil Recovery, by Hydrologic Study Area, by Decades 

to 2010 167 

50 Total Applied Water and Net Water Use by Hydrologic Study Area, 1980 169 

51 Total Applied Water and Net Water Use by Hydrologic Study Area, 1990 169 

52 Total Applied Water and Net Water Use by Hydrologic Study Area, 2000 170 

53 Total Applied Water and Net Water Use by Hydrologic Study Area, 2010 170 

54 Annual Applied Water Reduction and Related Water Supply Savings in 2010 Re- 

sulting from Water Conservation, by Hydrologic Study Area 172 

55 Federal Water Supply Projects in California Other Than the Central Valley 

Project 186 

56 Projected Incremental Increase in Use of Reclaimed Waste Water by Major 

Urban Areas, by Decades to 2010 190 

57 Present and Projected Use of Reclaimed Waste Water by Hydrologic Study 

Area, by Decades to 2010 191 

58 Projected Statewide Use of Water Supplies, by Decades to 2010 195 

59 Summary of Present and Projected Net Water Use and Water Supply 

by Hydrologic Study Area, by Decades to 2010 196 

60 Water Supply and Use Summary — Los Angeles Hydrologic Study Area, 1980- 

2010 213 

61 Water Supply and Use Summary— Santa Ana Hydrologic Study Area, 1980-2010 213 

62 Water Supply and Use Summary— San Diego Hydrologic Study Area, 1980-2010 214 

63 Present (1980) and Projected Future Net Water Uses Dependent on Central 

Valley Water Resources 250 

Plates 

1 Surface Water Projects in California f In pocket at inside 

2 Irrigated and Urban Lands | back cover 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR PHOTOGRAPHS 



Page Source 


Pac, 


7 


California State Library 


153 


11 


Department of Water Resources (DWR) 


155 




Negative 4546-17 


158 


12 


DWR 830-25 (left), 1032-69 (right) 


159 


13 


DWR 6139-1 


161 


14 


DWR 3896-26 


163 


15 


DWR 3896-25 


166 


21 


DWR 3385-18 


168 


28 


National Aeronautics and Space Adnninistra- 


177 




tion 


181 


30 


DWR 6112-33 


182 


41 


DWR 6112-39 


183 


50 


DWR 4947-126 


187 


53 


National Aeronautics and Space Administra- 


191 




tion 


194 


55 


DWR 4521-6 


200 


56 


California Department of Fish and Game 


204 


75 


DWR 6139-77 


208 


118 


DWR 6139-76 


216 


125 


DWR 6139-91 


220 


134 


DWR 6139-58 


222 


136 


DWR 6139-92 


226 


141 


U.S. Soil Conservation Service 


230 


142 


DWR 6139-94 (upper). 6139-95 (lower) 


232 


143 


DWR 6139-78 


236 


146 


DWR 6139-96 


240 


147 


DWR 6139-79 


244 


150 


DWR 6139-74 


252 



? Source 
DWR 6139-54 

DWR 6139-12 (left). 4515-6 (right) 
DWR 4947-21 
DWR 6139-23 
DWR 3811-1 
DWR 6139-97 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service 
U.S. Soil Conservation Service 
DWR 4142-3 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
Western Aerial Photos, Redwood City. Calif. 
DWR 5435-26 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
DWR 4497-41 
DWR 5233-28 
DWR 6139-82 
DWR 6112-22 
DWR 6139-81 
Los Angeles Times 
DWR 6112-19 
DWR 6139-73 
DWR 6139-80 
DWR 6139-7 
DWR 6139-98 
DWR 6139-4 
DWR 3645-28 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service 
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California 



CHAPTER I 
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 



Since publishing The California Water Plan (Bulle- 
tin 3) in 1957, the Department of Water Resources 
has issued a series of reports that update certain 
elements of the plan. This report (Bulletin 160-83) is 
the fourth in that series. It describes in detail the 
current water use and supply situation (1980); pre- 
sents an up-to-date appraisal of statewide water uses 
for various beneficial purposes throughout the State 
in 1990, 2000, and 2010; and identifies potential 
sources of water supplies to satisfy those uses. It also 
describes key events and accomplishments in water 
planning and development of the State's water re- 
sources. 

The Bulletin 160 series is designed to present the 
overall outlook for water supply needs throughout 
the State and to assess the availability of water sup- 
plies to satisfy these needs. The series presents basic 
information for those who are interested in water 
matters in California and provides a framework for 
water managers and the Legislature in making water 
management decisions. Rather than serving as a 
blueprint for specific water management actions, 
these reports emphasize the relationship between 
water supplies and expected changes in the agricul- 
tural, urban, instream, and other beneficial uses of 
the resource. 

While the basic scope of these reports has re- 
mained essentially unchanged, each has had some 
distinguishing characteristic reflecting attitudes and 
emphasis at the time of its publication. Bulletin 160-66 
emphasized implementation of the California Water 
Plan. Bulletin 160-70 modified the outlook of earlier 
reports by recognizing a slowdown in the State's 



population growth and reflected this with a state- 
ment that the need for additional water facilities for 
the State Water Project could be delayed beyond the 
date previously projected. Bulletin 160-74 departed 
from the earlier practice of developing a single fore- 
cast of future water use by presenting four different 
scenarios as to future conditions and events that af- 
fect water use. 

This update compares water use and water sup- 
plies and provides additional information on the plan- 
ning process conducted by the Department. As such, 
it is more of a "user's manual" than previous editions 
have been. As part of this process, agricultural mod- 
els were developed and applied for the first time. 
Although much remains to be done to improve the 
models, they were especially helpful in assessing the 
general economic effects of increasing water and 
energy costs. The report quantifies the effect of ur- 
ban and agricultural water conservation measures 
and the potential for water reclamation as a means 
of reducing water needs. Finally, a number of non- 
structural options for making more effective use of 
water supplies, particularly in times of shortage, are 
proposed for further consideration. 

The more important findings, set forth below, sum- 
marize concisely the information of significance for 
which supporting data and other information are pre- 
sented in detail in the ensuing chapters. Most of the 
findings and conclusions presented in this report are 
summarized by Hydrologic Study Area (HSA). The 
12 HSAs, which cover all of California, are shown in 
the map on the inside front cover of this report. 





THE BULLETIN 160 SERIES 




Bulletin 160-66 


Implementation of the California 
Water Plan 


March 1966 


Bulletin 160-70 


Water for California 

The California Water Plan 
Outlook in 1970 


December 1970 


Bulletin 160-74 


The California Water Plan 
Outlook in 1974 


November 1974 



Outlook 
In General — 

• While available water supplies are generally 
sufficient to meet current water needs, they 
include significant ground water overdraft. 
Delays encountered in developing additional 
surface water supplies m a tinnely manner will 
result in future shortages or increased ground 
water overdraft until needed projects can be 
built. 

. Service areas of the State Water Project will 
face increased risk of severe deficiencies in 
drier years until adequate supplemental sup- 
plies are provided. Moreover, without a Delta 
transfer facility, substantial releases from 
storage will be required for protection of the 
Delta and even then will not completely re- 
store the fishery. 

• In the San Joaquin Valley, continued expan- 
sion of irrigated agriculture must rely on in- 
creased use of ground water supplies until 
additional surface water supplies can be im- 
ported. 

• Although water conservation and water rec- 
lamation will help to delay the need for addi- 
tional surface water development in some 
areas, they are by no means sufficient to sat- 
isfy the water needs projected to occur dur- 
ing the next 30 years. 

• Laws, administrative actions, environmental 
concerns, public opinion, cost considera- 
tions, and other developments of the past 
two decades have limited new surface water 
development. As a result, increased attention 
has been given to nonstructural solutions to 
water problems. 

• Population increase and related economic 
growth — factors over which there is probably 
the least influence or control — will have the 
most significant impact on projected in- 
creases in water use. 

• Continued urban and agricultural growth and 
greater attention to instream flows will inten- 
sify the competition for California's water re- 
sources, necessitating even more prudent 
management. 

• While the quality of surface water throughout 
the State is generally satisfactory, contamina- 
tion is threatening ground water in some 
areas and poses health problems. 

• Agricultural problems from insufficient drain- 
age of brackish water in the San Joaquin Val- 
ley will progressively worsen, if no increase m 
remedial actions occurs. 



in 1983 
On Growth — 

• California's population is expected to in- 
crease from 23.8 million in 1980 to 34.4 million 
in 2010. This amounts to an average annual 
increase of 340,000, compared to 380,000 an- 
nually between 1970 and 1980. 

• Projected natural increase in population ac- 
counts for more than half, or 5.8 million per- 
sons, out of the projected growth of 10.6 
million between 1980 and 2010. The total 
growth assumes a birth rate of 2.1 children 
per woman of childbearing age and an aver- 
age annual net in-migration of 150,000. 

• The South Coastal region — comprising the 
Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Hy- 
drologic Study Areas — are projected to ac- 
count for 50 percent of total statewide 
population growth over the next 30 years. 

• Irrigated land acreage is projected to in- 
crease from 9.5 million acres in 1980 to 10.2 
million acres by 2010. This increase, about 
700,000 acres (equal to about 7 percent of the 
1980 level), represents a significant slow- 
down from historical trends, and is, in fact, 
about the same as that which occurred in the 
preceding eight years. Most of the increase 
will occur in the Central Valley, with the Sac- 
ramento HSA increasing the most (15 per- 
cent), followed by the San Joaquin HSA (10 
percent) and the Tulare Lake HSA (6 per- 
cent). 

• Increases in production cost will continue the 
trend toward higher value crops, such as cot- 
ton, truck crops, and grapes, with a decline in 
grain and pasture. It appears that California 
can retain or even improve its competitive 
marketing position for certain crops because 
other competing areas in the United States 
are facing serious water problems. 

• Public participation in fresh-water recreation 
and in fish and wildlife activities is expected 
to intensify because of growth of population 
and greater per capita participation in water- 
related leisure pursuits. 



On Water Uses — 

• Statewide, net water use is projected to in- 
crease from 33.8 million acre-feet in 1980 to 
37.3 million acre-feet by 2010. Of this increase, 
urban use accounts for 1.8 million acre-feet (a 
37-percent increase over 1980). This com- 
pares to an increase of 1.7 million acre-feet (a 
6-percent increase over 1980) for agriculture. 



Total net water use is projected to increase at 
an average annual rate of 120,000 acre-feet 
over the next 30 years (1980-2010). This is 
markedly less than the average annual rate of 
increase of about 550,000 acre-feet for the 
previous 30 years (1950-1980). 

The greatest need for additional water sup- 
plies exists m the San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, 
and South Coastal region HSAs. The latter 
two areas are the principal importers of sup- 
plies from the State Water Project. 

Sixty percent of the increase in net urban wa- 
ter use is expected to occur in the coastal 
metropolitan areas of the San Francisco Bay, 
Central Coast, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and 
San Diego HSAs. About 45 percent or 860,000 
acre-feet of this use will take place in the 
latter three areas, which together make up 
the South Coastal region. 

The Central Valley (the Sacramento, San Joa- 
quin, and Tulare Lake HSAs) will experience 
the major increase in agricultural net water 
use. The San Francisco Bay and South 
Coastal region HSAs are projected to have 
decreases in agricultural net water use. 

• The principal increase in annual net water 
use by 2010 is 700,000 acre-feet in the Tulare 
Lake HSA. This is a 9-percent increase over 
the 1980 level. If the State Water Project is 
unable to meet its contract commitments, 
there will be a shortage of as much as 660,- 
000 acre-feet of dependable surface water 
supply annually, 90 percent of which could 
be offset by additional overdraft. In that 
case, total overdraft may be as much as 2.4 
million acre-feet annually by 2010. 

• The projected increase in annual net water 
use of 480,000 acre-feet by 2010 in the San 
Joaquin HSA (an 8-percent increase) can 
be satisfied by use of available dependable 
surface water supplies of 330,000 acre-feet 
and increased ground water overdraft of 
150,000 acre-feet annually by 2010. 

• The projected increase in annual net water 
use of 460,000 acre-feet in the Sacramento 
HSA (a 7-percent increase) can be satis- 
fied by water supplies available within that 
area. 

in the Colorado River HSA, increased irriga- 
tion efficiency and water conserved by re- 
ducing the amount of water lost as outflow to 
the Salton Sea could allow increased agricul- 
tural production. It may be possible to trans- 
fer the conserved water to the South Coastal 
region. 



• Net water use associated with public wildlife 
management areas, nonurban public parks, 
and energy production is forecast to increase 
annually from 710,000 acre-feet in 1980 to 
900,000 acre-feet in 2010, for a 30-percent or 
190,000-acre-foot increase. Statewide de- 
mand for instream flows was not evaluated 
separately. 

• Overall, higher costs of energy, labor, and 
other production elements are expected to 
increas.e irrigation efficiencies, thereby re- 
ducing applied water in 2010 by about 3.5 mil- 
lion acre-feet, a greater reduction than would 
otherwise have been projected. The corre- 
sponding reduction in the need for additional 
water supplies, however, is only 645,000 acre- 
feet because of reuse of excess applied wa- 
ter. 

• Reduction in additional water supply needs 
due to expected urban water conservation 
measures is projected to amount to 70 per- 
cent of resultant reductions in applied water 
in 2010 (950,000 acre-feet out of 1.4 million 
acre-feet). 

• Increased irrigation efficiency could save 
considerable energy. Annual savings of 400 
million kilowatthours are forecast in the Cen- 
tral Valley for 2010. 

On Present Water Supplies — 

• California's present water needs are being 
met by existing State, federal, and local 
projects, and, in some areas, especially the 
San Joaquin Valley, by overdrafting ground 
water supplies. More water is available from 
the existing projects than is being used now, 
and this reserve could be used to satisfy in- 
creasing needs for a number of years, or al- 
leviate existing overdraft, if ncessary 
conveyance facilities were constructed in a 
timely manner. One such facility is the Mid- 
Valley Canal, which would convey water to 
the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake HSAs. 

• Supplemental water needs currently average 
1 .8 million acre-feet per year. These needs are 
being met primarily through ground water 
overdraft. The major overdrafted areas are 
situated in the San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, and 
Central Coast HSAs. 

• Total overdraft of ground water basins has 
decreased in the past eight years by about 
80,000 acre-feet per year, primarily because of 
new water brought into the western San Joa- 
quin Valley by the State Water Project and 
the San Luis Division of the Central Valley 
Project, thus replacing to some extent previ- 



ous ground water use. Remaining overdrafts 
are not considered permanent sources of wa- 
ter supply. 

• Intentionally reclaimed waste water fur- 
nished about 250,000 acre-feet of usable wa- 
ter supply in 1980, most of which was used for 
irrigation of crops and landscaping. An addi- 
tional 610,000 acre-feet of waste water was 
indirectly reclaimed, returned to the surface 
and ground water supply, and reused. 

• The following major surface water supply 
projects have been built since 1974: 

. Hidden Dam on the Fresno River, Buchanan 
Dam on the Chowchilla River, and New Me- 
lones Dam on the Stanislaus River, construct- 
ed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
integrated into the Central Valley Project. 
Warm Springs Dam on Dry Creek, a tributary 
of the Russian River, scheduled for comple- 
tion by the Corps in 1984, will provide water 
for Sonoma and Marin Counties. 
Indian Valley Dam on the North Fork Cache 
Creek, built by the Yolo County Flood Control 
and Water Conservation District to provide 
water for irrigation in Yolo County. 

• Soulajule Dam, built and operated by the Ma- 
rin Municipal Water district for municipal wa- 
ter supply. 



On Future Water Supplies — 

• Only about 5.5 million acre-feet, out of a total 
remaining undeveloped statewide surface 
water resource of 47.9 million acre-feet, ap- 
pears to be potentially developable, consider- 
ing current uses; wild and scenic river 



designations: and geologic, economic, and 
other constraints. Of this potential source, 4.6 
million acre-feet, or 84 percent, occurs within 
the Sacramento Valley. 

Upstream depletions will reduce the present 
yield of the existing State Water Project 
facilities from 2.3 million acre-feet annually to 
about 1.7 million acre-feet by 2010. These up- 
stream depletions may be offset by savings 
from conservation, water reclamation, addi- 
tional pumping capacity at the Delta, con- 
struction of the Cottonwood Creek Project, 
and greater use of underground storage 
capacity in conjunction with surplus surface 
supplies. The resulting yield is about 1.5 mil- 
lion acre-feet less than projected require- 
ments. Because of voter rejection of 
Proposition 9, certain additions to the State 
Water Project have been eliminated from 
consideration. Several alternatives exist to 
eventually make up this deficit, and planning 
is under way to select the best projects and 
schedules. 

With currently developed supplies, the State 
Water Project can satisfy its service area 
needs m average and wet years during the 
1980s. Beyond that period, the projected de- 
creases m yield, coupled with continued 
growth in requirements, increase the risk of 
more severe and frequent shortages. 

Total ground water in storage in California 
amounts to more than 850 million acre-feet. In 
most areas where shortages in surface sup- 
plies are projected, ground water is available 
within economic pumping lifts and can be 
used as a supplemental supply until surface 
supplies become available. 



Organization and Scope of Report 

Each chapter in this report is intended to consider 
a particular aspect of long-range water planning. 
While future water needs and the availability of wa- 
ter to meet those needs is the central focus of the 
report, these aspects must be viewed in the context 
of legislation and events influencing water manage- 
ment. Consequently, the reader will find background 
information in the first part of the report, including 
those significant events and planning considerations 
that not only influence water management decisions 
but also affect projections of future water needs. The 
report concludes with a general summation of the 
water situation facing California and a recognition of 
some matters that are not fully reflected in this report 
but that are likely to influence water management in 
the future. 



Earlier editions of the Bulletin 160 series were 
based on similar areas, for the most part, but there 
are some significant differences. Specifically, com- 
pared to Bulletin 160-74, the western boundary 
between the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake HSAs has 
been shifted northward somewhat: the Delta-Central 
Sierra HSA has been eliminated and the area split 
between the Sacramento and San Joaquin HSAs: the 
Russian River drainage area has been transferred 
from the San Francisco HSA to the North Coast HSA: 
and the South Coast HSA has been divided into three 
parts, namely, the Los Angeles, Santa Ana. and San 
Diego HSAs. 

This restructuring of areas has come about as a 
result of a cooperative effort by the Department of 
Water Resources, the State Water Resources Con- 
trol Board, and the U. S. Geological Survey to estab- 



lish boundaries each agency could use for data and 
study summaries, thereby providing for more effi- 
cient exchange of information. 

Planning for Water Resources Development 
(Chapter II) 

The publication of the Bulletin 160 series of reports 
has extended over a sufficient number of years to 
permit development of a "track record." Chapter II 
looks at that record. It contains charts showing popu- 
lation, irrigated land, and net water use over several 
decades. Of particular interest is the comparison of 
the 1980 "actuals" with some of the earlier trend line 
projections for that year. On the record, the Depart- 
ment has not consistently erred, overall, on either the 
high or low side. The tendency has been to overesti- 
mate population growth and underestimate agricul- 
tural development. There are, however, exceptions 
to even this generalization. The 1980 census showed 
that California grew more rapidly in the last decade 
than was anticipated during the 1970s. In some areas, 
in fact, the 1980 population proved to be larger than 
that projected for 1990. 

Chapter II also presents a brief history of water 
planning and development in California and de- 
scribes the conditions that have made such work 
necessary, including geographic and climatic fac- 
tors. Not only are the most agriculturally productive 
areas of the State climatically arid or semi-arid, but 
most of the urban growth has occurred outside the 
"water-rich" areas of the State. Consequently, both 
agricultural and urban growth have created enor- 
mous pressure to develop and transport the re- 
source. That pressure, however, is not necessarily 
compatible with other water uses, and therein lies 
the basis for the continuing debate regarding ways to 
best manage water supplies. 

The chapter also includes a description of the se- 
vere drought of 1976 and 1977 and the ways in which 
California coped with its effects. 

Water Use and Water Supply in 1980 
(Chapter III) 

Probably the most complete presentation of the 
Department's involvement in water planning yet ap- 
pearing in the Bulletin 160 series is presented in 
Chapter III, which is an information base for water 
use and water supply in 1980. Both procedural and 
factual, it contains present (1980) data on those fac- 
tors affecting water use projections. Significant in- 
formation is presented which is intended as a 
take-off point for the projections described in Chap- 
ters IV and V. 

Chapter III describes the Department's land use 
surveys and satellite surveillance programs. From 
these programs, the Department can determine how 
much irrigated crop acreage there is by type and 



where it is located. Likewise, on-ground measure- 
ments and surveys provide necessary water use in- 
formation. These data are basic to long-range water 
planning. Chapter III also explains net water use and 
its relationship to applied water, evapotranspiration, 
and the potential for water savings. It also contains 
a brief discussion of irrigation systems and other fac- 
tors affecting water conservation. Rice and alfalfa 
are big water users and, as noted in the report, have 
a story of their own. 

Chapter III includes a discussion of fish and wildlife 
resources in the State, including the effects of water 
development on these resources. A summary of wa- 
ter supplies presented in the last half of the chapter 
identifies the more significant dams (and reservoirs) 
and conveyance facilities within the State. The 
ground water situation is discussed and its manage- 
ment in conjunction with surface water supplies is 
considered. Energy use and water cost data are also 
presented. These latter two considerations have re- 
ceived considerable attention since the oil embargo 
of 1972 and the general increase m the cost of build- 
ing new water facilities. Their inclusion in this report 
reflects the Department's recognition of their in- 
creased importance in assessing water use, and both 
were included as specific variables in the models 
used to assist in the projection of agricultural water 
use presented in Chapter IV. 

An understanding of the State's water problems 
and management options requires a knowledge of 
the hydrologic balance — the relationship between 
water use and water supplies. "The Hydrologic Bal- 
ance Network for California, 1980," Figure 27, depicts 
the statewide water network, tracing the uses of wa- 
ter supplies from their source. From this overview, 
the last portion of the chapter discusses and shows 
in some detail the sources and disbursement of wa- 
ter for each of the Hydrologic Study Areas in Califor- 
nia. 

Future Water Use— 1980 to 2010 (Chapter IV) 

The outlook for future water use in California is 
presented in Chapter IV. When combined with the 
water supply considerations presented in Chapter V, 
it forms the basis for taking specific actions to allevi- 
ate any shortfall between developed supplies and 
future use. Chapter IV also provides a basis for deter- 
mining the effectiveness of any particular measure, 
or combination of measures, to meet water supply 
deficiencies. 

Chapter IV is an extension of the planning consid- 
erations, data sources, and methodologies described 
in Chapter III. All the thought and work associated 
with Chapter IV are designed to produce one key 
finding; total net water use. The thought process and 
considerations which lie behind that finding are pre- 
sented in some detail. The assumptions behind the 



agricultural water use projections, for example, con- 
cern the derivation of irrigated acreage, appropriate 
rates of evapotranspiration of water by each crop 
type, and projections of irrigation efficiency. On the 
urban side, birth rates and net nnigration assunnptions 
are presented as a basis for the population projec- 
tions. Factors affecting per capita water use are pre- 
sented, including water conservation measures. The 
chapter also presents net water uses associated with 
power plant cooling, enhanced oil recovery, recrea- 
tion, and wildlife habitat. 

At least two aspects of the projections appearing 
in this report distinguish it from previous reports in 
the Bulletin 160 series. The first is an explicit attempt 
to account for water savings resulting from conserva- 
tion. The reader will find a fairly complete discussion 
of water conservation measures and actions and 
their impact on the need for water supplies. 

A second aspect includes the use of economic 
models to assist in the projection of agricultural wa- 
ter use. Upon the recommendation of an economic 
advisory group, the Department began work on this 
task in 1979. The principal results of this effort includ- 
ed an analysis of California's feed and forage indus- 
try, using a linear programming model, and a similar 
but larger model for all major crops grown in the 
Central Valley. These models allowed the Depart- 
ment to evaluate directly the impact of water costs 
on agricultural acreage, particularly the often-raised 
issue of agriculture's future in relation to increasing 
water costs. 

In summary. Chapter IV represents the Depart- 
ment's best forecast of future water use levels for the 
State as a whole, as well as by regions within the 
State. The major variables affecting those projec- 
tions are presented. The findings in this chapter, 
combined with the water supply considerations pre- 
sented in Chapter V, establish a basis for assessing 
water management options and their urgency. 

Projected Use of Water Supplies to 2010 
(Chapter V) 

As the title suggests. Chapter V emphasizes water 
supplies. It assesses the ways and means of meeting 
future water needs. Conservation is reflected in the 
estimates of net water use presented in Chapter IV. 
The need for additional water supplies discussed in 
this chapter is measured against the reduced level of 
use created by conservation. 



Chapter V contains two major sections: { 1 ) a gen- 
eral or statewide treatment of water supplies and (2) 
regional discussions that compare supplies with uses 
by decade from 1980 to 2010. In the first section, one 
of the most telling displays shows the remaining 
developable surface water m California, as limited by 
current priorities for use and other constraints. In 
addition, water supplies, as they relate to the State 
Water Project and the Central Valley Project, are 
discussed m some detail. The reader may find the 
comparison of water supplies and requirements on 
the SWP particularly relevant. The SWP is looked to 
as a supply for most of the additional urban water 
requirements. Without additional supplies, the ability 
of the existing facilities to meet contractual commit- 
ments decreases because of growth in both the im- 
port and the upstream areas. The latter, referred to 
as areas of origin, have first call on the resource. 

To round out the statewide discussion of water 
supplies. Chapter V identifies major existing and po- 
tential local projects, waste water reclamation pos- 
sibilities, and ground water availability and use. As 
noted previously, cost considerations have taken on 
added importance, particularly as they relate to 
ground water and the cost of pumping. Agriculture, 
especially, is sensitive to significant increases in the 
cost of obtaining ground water. 

Chapter V concludes with a series of Hydrologic 
Study Area summaries and. in that respect, is an ex- 
tension of the last half of Chapter III. Insights into 
those key conditions affecting water management 
decisions in each area are highlighted, as are the 
issues and management problems expected to exist 
in coming decades. 

Options for the Future (Chapter VI) 

Finally. Chapter VI draws from earlier chapters, 
particularly Chapters IV and V, and discusses some 
of the options available to meet indicated water 
needs over the next 30 years. The chapter presents 
a concise summary of the present water supply situa- 
tion, statewide and by region. This is followed by a 
discussion of potential water supply sources, includ- 
ing surface and ground water, conjunctive use pos- 
sibilities, water reclamation, water transfers, and 
other nonstructural water management options. 
Chapter VI concludes with a discussion of some of 
the factors that will ultim.ately decide which solutions 
receive greatest emphasis and the respective roles of 
agencies responsible for their implementation. 



CHAPTER II 
PLANNING FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 



Water resources planning and development in Cal- 
ifornia has a long and often complex history that 
dates back to the late 18th century. This chapter re- 
views the more notable events that have occurred, 
with emphasis on the California Water Plan and the 
modifications it has undergone. It presents the his- 
torical growth in water storage facilities and com- 
pares the projections of population and water use 
(prepared for planning in anticipation of future wa- 
ter needs) published in the 1966, 1970, and 1974 up- 
dates of the California Water Plan. An understanding 
of California's geography and climate is basic to a 
discussion of water in California. The maps and text 
in Figure 1 review California's geography and climate 
and their profound impact on water problems. 

Early Planning and Development 

The earliest instances of the development of Cali- 
fornia's water resources occurred at the Spanish mis- 
sions in the last three decades of the 18th century. 
Already familiar with the arid conditions in Baja Cali- 
fornia, the Franciscan fathers tended to establish 
their mission settlements in Alta California where wa- 
ter for irrigation was most readily available. Although 



some cultivation by Indians had taken place along 
the Colorado River, the history of irrigated agricul- 
ture in California really began with the mission gar- 
dens and fields fed by streams that were dammed 
and diverted through canals. The missions were 
forced out of operation under Mexican rule in the 
1830s, and many of them eventually fell to rums, but 
their irrigation works set an example for the incom- 
ing American and European settlers who were not 
accustomed to California's long, rainless summers. 

After the mission era ended, little was done to 
develop water until the mid-19th century when Cali- 
fornia erupted with the frenzy of the gold rush. The 
miners that thronged by the tens of thousands over 
the foothills of the Sierra Nevada soon discovered 
that water was the most effective instrument for un- 
locking the riches they sought. They built reservoirs 
and widespread networks of ditches and flumes to 
divert water from streams at higher elevations and 
sluice the gold-bearing deposits. These were Califor- 
nia's first major hydraulic engineering works. By the 
mid-1860s, more than 4,000 miles of mining canals 
and ditches were in operation. 




Flumes built during Cali- 
fornia's gold rush brought 
water to the miners' 
sluice boxes at placer 
mining sites. 



MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION 



E « apo tr antp V • lion 




JfMAMJJ ASONO 

Months 

EL CENTRO 



MEAN ANNUAL UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF 



:«..! 


VAF 


10 


*•' 


% OF 
TOTAL 


■ WC 


2B.6 


■ 35 


300 : 


40.4 


: SF 


1.$ 


Z 


000 


2.3 


cc 


2.5 


3 


100 


3.S 


LA 


0.6 





700 


0,9 


SA 


0.3 





400 


0.4 


■ SO ! 


OJ 





400 


0.4 


; 50 i 


2?.4 


27 


600 : 


31.6 


■ 5j ■ 


1.9 


9 


700 : 


11.2 


T> 


3.3 


4 


100 


4-7 




1.8 


2 


200 


2.5 


bl. 


1.3 


1 


600 


1.8 


' CR ; 


0.2 





200 


OJ 


'ij^l 


TOJB 


i 87 


300 : 


100.0 




MAF • 


Hllllsn ■er*-t««i 




106«.? 


Mini 


an cub 


Ic m*lt«a 




\ 



( 



FIGURE 1— CALIFORNIA'S 
GEOGRAPHY— THE KEY 



California is a land of contrasts. Both the highest and the 
lowest elevations m the contiguous 48 states are situated 
in California's 100 million acres. The climate ranges from 
desert to alpine, with average annual precipitation that 
varies from less than 2 inches to more than 100 inches. 
California's variation in precipitation is shown on the map 
at upper left. 

California has warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. 
Nearly all the rain and snow occurs in the five winter 
months — November through March — with practically 
none during the summer growing season. Fortunately, con- 
siderable precipitation occurs as snow at the higher eleva- 
tions, sustaining the flow of many streams into early 
summer (see bar graph on map at lower left). The fre- 
quency precipitation is highly variable from year to year, 
including dry periods that have persisted from one to sev- 
eral years. A recent reminder of this fact occurred in 1976 
and 1977. the driest two consecutive years ever recorded 
in California. The longest drought since flow measure- 
ments began persisted from 1928 to 1934. However, studies 
of tree rings conducted by the University of Arizona indi- 
cate that California and the western United States have 
experienced even longer and more severe dry periods. 

Those studies also indicate that, in the last 200 years, dry 
periods occurred from 1760 and 1820 and again from about 
1860 to 1880. While tree ring studies provide only a general 
indication of trend, evidence suggests that both of these 
periods had less annual rainfall than fell during the 1928- 
1934 drought upon which California's largest water 
projects are based. Thus, our developed water supplies 
may not be as dependable as presently believed. 

Average yearly statewide precipitation amounts to 193 
million acre-feet. Under natural conditions (that is, exclud- 
ing the effects of human activities), about 65 percent of 
this amount is taken up through evaporation and transpira- 
tion by trees, plants, and other native vegetation. The re- 
mainder, 71 million acre-feet, makes up the long-term 
average annual statewide runoff. Annual runoff has 
ranged, however, from as little as 15 million acre-feet in 
1976-77 to more than 135 million acre-feet in 1982-83. Cali- 
fornia's mean annual unimpaired runoff by region is depict- 
ed on map at lower left. 

The water supply situation is further complicated by the 
uneven pattern of precipitation. About 70 percent of the 
State's total precipitation — both ram and snow — occurs in 
the northern third of the State. However, the use of water 
is just the reverse — more than 80 percent occurs in the 
southern two-thirds of the State. Total streamflow is abun- 
dant, but It IS poorly distributed in place and time to meet 
needs. Most of the population lives near the coast m large 
cities that are remote from adequate natural water sup- 
plies. A large part of the highly productive agricultural de- 
velopments are located in arid and semiarid regions where 



U A M 

Uonth* 
MEAN ANNUAL UNIMPArRED RUNOFF 



TO UNDERSTANDING THE STATE'S 
BASIC WATER PROBLEMS 



the natural water supply is insufficient to meet irrigation 
needs. (See bar graphs on map at upper left, for example.) 
The naturally uneven distribution of water within the State, 
arising from its regional climatic differences, and the unev- 
en distribution of water throughout the year, has required 
extensive engineering works to regulate and convey the 
water to areas where the need has developed. More than 
1,200 reservoirs have been built over the years by private 
effort and public agencies at all levels. Their aim has been 
to regulate wintertime and wet-year runoff and conserve 
the supply for use when the natural streamflow is insuffi- 
cient. While the overall water picture in California is made 
up of many complex and interrelated problems, the redis- 
tribution of water from areas of surplus to areas of defi- 
ciency continues to provide the greatest challenge. 

California also has an abundance of ground water under- 
lying Its alluvial valleys, although in some areas, particularly 
in the southern San Joaquin Valley, the supply is being 
depleted by pumping in excess of natural replenishment. 
Statewide total ground water in storage is about 860 mil- 
lion acre-feet, of which a substantial portion may not be 
readily usable. Average annual natural replenishment is 
about 5.8 million acre-feet. Overall, ground water in Califor- 
nia is being overdrafted at a rate of about 1.8 million acre- 
feet annually. 

The climate of California favors the growth of most food 
and fiber crops, including certain crops not grown com- 
mercially anywhere else in the nation. Because rainfall for 
most of California is generally inadequate during the grow- 
ing season, most crops must be irrigated. Today, 85 per- 
cent — 28 million acre-feet — of the developed water 
supplies is used for irrigation of crops. The amount of irri- 
gated land and major crop types are identified on map at 
upper right. 

Forty percent of the water used for irrigation in the State 
is applied in the Tulare Lake and Colorado River Hydrolog- 
ic Study Areas. With an average yearly rainfall of less than 
10 inches, irrigation water is the lifeblood of farming in 
these areas. 

The Imperial and Coachella Valleys have high-priority 
rights to water from the Colorado River. Irrigation develop- 
ment in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Study Area is sustained 
through an abundant natural and imported water supply 
and by overdrafting of the ground water basins. 

The mild climate of much of Southern California makes 
the area an appealing place to live, although climate is only 
one of many reasons for living there. Over half the State's 
population lives in the south coastal area, as shown on map 
at lower right. Local water supplies are fully developed, 
and about 60 percent of the area's needs must be met by 
importing water. 



IRRIGATED LANDS IN 1980 





(In lo'oo'a) 


,.. 




ACRE* 


M* 


TOTAL 


NC 


316 


1» 


3 


•r 


a« 


7B 


1 


cc 


4S» 


lae 


S 


LA 


1 10 


47 


> 


SA 


i4g 


no 


7 


SO 


SB 


40 


1 


9B 


20TS 


• 3B 


37 


SJ 


;o«i 


634 


93 


Tl 


328? 


133B 


3S 


NL 


13B 


56 


« 


SL 


B3 


33 


' 


cn 


SOO 
0440 


243 

38?0 


too 




\ 






ALFALFA a PASTURE 

FIELD 

OnCHAFlO S VINEVAfiD 

TRUCK 

COTTON 

nicE 



1980 POPULATION 



; r—^ I ^^ *— ' 

\_,^-X K 

V ^«-"V'■J!.V'■~--i 



HSA 


1.000.000 
PEOPLE 


% OF 
TOTAL 




4 


1.9 


4.9 


■"O.S 


1.0 


4,/ 




7,9 


33.3 




3.0 


12.6 




2.0 


a. 6 




1.6 


6.9 




1,0 


4.1 




),? 


6.0 




0.1 


0.3 




0,3 


I.J 


0.3 
23.? 


1,3 
100.0 



\. 



^ 



X 



\. 



\ 



'-V 




Then, as the returns from the gold fields began to 
decline, some of the miners, as well as other new- 
comers to California, turned to farming. Water for 
irrigation took on increasing importance. In the 
northern and central parts of the State, irrigation 
practices were relatively simple. Individual settlers 
often dug ditches to convey water from streams to 
nearby fields. Artesian ground water was also plenti- 
ful in many valley and coastal plains in those years. 
In the southern part of California, however, some- 
what drier conditions prevailed. Early irrigators 
learned to recognize the value of storage reservoirs, 
and several important dams had been completed or 
were under construction by the 1880s. 

Until about 1900, water development m California 
was generally undertaken by individuals and private 
companies. Farmers formed groups to excavate irri- 
gation ditches, and, during the 1870s and 1880s, de- 
velopment companies and cooperatives built 
irrigation works in San Joaquin Valley and Southern 
California. As the State grew and the need for water 
increased, private initiative was later supplemented 
by public endeavor. Community enterprises, irriga- 
tion districts, public utilities, and municipal projects 
of steadily increasing size and complexity arose. The 
Wright Irrigation District Act of 1887 and legislative 
changes to the Act in 1909 and 1911 gave strong 
impetus to the spread of irrigated agriculture. In au- 
thorizing the formation of local public irrigation dis- 
tricts, the original law declared the use of water for 
irrigation of district lands to be a public use and em- 
powered districts to take over private irrigation en- 
terprises and to acquire water. The earliest districts 
date from the 1880s. By 1930 more than 100 irrigation 
districts were in operation in California. 

The cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco were 
early leaders in planning and developing projects to 
import water from other areas of the state. Later, 
regional organizations such as The Metropolitan Wa- 
ter District of Southern California and the East Bay 
Municipal Utility District developed large-scale im- 
port facilities. 

Local plans for the use of water were conceived 
and executed without the benefit of a statewide 
framework to provide guidance and coordination. Al- 
though proposals for large regional water use 
schemes date from an 1874 federal investigation, the 
first statewide plan for development of California's 
water resources was set forth in 1920 by Colonel 
Robert B. Marshall, chief hydrographer for the U.S. 
Geological Survey. Marshall's proposal, which was 
privately published, was based on a comprehensive 
water plan for the entire Central Valley, by then a 
well-established agricultural region. Among other 
things, the Marshall plan called for a storage reser- 
voir on the Sacramento River at the northern end of 
the Sacramento Valley and a pair of aqueducts, one 
to transport the stored water down the eastern side 



of the valley and one down the western side. The 
plan also included provision for conveying water to 
Los Angeles. Marshall's ambitious proposal captured 
much public attention, but its far-reaching concepts 
were viewed with disfavor by some government 
agencies and engineers. 

Despite this, growing interest in the idea of a state- 
wide plan for the orderly management of water, 
along with the interest aroused by the Marshall plan, 
led the Legislature in 1921 to direct the State Engi- 
neer to make a comprehensive statewide investiga- 
tion of California's water resources. The study 
culminated in the publication of the Report to the 
Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan, which out- 
lined a coordinated plan for conserving, developing, 
and using the State's water. This was the first govern- 
mental proposal for transferring surplus water from 
Northern California to the southern part of the Cen- 
tral Valley. The plan was approved and adopted by 
the Legislature and designated as the State Water 
Plan. 

Other reports that followed dealt in more detail 
with plans to develop water in the Sacramento and 
San Joaquin Valleys. Although many years were to 
pass before such broad plans were acted upon, these 
studies would ultimately form the basis for the Cen- 
tral Valley Project, built by the federal government, 
and the State Water Project. 

The State filed water rights applications for poten- 
tial dams and reservoirs in 1927. These reserved fil- 
ings have been maintained m force by legislative 
acts, and supplemental applications have been made 
in subsequent years. 

California Water Rights 

The climate and the historical development of the 
State and its water resources have caused a complex 
body of water rights law to evolve. Competition 
among water users has emphasized the right to se- 
cure and use surface water. California does not now 
administer rights to ground water, except in in- 
stances where judicial decisions have required the 
implementation of intensive management. 

California's surface water rights fall into two major 
categories; riparian and appropriative. Riparian 
rights go only with land adjacent to a watercourse or 
body of water. Holders of riparian rights have the 
right to use the natural flow of a stream, but they 
cannot store water. 

In California most land is not situated adjacent to 
a body of water. The concept of the appropriative 
right was developed to allow for the water needs of 
such lands when other sources were not naturally 
available. An appropriative water right allows water 
users to transport water to any place of use, some- 
times several hundred miles away, and to store water 
on either a short- or long-term basis. 



10 



Riparian rights come under the control of the 
courts only when there is a legal dispute among com- 
peting water users, or when an action has been filed 
against the users on the basis of waste or unreasona- 
ble use. Appropriators, on the other hand, secure a 
specified flow or quantity under their right. Before 
1872, appropriators secured their water rights by 
merely taking and using the water. Between 1872 and 
1914, a permissive procedure was provided that also 
allowed the initiation of a right by posting a notice at 
the point of diversion and filing a copy of the notice 
with the county recorder. These appropriative rights 
are limited both as to amount and season by the 
actual beneficial use of the water, notwithstanding 
the amount and season named in the original notice 
or as initially diverted. 

After 1914, the State assumed administration of 
further appropriations of water and established a 
permit system that is now under the jurisdiction of 
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) . 
Over the years, SWRCB has imposed numerous con- 
ditions in permits, based on public interest and prior 
right considerations. The key to the appropriative 
doctrine is the concept of priority: first in time, first 
in right. Riparian rights have equal priority and ordi- 
narily are senior to all appropriative rights. 

The filings for pre-1914 appropriative rights specify 
a rate or quantity of water, the point of diversion, the 
use to be made of the water, and the place of use. 
Permits for post-1914 appropriative rights specify the 
same four items. Any change in use, place of use, or 
point of diversion must comply with the prohibition 
against injury to other users. SWRCB has jurisdiction 
over all permit holders and must go through an ad- 
ministrative review process before permit conditions 
can be changed. Within these constraints, the user 
can divert the water and put it to any use, as long as 
the use is reasonable and not wasteful. When a per- 
mittee has completed appropriation within the time 
specified by SWRCB, a license is issued confirming 
the right to use the water. 

Development of Ground Water 
Resources 

The existence of ground water beneath much of 
California's land surface gave early-day farmers and 
ranchers the option of settling almost anywhere they 
wished. The widespread availability of enough un- 
derground water lying close to the surface meant 
that a family could supply itself and its livestock sim- 
ply by digging a well or developing a spring. As 
pumping became practicable, it opened the way to 
even more water, ultimately leading to the State's 
flourishing agricultural industry. Ground water devel- 
opment in California has helped establish vigorous 
urban and agricultural economies that have been 
able to meet the costs of developing and importing 
surface water supplies, often from distant regions of 




Water is pumped from the Sacramento River for use on adja- 
cent land, in accordance with water right law. 



11 



the State. Ground water today supplies 39 percent of 
the applied water used in California. 

The water they drew from wells and springs for 
domestic use greatly benefited the health of early 
California settlers. Before the days of water treat- 
ment facilities, polluted surface water was a major 




health problem. Where people took their water from 
streams and used them to carry off most of their 
wastes, the contaminated water transported disease 
organisms to other water users downstream. The use 
of ground water, which is often improved m quality 
by percolation through the soil and the granular 
media of aquifers, minimizes the transfer of water- 
borne diseases. 

As California grew, wells were often the most eco- 
nomical means of obtaining good quality water for 
domestic and municipal uses in communities under- 




Windmills were used widely in the early days, 
pumping ground water principally for domestic and 
livestock needs. 



Few artesian wells exist today in California, but 
they were common in many locations 100 years 
ago. 



12 



lain by ground water basins. Ground water was fre- 
quently used in preference to surface water, even 
when a surface supply was available and could be 
treated and distributed. Ranchiers found it more con- 
venient to water their stock at the site with water 
obtained from springs and windmill-driven pumped 
wells. 

Artesian wells were often used for irrigation in the 
early development of agriculture in California. These 
were an abundant source of water in the Central 
Valley and in many other valleys where underground 
pressure was sufficient to cause ground water to rise 
in wells to the surface and flow freely. Advances in 
well drilling techniques and equipment by the turn of 
the century enabled drillers to reach deep enough to 
penetrate these confined artesian aquifers. 

In the early 1900s. development of the centrifugal 
pump, powered by gasoline engines or electric mo- 
tors, allowed large quantities of water to be drawn 
from wells. Centrifugal pumps operating in pits 20 or 
more feet deep were fairly numerous through the 
early 1950s, and some remain in operation in Califor- 
nia today. 

Development of the deep well turbine pump and 
the wider distribution of electrical power to agricul- 
tural areas in the 1920s led to extensive use of ground 
water for irrigation, even where water had to be 





Today most ground water is extracted by deep well 
turbine pumps from depths of 100 feet or more. 



pumped from depths of several hundred feet. The 
application of ground water enabled farmers to irri- 
gate large areas of land with relatively small capital 
outlay. Deep well turbine pumps also provided de- 
pendable supplies of municipal and industrial water 
for cities having good-sized populations, whose sur- 
face water sources dwindled in summer when 
streamflows declined or disappeared. 

Major Urban Water Development 

The cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles were 
the prime movers in development and transport of 
water from distant sources for the use of urban resi- 
dents. While the efforts of each city to increase its 
supply of water differed greatly in many respects, 
their goals were similar: to serve the future needs of 
the additional population each city expected to ac- 
quire. Both of these metropolitan areas grew rapidly 
throughout the latter half of the 1800s, and municipal 
leaders foresaw the time when the numbers of 
people would outstrip the available water. 

San Francisco studied many possible sources of 
additional water for some 20 years and. by the turn 
of the century, finally settled upon the Tuolumne Riv- 
er, which flowed through the Hetch Hetchy Valley, 
part of Yosemite National Park in the Sierra Nevada. 
Hetch Hetchy was selected because it could store an 
ample supply of high-quality water and because the 
elevation was great enough to provide the drop 
needed to generate electrical power for San Fran- 
cisco. 

In the years preceding authorization of the project. 
the proposal to flood the Hetch Hetchy Valley 
aroused a great deal of controversy. It was vigorously 
opposed by John Muir. founder of the Sierra Club, 
and by many other conservationists. Competing wa- 
ter interests in the San Joaquin Valley also fought the 
city's plans on the grounds that they had prior rights 
to the water of the Tuolumne River. Because Hetch 
Hetchy Valley lay in federal reserved lands, the opin- 
ion of the Secretary of the Interior weighed heavily 
in the situation. For some years, the proposal was 
alternately accepted and rejected by successive Inte- 
rior Secretaries, depending on the political position 
of each. Congressional legislation authorizing the 
Hetch Hetchy project was finally enacted in 1913. 

Construction of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct be- 
gan in 1914. and the first water to the city was deliv- 
ered in 1934. The intervening years were marked by 
continuing disputes with a consortium of private util- 
ity companies over the question of the future sale of 
water and power from the project and by the need 
for repeated infusions of money to keep the work 
going. The Hetch Hetchy project cost S100 million, 
which was $30 million more than the builders original- 
ly calculated, but its benefits over the years have 
been substantial. San Francisco gains revenue from 



13 



the sale of more than half Its water supply to other 
cities in the Bay area and also from the sale of power 
the project generates. 

Faced with the same problem as San Francisco — 
an upswing in population — Los Angeles also under- 
took its first venture in long-distance water develop- 
ment early in this century. The Los Angeles 
Aqueduct, which carries enough water to meet 
about 80 percent of the city's needs, extends about 
340 miles from the Owens Valley in Inyo County 
southward to Los Angeles. The project is also a. pow- 
er-producer, supplying a significant amount of elec- 
tricity for Los Angeles. 

Although not without its problems, construction of 
the Los Angeles project was initially relatively free of 
the kind of controversy that slowed the construction 
of the Hetch Hetchy development. First conceived 
about 1905, the Los Angeles Aqueduct was started in 
1909 and completed four years later when Owens 
Valley water began arriving in Los Angeles. This was 
a situation in which local irrigation water was pur- 
chased (land and associated water rights) and trans- 
ported from the drainage basin for urban use. 

The 1920s were marked by strong local opposition 
to the project. Owens Valley ranchers, angered by 
the acquisition of the valley's land and water and the 
city's action to prevent certain upstream diversions, 
blew up the aqueduct in 1924 and again m 1927, at 
which time Los Angeles sent armed guards to pro- 
tect the project. The valley's violent resistance ended 
shortly afterward, although the controversy has con- 
tinued to the present. In 1940, the system was extend- 
ed farther north to Mono Lake, and, in 1970, a second 
aqueduct from Owens Valley was built along a simi- 
lar route. 

Only a few years after the completion of the first 
Los Angeles Aqueduct, the city was considering 
other means of expanding its sources of water and 
power. In 1920, Los Angeles went on record as favor- 
ing the construction of engineering works (as a fed- 
eral project) to regulate the erratic flows of the 
Colorado River and thus make the river a reliable 
resource for all users. Approval of the federal Boul- 
der Canyon Project Act in 1928 paved the way for 
development of the Colorado River, including con- 
struction by the federal government of Boulder Dam 
(later Hoover Dam), completed in 1936. Regulation 
of the river ensured a dependable supply of water for 
the Los Angeles area. Construction of the Colorado 
River Aqueduct was undertaken by a consortium of 
Southern California communities, joined as The Met- 
ropolitan Water District of Southern California. The 
240-mile-long facility was completed in 1940, and 
deliveries commenced the following year. 



Major Agricultural Water 
Development 

Before World War II, irrigated agriculture in Cali- 
fornia relied largely on development by irrigation dis- 
tricts of local surface water supplies and pumping of 
ground water. The area under irrigation reached 4 
million acres by 1930, concentrated chiefly in the 
Central and Imperial Valleys, and the South Coast 
area. The need for supplemental sources of water to 
halt falling ground water tables in the San Joaquin 
Valley portion of the Central Valley gave impetus to 
a comprehensive program of water importation. 




Water transported by the Los Angeles Aqueduct moves 
through an inverted siphon across Jawbone Canyon, about 
100 miles from the terminus of the system. 



14 



The federal Reclamation Law of 1902 made possi- 
ble the use of federal funds for large-scale, inexpen- 
sive development of irrigation for agriculture m the 
western states. One of the first projects built under 
the 1902 Reclamation Act and the first such built in 
California, was the Orland Pr'oject, located on the 
west side of the Sacramento Valley west of Chico 
and Orland. Construction of the project began in 
1903 and was completed by 1928. The project con- 
sists of East Park and Stony Gorge Dams, several 
smaller diversion dams, and a distribution and drain- 
age system. In 1954 the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 
transferred operation of project facilities to the Or- 
land Unit Water Users Association. 

The Imperial Valley is located in southeastern Cali- 
fornia near the border common to California and Ari- 
zona and the international boundary with Mexico. 
Development of irrigated agriculture was begun by 
the California Development Company, which was 
formed in 1896 to irrigate the valley with water from 
the Colorado River. The company constructed an 
unlined canal from the Colorado River to the Imperial 
Valley. In 1905. the bank of the Colorado River gave 
way and the river flowed into the Salton Sink for 
almost two years, creating the present-day Salton 
Sea. Flood-related costs caused the company to go 
into receivership, and in 1916 its Colorado River wa- 
ter rights were acquired by the newly formed Impe- 
rial Irrigation District. The district initially sold and 
distributed water but later took a more active role in 
water and power development. The Boulder Canyon 
Project Act of 1928. which authorized construction of 
Hoover Dam, also authorized construction of the All- 



American Canal by the federal government, and, 
with the initial delivery of water through the All- 
American Canal in 1940, the Imperial Valley became 
a major agricultural region in California. 

In 1933, California voters approved a $170-million 
bond measure to finance the start of work proposed 
in the 1931 State Water Plan, but the State's plans 
were thwarted when the market for bonds evaporat- 
ed m the nationwide depression in the 1930s. As a 
result, the major work of water development in 
Northern California at that time fell to the federal 
government. The Central Valley Project, constructed 
by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, extends from 
near Mt. Shasta on the north to the southern end of 
the San Joaquin Valley. The multipurpose project's 
numerous dams, reservoirs, and canals, which were 
intended principally to develop water for irrigation, 
also help control floods; generate electric energy: 
improve river navigation; supply domestic and indus- 
trial water: protect water quality, and fish and wildlife 
habitat; and provide settings for recreation. Con- 
struction of the first unit of the CVP began in 1937; 
work on additional units continues today. 

The California Water Plan 

Immediately after World War II, attention at the 
State level turned to updating planning studies done 
in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In 1947, at the direc- 
tion of the State Legislature, the Division of Water 
Resources (predecessor of the Department of Water 
Resources) began the Statewide Water Resources 
Investigation. This investigation consisted of three 
phases: 




After leaving the Colorado River, the All-American Canal 
crosses an expanse of desert to reach the Imperial Valley. 



15 



• Identification of the water resources of California,' 

• Deternnmation of present and potential "ultimate" 
water requirements, and 

• Planning for the orderly development of the State's 
water resources to meet its potential ultimate re- 
quirements. 

The first phase of the investigation was a state- 
wide inventory of sources, quantities, and character- 
istics of water in California. The results were 
presented in 1951 in Water Resources of California, 
Bulletin 1.^ a concise compilation of data on precipi- 
tation, runoff, flood frequencies, and water quality 
throughout the State. 

Estimates of present and ultimate water require- 
ments, published in 1955 in Water Utilization and Re- 
quirements of California, Bulletin 2.' made up the 
second phase of the study. The report presented the 
statewide water use in 1950 for all consumptive pur- 
poses and forecast ultimate water requirements. 

The final phase of the investigation involved a 
statewide plan, published in 1957 in The California 
Water Plan. Bulletin 3.^ This report described a com- 
prehensive master plan to guide and coordinate the 
planning and construction of facilities required to 
control, conserve, protect, and distribute the water 
of California to meet present and future beneficial 
needs throughout the State. 

The plan identified watersheds where current sur- 
plus supplies existed and areas where deficiencies 
were forecast, identified existing and potential water 
problems, and suggested methods for distributing 
the State's water for beneficial use in all areas. Desig- 
nated as the initial unit of the plan was the State 
Water Project (then called the Feather River 
Project), which was recommended for immediate 
construction. The plan also recognized watershed 
management, sea-water conversion, waste water 
reclamation, and weather modification as possible 
means of supplementing California's water supply. 
The plan demonstrated that available water, includ- 
ing rights to Colorado River water, was adequate for 
full development of agricultural and urban areas of 
the State, and that physical accomplishment of these 
objectives was possible within prevailing water man- 
agement policies. The total net water requirement in 
1950 was about 21 million acre-feet and was forecast 
to increase ultimately^ to over 51 million acre-feet. 



' The concept of the California Water Plan as an "ultimate" plan is based 
generally on the developmental capability of the land. As explained in 
Bulletin 3, the concept "pertains to conditions after an unspecified but 
long period of years in the future when land use and water supply 
development are at maximum and essentially stabilized." 

'Bulletins 1 and 2 cited here were published by the (then) State Water 
Resources Board: Bulletin 3 was published by the Department of Water 
Resources. 



The California Water Plan was intended to provide 
a flexible framework into which future specific 
projects could be integrated. It was also understood 
that the plan would be modified and improved as 
more detailed information became available and as 
changes were dictated by shifts m public policy and 
other unforeseeable events. Bulletin 3 concluded the 
Statewide Water Resources Investigation. However, 
intensive studies by the Department of Water Re- 
sources were continued to (1) identify plans and 
programs to meet local and statewide water needs, 
(2) analyze their economic justification and financial 
feasibility, and (3) determine their priority of im- 
plementation. This work continues today. Subse- 
quent periodic updates are discussed later in this 
chapter. 

The projections presented in Bulletin 3 were based 
on California's rapid expansion in population, indus- 
try, and agriculture during and immediately following 
World War II. In 1940. California had a population of 
about 7 million; by 1950 the population was about 10.5 
million, and. by 1955. it had increased to more than 13 
million. This growth, and similar growth in industry 
and agriculture, dramatically increased the need for 
water. 

Update of the California Water Plan 

The 1957 California Water Plan was the first com- 
prehensive master plan for statewide water develop- 
ment. Since 1950, the base year for the study, urban 
and agricultural use has been changing continuously 
as population has grown and agriculture has expand- 
ed. Moreover, public values regarding water have 
changed substantially over recent years, and the plan 
has needed periodic revision to accommodate all 
these changes. 

Statewide planning studies to update the Califor- 
nia Water Plan have continued since 1961. The stud- 
ies have incorporated economic considerations into 
projections of future water needs (as contrasted to 
"ultimate requirements" in Bulletin 2) and have 
analyzed the staging of additional water supply de- 
velopments, together with other water management 
options, to meet the projected water needs. Results 
of the studies have been presented in the Bulletin 160 
series of reports. The present report is the fourth 
major update of the plan. The three previous reports 
and the significance of changes to which they re- 
sponded are discussed in the following sections. 

The 1966 Update 

In 1966, the Department of Water Resources pub- 
lished Implementation of the California Water Plan. 



' Ultimate requirements were based on full development of all land defined 
as irrigable. 16.2 million acres, and an estimated urban acreage of 3.6 
million acres. 



16 



Bulletin 160-66. the first of the 160 series of bulletins. 
That report assessed the changes that had occurred 
in the years since the California Water Plan was first 
published. The base year for the 1966 report was 
1960. 

The State's population had grown from about 10.5 
million in 1950 to about 16 million m 1960, an increase 
of almost 45 percent. California was fast becoming 
the most populous state m the nation. Based on this 
rate ofgrowth. Bulletin 160-66 projected that there 
would be more than 35 million people by 1990, and 54 
million by 2020 (Figure 2) . Total net water use m 1960 
was about 23 million acre-feet. This was projected to 
increase to over 31 million acre-feet in 1990 and about 
38 million acre-feet in 2020 (Figure 3). 

California's growth rate was matched by a stepped 
up pace in water development. In 1960, California 
voters approved financing of the State Water 
Project, a major project identified in the California 
Water Plan as a means of transferring surplus water 
to areas of need. By 1966, California was in the midst 
of an accelerated water development era. Much of 
the State Water Project was under construction, and 
the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the U. S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (USCE), and local agen- 
cies were intensifying their water resource planning 
and construction activities. 

Projections made in Bulletin 160-66 indicated much 
higher population growth than later occurred; 
however, the continued growth in irrigated agricul- 
ture that took place between 1966 and 1982 was not 
anticipated at that time (Figure 4) . Concern was not- 
ed regarding flood control needs, but the report 
recognized that nonstructural approaches, such as 
flood plain management, must occur. Increasing 
growth of power demands and some of its implica- 
tions were discussed. Needs for water-related recre- 
ation, the relationship of fish and wildlife to water 
development, and water quality control were also 
discussed as water management policy concerns. 

The 1970 Update 

The California Water Plan was updated a second 
time with publication in 1970 of Water for California: 
The California Water Plan: Outlook in 1970, Bulletin 
160-70. The base year for that report was 1967. 

By 1967, three million more people were living in 
California than in 1960, bringing the total to 19 million. 
This increase represented an average annual growth 
of about 430,000, a drop from the average annual 
growth of 500,000 from 1950 to 1960. The slowdown 
was caused by reductions in both births and immigra- 
tion. This trend was used to revise population projec- 
tions to 29 million for 1990 and 45 million for 2020, 
with a corresponding reduction in estimated future 
urban water use (Figure 2). Estimates of irrigated 
acreage were also reduced (Figure 4), but, with the 



availability of more accurate information on the con- 
sumptive use of crops and the extent of water reuse, 
estimates showed a likely overall increase in net wa- 
ter use. Net water use was projected to be more than 
34 million acre-feet for 1990 and about 40 million acre- 
feet for 2020 (Figure 3) . With the projects then under 
construction or authorized, the report concluded 
that sufficient water supplies would be available to 
meet most of the 1990 requirements. 

The 1970 report also expressed concern about 
flood control, water-related recreation, and water re- 
quirements for energy production, and, for the first 
time, noted the need for ". . . more attention to the 
emerging environmental problems associated with 
water conservation projects and the evolvement of 
definite public policies on such problems." Specific 
environmental issues identified in the report includ- 
ed the need to classify California's rivers, protect and 
enhance fisheries and wildlife habitat, and maintain 
acceptable water quality. In addition, the relation- 
ship of water and land development was recognized 
in a major section of the report devoted to a discus- 
sion of alternative land use policies and population 
dispersal. The report concluded that, although total 
statewide water demands would be unchanged, new 
population centers would require altered patterns of 
water transportation facilities. 

Probably the most significant conclusion stated in 
Bulletin 160-70 was that the projected slower popula- 
tion growth, together with additional water supplies 
being developed or authorized, would provide a 
breathing spell that would allow more time ". . . to 
consider alternative sources of water supply and de- 
velop policies for the maximum protection of the 
environment." The report specifically recognized the 
need for a comprehensive policy framework that 
would provide a clearer view of water resource de- 
velopment, but concluded that: "Until such policy is 
articulated by the State, the Department must con- 
tinue Its philosophy and policy of ensuring that the 
water needs of the people are satisfied. . . ." The 
trend toward increasing environmental awareness 
was noted for both the national and State levels, in 
addition to legislative action in response to this new 
direction. 

The 1974 Update 

When the third update. The California Water Plan: 
Outlook in 1974, Bulletin 160-74, was published in 
1974, It reported that, by 1972 (the base year for that 
report), the population had reached about 21 million, 
indicating a continuing slowdown in the rate of 
growth. Population projections were again revised 
downward to about 27 million for 1990 and about 37 
million for 2020. While projected urban water use 
was lower than earlier estimates, projected irrigated 
agricultural acreage and water use were greater. The 
net result was that the total projected net water use 



17 



LU 

_J 
Q. 
O 
lU 
O. 

u. 

o 

(0 

z 
o 



Figure 2. COMPARISON OF CALIFORNIA POPULATION PROJECTIONS 

BULLETIN 160 SERIES 

ii 




1940 



1960 



1980 



2000 



2020 



YEARS 



18 



Figure 3. COMPARISON OF TOTAL NET WATER USE PROJECTIONS 

BULLETIN 160 SERIES 



40 



30 



I 
o 

< 



0) 



= 20 



10 





1960 1967 1972 



-W\ost 



reasonablejutu^^. 




_L 



1980 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



YEARS 

19 



Figure 4. 



COMPARISON OF IRRIGATED LAND PROJECTIONS 
BULLETIN 160 SERIES 



CO 

111 
cr 
o 

< 

O 

w 

z 
o 




20 



for 1990 rose to about 37 million acre-feet, and pro- 
jected net use for 2020 rennained about 40 million 
acre-feet, the same amount shown in Bulletin 160-70 
(Figure 3). 

Bulletin 160-74 concluded that the status of avail- 
able supplies, compared to the (then) present use, 
was favorable. This conclusion was based on the 
premise that the Auburn, New Melones, and Warm 
Springs Reservoirs and the Peripheral Canal would 
be operational by 1980. The report was less conclu- 
sive about the extent to which supplies would satisfy 
future water needs, considering the increase in-re- 
quirements for stream water quality and the setting 
aside by the California Legislature of wild and scenic 
rivers, primarily in the North Coast area of California. 
(Both factors are discussed later in this report.) 

The bulletin includes a chapter devoted to a dis- 
cussion of key water policy issues, including cooling 
water for electric energy production, water deficien- 
cies (risk), water exchanges, public interest in agri- 
cultural drainage (San Joaquin Dram), water use 
efficiency (water conservation), economic effi- 
ciency (water transfers), and waste water reclama- 
tion. (Some of the still-relevant issues are considered 
in Chapter VI of this report, Bulletin 160-83.) 

Water Quality Control Planning 

Water quality control is the responsibility of the 
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 
California's Clean Water Bond Act of 1970 provided 
funds to develop a water quality control plan, or Ba- 
sin Plan, for each of the 16 water quality planning 
basins in the State. With the adoption of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 
(Public Law 92-500), each state was also required to 
submit to the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) similar water quality control plans. Basin Plans 
covering all 16 California basins were prepared by 
SWRCB staff, adopted by the various California Re- 
gional Water Quality Control Boards, approved by 
SWRCB in 1975, and approved (some conditionally) 
by EPA soon thereafter. 

From the perspective of impacts to California's 
water supplies, perhaps the most important of the 
basin plans is that for the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta. The 1975 Basin Plan provided for protection of 
the Delta's varied beneficial uses of water through a 
set of water quality objectives, which were similar to 
requirements in Decision 1379 of SWRCB, a decision 
pertaining to water rights for the State Water Project 
and the federal Central Valley Project. 

In August 1978, SWRCB adopted the Water Qual- 
ity Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Del- 
ta and the Suisun Marsh (the Delta Plan) and the 
corresponding water rights Decision 1485, which su- 
perseded Decision 1379. Both documents amend wa- 
ter quality standards related to salinity control and 



protection of fish and wildlife in the San Francisco 
Bay-Delta estuary. Standards are based generally on 
the degree of protection that municipal, industrial, 
agricultural, and fish and wildlife uses would other- 
wise have experienced, had the State Water Project 
(SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) not been 
built. The new standards require that the SWP and 
CVP make operational decisions to maintain Delta 
salinity and to meet Delta fresh-water outflow within 
specified limits. These revised standards are in addi- 
tion to nonsalinity standards in the 1975 Basin Plan, 
which remain in effect. 

Federal law (Public Law 92-500) requires that all 
water quality basin plans receive a triennial review. 
Since 1975, SWRCB and the nine regional water qual- 
ity control boards have made numerous amend- 
ments to the plans as needed. Such periodic 
updating occurs outside the formal triennial review. 

The status of water quality problem areas is dis- 
cussed at length m other publications, especially in 
SWRCB's most recent biennial report, \A/ater Qual- 
ity/Water Rights. W78-80 Report. 

Recent Water Supply Developments 

Although several significant projects were built 
before 1950, most of California's present reservoir 
capacity has been developed since the early 1950s. 
The historical development of reservoir capacity in 
California, by decade, is shown in Figure 5. 




Tulloch Reservoir in Calaveras County, o local facility built in the 1950s. 



21 



Figure 5. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RESERVOIR 
CAPACITY IN CALIFORNIA 
(Reservoirs of more than 75,000 acre-feet) 




/=7 



C 



j- 



I I FEDERAL 
□ STATE 
I I LOCAL 



ZL 




CZ7 



PRE-1940 
Total Capacity 
(Million Ac- Ft.) 



1960-69 
r T.2 



1970-79 
7.0 



Development during the 1950s was a mix of federal 
and local projects, including Donnells, Beardsley. 
and Tulloch Reservoirs on the Stanislaus River; Cher- 
ry Valley Reservoir on Cherry Creek; Lake Piru on 
Piru Creek; and Nacimiento Reservoir on the Naci- 
miento River — all local projects; and Casitas Lake on 
Coyote Creek, Folsom Reservoir on the American 
River, Lake Isabella on the Kern River, and Lake Berry- 
essa on Putah Creek — all federal projects. 

The decade of the 1960s was an era of State Water 
Project development, and Lake Oroville on the 
Feather River was completed by the Department of 
Water Resources m 1968. Other projects completed 
in the 1960s include Camanche Reservoir on the Mo- 
kelumne River, the Upper American River Project, 
New Exchequer Reservoir on the Merced River, and 
San Antonio Reservoir on the San Antonio River — all 
local projects; New Hogan Reservoir on the Cala- 
veras River, Clair Engle Lake (Trinity Dam) and as- 
sociated transport facilities on the Trinity River, and 
Terminus Reservoir on the Kaweah River — all federal 
projects; and the offstream San Luis Reservoir on the 
western side of the San Joaquin Valley near Los 
Banos. a joint State-federal project. About one-third 
of California's current reservoir capacity was added 



during this decade. (A list of major reservoirs ap- 
pears in Chapter III.) 

With the 1970s came a slowdown in development, 
although significant new capacity was added by lo- 
cal public districts and the State and federal govern- 
ments. Major projects completed through 1979 
include New Bullards Bar Reservoir on the Yuba Riv- 
er, the Indian Valley Project on Cache Creek, and 
New Don Pedro Reservoir on the Tuolumne River — 
all local projects; Buchanan Reservoir on the Chow- 
chilla River, Hidden Reservoir on the Fresno River, 
New Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River, and 
Stampede Reservoir on Little Truckee River — all fed- 
eral projects; and four State Water Project terminal 
reservoirs in Southern California; Pyramid, Castaic, 
Silverwood, and Perris. 

Foundation and other preparatory work for con- 
struction of Auburn Dam, a CVP feature authorized 
by Congress in 1965, was halted by the concerns for 
safety raised by the Oroville earthquake of 1975. This 
event led to a major seismic safety study, as a result 
of which the dam's design was changed in 1980 from 
a concrete arch to a concrete gravity structure. Be- 
cause construction cost estimates now exceed the 



22 



original authorization, full reauthorization is neces- 
sary before work on the dam can be resumed. 

Not all the reservoir capacity identified in Figure 5 
translates into water supply yield. Large amounts of 
storage reserved for flood control produce little or no 
yield, and storage projects operated primarily for hy- 
droelectric power generation develop less yield un- 
less downstream re-regulatory storage is available. 
Variations in stream hydrology also affect yield. A 
few major reservoirs were developed for long-term 
carryover storage (water stored for use over several 
dry years), which means that storage capacity is sev- 
eral times the firm annual yield. Examples of such 
facilities are Shasta, Oroville, Berryessa, and New 
Melones. Most of the post-1950 yield is associated 
with new reservoirs. During the 1960s and 1970s, 
some development occurred at those sites that were 
already developed, and several "new" dams were 
built that inundated older reservoirs (for example. 
New Melones, New Bullards Bar, and New Don Pe- 
dro). 

Almost one-third of California's developed surface 
water supplies is associated with the federal Central 
Valley Project and the State Water Project. Both 
projects have spanned decades of development and 
serve water over a wide geographic area. The CVP 
serves primarily agricultural uses in the Central Val- 
ley, while the SWP delivers water to agricultural, mu- 
nicipal, and industrial users in the San Francisco Bay 
area, the Central Valley, and Southern California." 
Construction of the CVP began in the 1930s, and its 
builder, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, continues to 
plan for additional elements of the project. The SWP, 
authorized by the electorate in 1960 and built by the 
Department of Water Resources, has been under 
construction since the early 1960s. The CVP has de-. 
veloped under a program that determines water sup- 
ply needs, constructs facilities, and subsequently 
negotiates water supply contracts. The SWP has 
been developed quite differently. The Department 
contracted for the planned maximum yield of SWP 
facilities before the facilities were constructed. Wa- 
ter service contracts provide for delivering increas- 
ing amounts of water to contractors over time, with 
staged construction of facilities to make additional 
water available on a schedule in accordance with the 
increasing contractual demand. 

Ground water has continued to supply a major por- 
tion of the total water applied. In 1955. ground water 
supplied an estimated 12 million acre-feet of the 28.9 
million acre-feet used. In 1965, ground water was es- 
timated to furnish about 16 million acre-feet of the 
33.6 million acre-feet used. By 1972, this level of use 
had dropped slightly to 15 million acre-feet, and it has 
remained about the same since then. 



When the land overlying a ground water basin is 
fully urbanized or fully devoted to irrigated agricul- 
ture, the water needs of such an area usually exceed 
the amount of water that replenishes the basin. If this 
situation continues for some years, the basin is de- 
scribed as being in a state of overdraft. The water 
table falls, pumping costs increase, wells must be 
deepened, and poor quality water sometimes enters 
the wells. These effects, along with the wish for a 
dependable water supply, often prompt water users 
to seek a supplemental supply. 

Continuing heavy reliance on ground water in Cali- 
fornia has caused severe overdraft to occur in por- 
tions of basins in Southern California, along the 
Central Coast area, and in the San Joaquin Valley. 
Most of the overdraft in Southern California has been 
overcome during the last half-century by importing 
additional water and by adjudicating or by manage- 
ment of the ground water basins by local water agen- 
cies. Imported water supplies have lessened but not 
eliminated ground water overdraft in the San Joa- 
quin Valley. The effect of the imports has been offset 
by the continuing growth of irrigated agriculture. 
Ground water overdraft has continued to increase in 
the Central Coast area. Overdrafts in the coastal por- 
tions of the area have, in some cases, caused sea 
water to intrude into coastal basins. 

The Drought of 1976 and 1977 

Although California has experienced other periods 
in which precipitation was unusually light, the 
drought years, 1976 and 1977. proved to be the driest 
two-year period in the State in 125 years of weather 
record-keeping.^ Considered individually, 1976 was 
the fourth driest water year of record, and 1977 was 
the driest. 

While drought losses for the two years totaled 
more than $2.5 billion, for the most part the State 
came through the period remarkably well, largely be- 
cause of the way in which both individuals and water 
service agencies adjusted to often-difficult condi- 
tions. Once convinced of the seriousness of the situa- 
tion, the public responded whole-heartedly. 
Likewise, water agencies worked together, where 
possible, to pool their supplies. 

For many water agencies, the drought was a valua- 
ble learning experience. For example, after the quan- 
tities of runoff in 1976 were known, some immediate 
questions were raised. How dry is 1977 going to be? 
What about 1978? How much risk should be taken? 
The answers were not readily forthcoming. The art 
and science of long-range weather forecasting were 
not (and are not now) sufficiently developed to be 
relied upon. Many farmers wanted full water deliver- 



' More detailed information on the history and features of the CVP and the 
SWP IS shown in Chapter III. 



'In California, hydrologic data are recorded by 12-month water years that 
begin on October 1. However, for ease of expression, in this report the 
recent drought years are identified as 1976 (for 1975-76) and 1977 (for 
1976-77). 



23 



ies in 1976 and were willing to take the chance that 
1977 rainfall would be nearly normal. For urban water 
purveyors, rationing plans had to be devised and put 
into action. In metered areas, revenues from water 
sales declined, while operating costs remained es- 
sentially the same, creating financial problems for 
water agencies. When water rates were raised, users 
complained about paying more for less water. Over- 
all, however, the public responded very positively to 
requests to conserve water, and. in fact, as the 
drought worsened, even exceeded conservation 
goals in many instances. 

Effects of the Drought 

Probably those hardest hit economically were the 
businesses that depend primarily on precipitation to 
continue operating — ranches and recreation facili- 
ties, particularly ski resorts. Cattle ranchers sold their 
herds sooner than planned or bought expensive feed 
to make up for the lack of grass for grazing. Some ski 
resorts did not reopen in 1977. after a very poor 1976 
snowfall season. Reservoir recreation areas were 
also severely affected, with many facilities made 
unusable by greatly lowered reservoir levels. Recrea- 
tion in the national forests and state parks was cur- 
tailed by water shortages in campgrounds and 
extreme fire hazard conditions. The forests suffered 
heavy indirect losses from increased insect damage 
and disease occasioned by stress from lack of mois- 
ture. 

Many cities and communities had to resort to such 
emergency measures as temporary importation of 
water from other regions of the State, drilling of new 
wells, mandatory conservation, and. in the most 
severely limited areas, rationing to meet basic essen- 
tial water needs. Lowered reservoir levels and re- 
duced streamflows cut greatly into hydroelectric 
energy production. In 1977. statewide hydroelectric 
generation was only 38 percent of normal output. 
The deficit in Northern and Central California was 
made up. at much higher cost, by additional fossil- 
fueled generation and purchases from Southern Cali- 
fornia utilities. 

Lessening of the Drought's Effects 

ivia Or Teoer3i icQiSictiO'"' vVa5 DaSseo iH 19// tnat 
provided funds to assist California's drought victims, 
making loans and grants available to augment, use. 
and conserve water for irrigation; to improve com- 
munity water systems; to purchase and transport wa- 
ter; and to promote water conservation. 

At the end of the second drought year, most sur- 
face reservoirs had fallen to or below normal mini- 
mum operating levels. Fortunately. Lake Mead and 
Lake Powell on the Colorado River were nearly full, 
which permitted The Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California (MWD) to use surplus Colorado 



River flows in place of State Water Project water. 
MWD agreed to reduce its demands on the project 
by up to 400.000 acre-feet, thereby making water 
available to agricultural users in the San Joaquin Val- 
ley and to urban users in the San Francisco Bay area. 
One such specially arranged transfer was designed 
to relieve water-short Marin County, where supply 
additions had been rejected in an attempt to control 
growth. This transfer involved pumping an emer- 
gency supply from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Del- 
ta by way of the facilities of the State Water Project, 
the city of Hayward. the San Francisco Water De- 
partment, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, 
and, finally, through a temporary pipeline laid on the 
deck of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. 



Perhaps the most significant factor in minimizing 
losses during this period was the immense ground 
water reservoir that underlies the Central Valley of 
California. Overall, water users who had access to 
ground water felt the drought's effects the least. Al- 
though some farmland that was customarily irrigated 
had to lie fallow, total reductions of producing acre- 
ages were held to a minimum because this vast un- 
derground resource was available. Some farmers 
were able to shift to crops that use less water and 
practiced less double-cropping than usual. These ac- 
tions saved water, but they also tended to reduce 
farm income. Agricultural production costs in- 
creased because farmers were using ground water in 
place of cheaper but generally unavailable surface 
water. It was costly for them to drill or deepen thou- 
sands of wells and pump water from increasing 
depths. In the two drought years, ground water 
pumping was increased by 3.0 million acre-feet in the 
San Joaquin Valley alone and. in the State as a whole, 
by 4.5 million acre-feet. 



The Drought's Outcome 

In retrospect, the 1976-1977 drought reinforced 
views of certain aspects of water management and 
provided a new perspective on others. Certainly it 
demonstrated the importance of preserving ground 
water as a viable source of water and operating it as 
a long-term supply — to be used but not to be so dep- 
leted that it cannot serve as an economic resource. 
The drought also demonstrated that urban users 
were able to reduce water use more readily and with 
fewer adverse effects than could agricultural users. 
This fact suggests that the present policy of requiring 
agriculture to take the first and largest deficiencies 
should probably be re-evaluated. The drought also 
forced implementation, to some degree, of several 
options that are discussed in Chapter VI of this re- 
port, primarily water transfers and changes in. water 
project operating criteria. 



24 



Further information on the drought and its 
effects are presented in the Department's 
May 1978 report, The 1976-1977 California 
Drought — A Review, and in preceding re- 
ports issued during 1976 and 1977. For im- 
plications of future dry periods or 
droughts, see especially the concluding 
section, "The Lessons Learned," in the 
May 1978 report. 



Need for and Significance of Water 
Use Projections 

The basic purpose of projecting a level of future 
conditions is to facilitate informed decisions about 
that future by those affected by it. The projections in 
this series of reports, like most projections, were, and 
are, not intended to be accurate portrayals of future 
reality nor self-fulfilling prophecies. Rather, they are 
attempts to present the potential future conse- 
quences implied by the choices that Californians 
made or were making at those points in time. They 
also forewarn of the need to make decisions, if 
trends continue, or to modify past decisions, if trends 
change direction. 

Past projections of land and water use, made in the 
Bulletin 160 reports, have demonstrated the effect of 
extrapolating past and current trends into the future. 
They have included population and the factors in- 
fluencing the growth of population and irrigated 
agriculture. The projections have been intended to 
provide reasonable lead time for decisions and ac- 
tions necessary to implement the most effective 
means of satisfying water needs. At the same time, 
they provide a basis to: 

• Evaluate the factors that make up the trends. 

• Determine the long-range effect of current land 
use and water management decisions. 

• Judge whether current water management poli- 
cies will fulfill their purpose. 

• Develop and promulgate new policies and pro- 
grams. 

Trends vary in directions, however, and events that 
cannot be foreseen today subject such projections, 
correspondingly, to increasing change with the pas- 
sage of time. Accordingly, the estimates of the future 
presented in this report represent only the magni- 
tudes or conditions foreseen at the present time. 
Periodic revision in light of additional information 
and experience will continue to be necessary, and 
revisions may be either upward or downward. 



Some perspective may be gained by reviewing 
briefly the Department's experiences in making pro- 
jections in the Bulletin 160 series. For example. Bulle- 
tin 160-66 based population projections on the high 
growth rate experienced during the preceding 20 
years. However, population growth rates declined 
during the late 1960s, which caused the Department 
to adjust its forecasts downward in Bulletin 160-70. A 
further drop in growth during the early 1970s resulted 
in a further flattening of the future trend line in Bulle- 
tin 160-74. The most recent population trends have 
resulted in a future trend line slightly higher than in 
Bulletin 160-74, but lower than that in Bulletin 160-70. 
These projections are shown in Figure 3. 

Historic and projected net water requirements for 
all consumptive purposes shown in Figure 4 reveal 
that the Department's projections have tended to be 
conservative. The relatively large increase from Bul- 
letin 160-66 to Bulletin 160-70 does, however, reflect 
the inclusion of more accurate information on con- 
sumptive water use of crops and the extent of reuse 
that resulted in projecting greater net water use. 

Projections of irrigated land have demonstrated 
similar variability. Figure 5 shows projections of irri- 
gated land for updates of the California Water Plan 
published in 1966, 1970, and 1974. The Department 
has tended to underestimate the rate of such devel- 
opment. Several factors may be responsible for this, 
including a lack of complete understanding (even in 
academic circles) of the full complexity and flexibili- 
ty of the agricultural system in California. Time and 
again, the industry has demonstrated its ability, both 
collectively and on the part of the individual farm 
operator, to react in a positive way to continually 
changing market and economic conditions. This abil- 
ity is probably due in part to the favorable climate 
that gives the farmer a wide choice of crops to raise 
and, at least until recent times, in part to the ready 
availability of relatively low-cost water. 

The comparisons in this section have been pre- 
pared to point up the significance of the differences 
that have occurred between what we thought might 
happen, had trends continued, and what actually did 
happen or what we now think might happen. The 
future which Californians will eventually inhabit will 
be largely, though not completely, a matter of 
choices made in the present. The projections and 
other information on water use presented later in this 
report have been prepared in the hope that they will 
stimulate critical review and discussion by Californi- 
ans of those choices. 



25 



Figure 6. STEPS IN DETERMINING PRESENT WATER USE 



AGRICULTURAL WATER USE OTHER WATER USES 



URBAN WATER USE 



SURVEY IN FIELD OF 

IRRIGATED CROP 

ACREAGES 



ESTIMATE ETAW* AND 
APPLIED WATER FOR FISH, 

WILDLIFE. RECREATION. 
AND ENERGY PRODUCTION 



DETERMINE THE RATE 

OF ETAW^OF EACH 

CROP 



ESTIMATE IRRIGATION 
EFFICIENCIES BASED 
ON PRESENT IRRIGATION 
PRACTICES 



CALCULATE APPLIED 
WATER RATE FOR EACH 
CROP 



I 



CALCULATE AGRICULTURAL 

ETAW*AND APPLIED WATER 

BY STUDY AREA 



1 



ESTIMATE POPULATION 



t 



SURVEY SAMPLE OF 

URBAN WATER DELIVERIES 

BY SERVICE AGENCIES 



SURVEY SAMPLE OFSELF 
PRODUCED INDUSTRIAL 
WATER SUPPLIES 



CALCULATE REPRESEN- 
TATIVE PER CAPITA 
WATER USE FOR EACH 
URBAN AREA 



CALCULATE TOTAL URBAN 

ETAW* AND APPLIED WATER 

BY STUDY AREA 



I 



CALCULATE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE, 

INCLUDING WATER REUSE. TOTAL 

ETAW*. IRRECOVERABLE LOSSES. 

AND OUTFLOW 



I 



NET WATER USE 



* EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WATER (see section 
"Irrigation Water Use Factors," later in this chapter.) 



26 




CHAPTER III 
WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY IN 1980 



This chapter discusses urban, agricultural, and 
other water uses representative of the 1980 level of 
development in California. These uses are related to 
water supplies that could reasonably be expected to 
have been available in 1980 ' under assumed average 
hydrologic conditions. The discussion covers the fol- 
lowing points; 

• Factors that influence water use. 

• Methods of estimating amounts of water use. 

• Changing trends in water use. 

• Identification of present water supplies. 

• Interrelationships among sources of water and 
uses of water. 

• Summaries by Hydrologic Study Areas of (1) 
present applied water, (2) net water use, and (3) 
related water supplies. 

• Changes in water supplies and uses since 1972, the 
base year for the preceding report in this series. 
Bulletin 160-74. 

Steps for estimating how much water is used for 
crop irrigation and urban purposes are identified in 
Figure 6. 

The section, "Statewide Hydrologic Balance," in- 
cludes summary tables that provide information on 
applied water, net water use, water supplies, and a 
balance of net water use and net water supply. 

Agricultural Water Use 

California's irrigated agriculture, with more than 
200 commercial crops in production, continues to 
change — in acreages of the various crops, areas 
where the crops are grown, methods of irrigation, 
and quantities of irrigation water applied. Of these 
various changes, the most difficult to determine is 
total water applied. 

California's vast acreages of irrigated lands, nu- 
merous water supply sources, and intricate farm irri- 
gation and reuse systems make it impractical to 



attempt direct measurement of the amount of water 
used for irrigation, nor are there requirements to re- 
port water use, as in some other states. It is, there- 
fore, necessary to use an indirect procedure for 
calculating this water use. The location and acreage 
of the various crops grown in an area are determined 
by land use surveys. Unit water values (that is, acre- 
feet per acre) are then derived for each crop in the 
study area. These data provide the basis for calculat- 
ing the amount of irrigation water application and 
evapotranspiration of water for each study area and 
the State as a whole. 



Land Use 

The Department has made periodic detailed land 
use surveys to monitor changes in agricultural crops 
and urban development throughout the State over 
the past 30 years. Summary crop acreage informa- 
tion for large areas is generally obtainable from other 
sources, such as the California Crop and Livestock 
Reporting Service and the County Agricultural Com- 
missioner's Annual Crop Reports. However, there is 
no information on the crop locations; this is needed 
to relate calculated water use to available water sup- 
plies. Accordingly, the Department began land use 
surveys m 1948 and has periodically updated and ex- 
panded them since then. 



Accordingly, it is an artificial 1980. It compares calculated (not measured) 
use to water supply, as it would have been if 1980 fiad been an average 
or "normal" water year in all locations in the State. For example, in 
above-normal water years, more water is available, while less water is 
needed. The reverse occurs in drier years 



NOTE; References to Hydrologic Study 
Areas in the tables in this report 
are indicated by the following ab- 
breviations; 

NC— North Coast HSA 
SF — San Francisco Bay HSA 
CC— Central Coast HSA 
LA— Los Angeles HSA 
SA— Santa Ana HSA 
SD— San Diego HSA 
SB — Sacramento HSA 
SJ — San Joaquin HSA 
TL— Tulare Lake HSA 
NL— North Lahontan HSA 
SL— South Lahontan HSA 
CR— Colorado River HSA 



27 




This Landsot satellite scene covers the area from Mt. Shasta on the south (lower left) to southern Oregon on the north. 
Irrigated lands appear as red areas. The circular red shapes at center are fields being irrigated by large center-pivot irri- 
gation systems, which hove become popular in northeastern California. 



28 



To assess statewide water use and needs for the 
Bulletin 160 series of reports, the data acquired by 
land use surveys conducted over a period of years 
are adjusted to reflect statewide conditions for a 
single year — in this case. 1980. Connparisons with the 
1972 level of development show that nnany important 
changes have taken place in both total irrigated acre- 
age and the proportions of individual crops. 

Deriva tion of 1980 A creage. The 1980 irrigated 
crop acreages shown in Table 1 were determined by 
adjusting the Department's land use survey data col- 
lected statewide over the last seven or eight years. 
This adjustment wasbased on the amount of change 
between years of survey and 1980, as indicated in 
reports of the County Agricultural Commissioner and 
the Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Informa- 
tion obtained from the Agricultural Commissioners 
and Farm Advisors was also used in determining the 
number of acres that are double-cropped m each 
county. 

Principal Changes in Irrigated Land and Crop 
Acreage, 1972-1980. As shown m Table 1, irrigated 
land area in California increased from 8.779,000 aces 
in 1972 to 9,490,000 acres in 1980, an increase of 
711,000 acres. Double-cropping increased by 167.000 
acres, providing a total increase of 878,000 acres of 
irrigated crops over the eight-year period. 

One reason for this large growth was the increased 



irrigation of 435,000 acres of gram (oats, barley, 
wheat, and gram-hay). Much of that increase has 
been gained by converting previously dry-farmed 
(nonirrigated) barley land to irrigated wheat, mainly 
in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Hydrologic 
Study Areas (HSAs) where rainfall is sufficient to 
provide acceptable yields of barley but not of wheat. 
By contrast, in these same areas, irrigated wheat will 
normally out-produce irrigated barley. Although 
wheat is a relatively low user of water, the large acre- 
ages involved make this change significant in terms 
of total water use. 

The Sacramento HSA showed the greatest in- 
crease in irrigated area (about 350,000 acres), due 
principally to the increase of 180,000 acres of nee and 
320,000 acres of gram. Next in significance was the 
300,000-acre expansion in irrigated land in the Tulare 
Lake HSA, where a 500,000-acre increase in cotton 
took place, the largest change in specific crop acre- 
age in any HSA. Some of the cotton was planted on 
newly developed land, but most of it was planted to 
replace such crops as alfalfa, corn. milo. and wheat. 

On a statewide basis, one of the most significant 
changes affecting water use was a 250.000-acre re- 
duction in alfalfa and a 300.000-acre reduction in pas- 
ture. These crops are both high water users. The 
effects of these and other changes in water use are 
summarized later in this chapter. 



TABLE 1 

COMPARISON OF IRRIGATED CROP ACREAGE AND LAND AREA 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1972 and 1980 

(In 1,000s of acres) 



Crop 


NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 




9 
(15) 


10 
(24) 


44 
(64) 


66 

(61) 


54 
(64) 


61 
(41) 


286 
(294) 


341 
(318) 


445 
(371) 


- 


2 
(3) 


34 
(34) 


1,362 




(1.279) 


Grapes 


28 
(10) 


27 
(11) 


54 
(20) 


2 


13 
(14) 


3 

(2) 


7 
(4) 


176 
(148) 


363 
(330) 


— 


(1) 


10 
(8) 


683 




(648) 


Vegetables 


18 
(20) 


15 
(16) 


286 
(236) 


51 
(57) 


21 
(28) 


18 
(27) 


140 
(109) 


146 
(209) 


153 
(122) 





2 


119 
(95) 


969 




(919) 


Cotton 


— 


_ 


— 


_ 


— 








197 
(119) 


1.239 
(715) 








109 
(49) 


1,546 




(883) 


Rice 




— 


— 





— 





491 

(313) 


41 

(31) 


13 
(6) 











545 




(349) 


Grain 


80 
(73) 


5 


9 

(4) 


2 

(3) 


26 
(35) 


13 
(7) 


399 
(79) 


276 
(99) 


600 
(605) 


12 
(8) 


7 
(2) 


157 
(135) 


1.485 




(1,050) 


Other fields 


3 
(6) 


4 
(1) 


61 
(65) 


8 
(12) 


15 
(20) 


5 

(3) 


389 
(366) 


484 
(416) 


285 
(380) 


1 


2 
(4) 


61 
(177) 


1.318 




(1,460) 


Alfalfa 


51 
(46) 


1 

(1) 


51 
(38) 


2 
(2) 


11 
(14) 


1 
(4) 


105 
(149) 


181 
(286) 


319 
(423) 


34 
(22) 


45 
(57) 


185 
(192) 


986 




(1.234) 




125 
(102) 


4 
(12) 


26 
(32) 


3 

(4) 


13 
(20) 


4 
(14) 


369 
(436) 


301 
(422) 


67 
(130) 


101 
(106) 


20 
(11) 


18 
(29) 


1.041 




(1.334) 


TOTAL CROP ACflES 


314 
(290) 


66 
(66) 


531 

(449) 


134 
(139) 


163 
(195) 


106 
(98) 


2.176 
(1,749) 


2,142 
(2.048) 


3.384 
(3.081) 


148 
(135) 


78 
(78) 


693 
(719) 


9.924 




(9.046) 


DOUBLE CROP 


— 


2 
(2) 


72 
(40) 


16 

(19) 


6 
(10) 


5 

(10) 


92 

(19) 


80 

(19) 


72 
(65) 








89 
(83) 


434 




(267) 


TOTAL LAND AREA 


314 
(290) 


64 
(63) 


459 
(409) 


118 
(120) 


147 
(185) 


100 
(88) 


2.084 
(1,730) 


2.062 
(2.029) 


3,312 
(3.016) 


148 
(135) 


78 
(78) 


604 
(636) 


9,490 




(8.779) 



Values for 1972 are shown in parentheses. 



29 



.'* ■V«*-X'' - ■ -T< 




Rice fields stretch across the Sacramento Valley. 



30 



THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY RICE BONANZA 



Genetic breakthroughs, improved irrigation and fertiliza- 
tion technology, and development of new and larger markets 
have brought about burgeoning Sacramento Valley rice acre- 
age. As a result of intensive plant breeding, farmers can select 
a rice variety that fits a particular farming operation and still 
meets exacting market demands. Farmers can pick a variety 
of rice with o short or medium groin and a medium or long 
growing season and couple these characteristics with short, 
medium, or toll plant stature. The application of special soil 
amendments, such as zinc, and the use of more than 200 
pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre have propelled valley- 
wide average yields to more than 6,000 pounds per acre, with 
some rice paddies producing more than 10,000 pounds per 
acre under ideal conditions. 

A decade ago, the rice industry was plagued by a large 
annual "carryover"; that is, rice that had to be stored for long 
periods because of slow market demand. Statewide plantings 
were about 300,000 acres. During the 1970s, plantings fluc- 
tuated from year to year, but the overall trend was strongly 
upward, with rice acreages reaching 550,000 acres by 1980. 
This up-trend in numbers of acres was also accompanied by 
on up-trend in yield per acre. 

Seventy-three percent of the California rice produced in 
1980 was exported to other countries. Of the remaining 27 
percent, 10 percent went to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam; 
9 percent went to domestic use; and 8 percent was used for 
seed and other farm uses, carryover storage, and government 
purchases. 

Rice farming today is a science. The application of preci- 
sion land leveling has aided in maintaining desired water 
levels in rice paddies. The use of large quantities of nitrogen, 
along with careful weed and insect control by herbicides and 
Insecticides, has been largely responsible for the phenomenal 
increase in yield. Development of short-stature rice has great- 
ly reduced the amount of straw left in rice fields after harvest- 
ing. A long-standing practice has been to burn the straw to 
control pathogens that over-winter there. Air pollution from 
the burning has long been a problem in parts of the valley. 
Short-stature rice reduces the amount of straw, which, in turn, 
reduces by about 50 percent the particulate matter produced 
by burning it. For more than a decade, the industry has been 
seeking uses for rice straw that would moke its collection 



economically feasible and thereby moke burning unneces- 
sary. Little success has yet been achieved. 

Traditionally, rice farmers have irrigated rice by opening 
the heodgote in early May, allowing the water to flow 
through the rice poddy and spill into drains at the end of the 
field. Applied water of 9 or 10 acre-feet per acre or even 
more were common. Today it has been demonstrated that, 
where soils are sufficiently slow in allowing water to perco- 
late, rice can be grown with 6 acre-feet per acre or less of 
applied water. Atmospheric losses by evaporation and tran- 
spiration are about 3.5 acre-feet per ocre, and the bolance 
(2.5 acre-feet per acre) is divided between deep percolation 
and runoff to surface drains. Nearly all this remainder, of 
course, is recaptured locally later by pumping from the ground 
water or from drains. Because about 85 percent of Califor- 
nia's rice acreage is grown in the Sacramento Valley up- 
stream from the Delta, relatively little water in the system is 
actually wasted because runoff is available for reuse either 
down-slope or downstream and would finally serve the bene- 
ficial use of Delta outflow. 

While irrigation efficiency on a single farm may be only 50 
to 60 percent, overall basin efficiency may approach 80 per- 
cent because of the reuse or recycling of water. 

Even though California must compete with other nations or 
other parts of this country that also grow rice, the ability to 
grow a wide variety of types of rice tailored to fit the de- 
mands of a foreign or domestic market gives California grow- 
ers an advantage. Land suitability and water supply studies 
indicate that the Sacramento Valley could devote more than 
one million acres to the production of rice. 

Rice production is not without Its problems. A source of 
Inexpensive water Is essential. Moreover, rice culture Is ener- 
gy-intensive. Large tractors are required to till the heavy clay 
soil and harvest the crop, sometimes when the land Is wet or 
boggy. Numerous aerial operations are required for planting 
and applying fertilizer and pesticides, and the harvested rice 
must be dried, conveyed, and stared. Other problems are air 
pollution from rice straw burning and public concern over the 
potential contamination of downstream water supplies by 
accidental release of herbicides and Insecticides In drainage 
water. 



31 



Additional discussion of irrigated land and crop 
acreage changes is presented m the section, "Sum- 
maries of Hydrologic Study Areas," m this chapter. 

Factors Causing Changes in Irrigated Acre- 
age and Crop Patterns. Agriculture m California, 
as well as m the rest of the nation, is influenced by 
certain basic forces, as shown below. 



Foreign trade 



Government Policy 




Crop supports-marketing 
orders 

Tax laws 

Water pricing 



Market Forces 




Form Income 



Prices received production 
costs 

Management and tech- 
nological change 




Resource Availability 
and Costs 



Some of these factors influence long-term produc- 
tion trends, while others influence year-to-year deci- 
sions. Taken as a group, their overall effect during 
the past decade has been expansionary, as reflected 
in the previously mentioned increase of 71 1.000 acres 
of irrigated land in California between 1972 and 1980. 

Probably the most significant factors have been 
foreign trade, coupled with large amounts of readily 
available and affordable ground water supplies. In 
general, trade agreements with European Common 
Market countries have had a positive influence. In 
addition, population growth and increasing real in- 
comes have spurred market development in the Pa- 
cific Basin, including the People's Republic of China, 
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The 
significance of this region may be seen in Figure 7, 
which shows that 70 percent of animal and vegetable 
products exported to other countries from California 
in 1979 were shipped to Asian nations. 

In 1980, about 30 percent of California's total irri- 
gated area was planted to crops that were subse- 
quently exported. This is shown in Table 2, which 
shows irrigated acreage required to produce the 
crops exported. In 1974, exports amounted to 20 per- 



cent of total irrigated area. The increase in export 
production totaled over a million acres, demonstrat- 
ing a major shift in the relative importance of foreign 
markets. 

The top five agricultural exports from California in 
1980 were, in descending order of value, cotton, al- 
monds, rice, wheat, and grapes. The increase in cot- 
ton acreage was brought about by worldwide 
demand and by the rise in the price of synthetic fi- 
bers that increased oil prices caused. The opening of 
trade with China also provided a new market for 
California cotton. Lint cotton led the exports of Cali- 
fornia farm products at $1.1 billion in 1980 and repre- 
sented 28 percent of the total value of all California 
farm products exported. The major countries import- 
ing U.S. cotton were China. Japan. South Korea, Tai- 
wan, and Hong Kong. Almonds, the second leading 
crop exported from California, represented $430 mil- 
lion, followed by nee at $318 million, wheat at $283 
million, and grapes (fresh, raisin, and crushed/wine) 
at $230 million. 



LAND USE SURVEY PROCEDURES 

Land use surveys begin with taking vertical aerial photo- 
graphs. The 35-millimetre transparencies show about one 
square mile of land at a scale of approximately 1:62,500. 
They are projected onto o screen, boundaries of fields are 
interpreted, and, to the extent possible, crops are identified. 
This information is delineated on U.S. Geological Survey 
1:24,000 scale 7/2 minute quadrangle maps, which are then 
taken into the field for positive crop identification for each 
parcel and the acreage of each crop type by counties, hy- 
drologic areas, irrigation districts, and other areas is then 
determined. At present, the areas of significant water use ore 
resurveyed, on the overage, about once every seven years; 
that is, each year, each of the Department of Water Re- 
sources' four District Offices surveys about one-seventh of its 
area of significant water use. Other areas in which urban or 
ogricultural water use is low are surveyed only once every 15 
years or so. 

The Department has been working for more than five years 
with the Notional Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) , the Space Sciences Laboratory of the University of 
California (UC) at Berkeley, and the Geography Department 
at UC Santo Barbara in developing technologies to use Land- 
sot satellite imagery to assist these surveys. In 1979, some of 
these techniques were tested in a statewide survey of irrigat- 
ed acreage. The exercise demonstrated the technique to be 
a cost-effective and valuable tool for deriving interim esti- 
mates of irrigated acreage between regularly scheduled, 
more detailed surveys. Identification of specific crops from 
satellite imagery is much more complex than simply determin- 
ing total irrigated acreage because California produces some 
200 commercially grown crops. The Statistical Reporting 
Services of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (Washington, 
D.C. office), the California Crop and Livestock Reporting 
Service, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 
NASA, UC Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory, and the 
Department of Water Resources have agreed to cooperate in 
further research and development of satellite imagery-related 
techniques for crop acreage determination. 



32 



Figure 7. DESTINATION OF CALIFORNIA 

ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS 

EXPORTED IN 1979 

(In percent of dollar value) 



At present, the cost of borrowing money is a princi- 
pal concern for farmers. However, such was not the 
case during most of the period since 1972. Farmers 
were assisted by low-interest loans from the federal 
government and tax shelters for significant portions 
of farm income. 

The foregoing factors, combined with the effect of 
changes in prices received and production costs, are 
probably best reflected by net farm income. Since 
1972, the increase in farm production costs exceeded 
the increase in receipts in three of the intervening 
years. However, the overall trend has been increased 
receipts over costs. The most severe drop occurred 
during the 1976-1977 drought, but this was followed 
by a quick recovery in 1978. In 1979, net farm income 
exceeded three billion dollars for the first time. 
Recent trends in gross farm income, production 
expenses, and net farm income are depicted in 
Figure 8. 




TABLE 2 
AREA USED TO PRODUCE CALIFORNIA CROPS EXPORTED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES ' 

1974 to 1980 
(In 1,000s of acres) 



Crop 



19/4 



1975 



1976 



1978 



1979 



1980 



Cotton Lint 

Wheat 

Rice 

Almonds 

Oranges 

Dry Beans 

Alfalfa Hay 

Grapes 

Walnuts 

Lemons 

Prunes 

Lettuce 

Peacties 

Tomatoes 

TOTALS FOR; 
Above Crops . 
All Crops 



693 

570 

252 

113 

43 

16 

46 

59 

36 

16 

22 

11 

5 

8 



620 

801 

168 

156 

45 

11 

22 

91 

42 

10 

36 

11 

6 

10 



840 

611 

163 

144 

55 

25 

44 

75 

48 

20 

25 

11 

7 

11 



1,890 
2,000 



2.029 
2,100 



2,079 
2.200 



1,178 

465 

255 

170 

45 

80 

44 

99 

47 

16 

31 

11 

7 



2,456 
2,600 



1,373 

668 

235 

264 

34 

68 

42 

86 

36 

17 

24 

9 

9 

14 



2.879 
3.000 



1,433 

784 

314 

192 

95 

85 

63 

58 

56 

16 

23 

8 

7 

10 



3.144 
3.200 



' Estimated from statewide average yields. Data for 1974-1976 on fiscal year basis No 

data available for 1977 
Sources: Annual reports of California Department of Food and Agriculture. California 
Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Exports of Agricultural Commodities 
Produced in California, Sacramento. 



33 



Figure 8. FARM INCOME AND 
PRODUCTION EXPENSES IN CALIFORNIA 

1972-1980 




1972 



1980 



y Includes cash receipts, government payments, 
value of home consumption, gross rental value 
of farm dwellings, and income from recreation, 
machine hire, and custom work. 

2/ Preliminary 

Source: "California Outlook: Agriculture 1981" 
Bank of America, May 29, 198 1 



KEY WATER USE TERMS 

APPLIED WATER for urban, agricultural, recreotion- 
al, wildlife, and other uses is defined as the quantity of woter 
delivered to the intake to a city's water system and the farm 
headgate, the omount of water diverted from a streom or 
pumped, in the case of self-developed supplies, and, for 
wildlife, the amount of water supplied to a marsh or other 
wetland, either directly or by incidentol drainage flows. Be- 
cause of the large amount of reuse that occurs, the term falls 
short in describing the amount of water supply needed for 
water-related purposes over a wide areo. For this, the follow- 
ing expression is employed. 

NET WATER USE is a term devised to represent the 
relationship between applied water and the water supply 
needed for a specific area. It is the measure of the quantity 
of water that must be developed in or delivered to a service 
area. The Department of Water Resources defines net water 
use OS the sum of the evapotranspiration of applied water 
required in on areo, the irrecoverable losses from the water 
distribution system, and the outflow leaving the area. (For a 
full discussion of the term, see the section, "Net Water Use," 
later in this chapter.) 

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WA- 
TER (ETAW) is the portion of the evapotranspiration of 
a specific crop or landscape vegetation supplied by irrigation 
water. It is computed by subtracting from total evapotranspi- 
ration the water supplied to the crop or vegetation by precipi- 
tation, including that amount stored in the soil. 

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) is the water taken 
into the plant, transpired by the foliage, and evaporated from 
the surrounding soil. 



irrigation Water Use 

Ti^'ee kev terms, evapotranspiration. evapotran- 
spiration of applied water, and applied water, are 
used in describing irrigation water use. A fourth inn- 
portant ternn, net water use, is used to relate irriga- 
tion water use to water supply. 

Evapotranspiration. Values for crop evapotran- 
spiration (ET) were developed by the Department of 
Water Resources and other agencies through ap- 
plied research conducted at many sites throughout 
the State.^ The results of this woric reflect the varia- 
tions in climate and growing conditions prevailing 
from region to region within California. These differ- 
ences have great significance in evaluating water use 
by agriculture. Crop evapotranspiration is a function 
of time and length of growing season, temperature, 
humidity, wind, and other factors. 

Evapotranspiration of Applied Water. The 

portion of :ota. ET tnat is suophed by irrigation is 
called evapotranspiration of applied water (ETAW). 
The part of the total precipitation used by a crop 



' Crop evapotranspiration data gathered in cooperation with other agencies 
are summarized in Vegetative Water Use in California. 1974. Bulletin 
113-3. Department of Water Resources. April 1975. 



\ 34 



(through evapotranspiration) is called effective 
precipitation. It includes the portion of precipitation 
that falls during the nongrowing (winter) season and 
IS stored in the soil within the plant root zone and is 
thus available to the crop during the following grow- 
ing season, thereby reducing irrigation needs. 

With wide differences in ET and effective precipi- 
tation that occur throughout California, ETAW for 
any one crop varies greatly. As Figure 9 illustrates, for 
alfalfa, ETAW varies from 1.0 acre-foot per acre at 
Eureka to 6.6 acre-feet per acre in Coachella Valley 
in Riverside County. ETAW is affected considerably 
by annual variations in precipitation, and deficiencies 
in stored soil moisture must be supplemented by in- 
creased irrigation. 

The effectiveness of precipitation depends on two 
factors: the specific time the rain occurs and the 
quantity needed to replenish soil moisture losses. 
Severe problems arose in 1976 and 1977 because rain- 
fall failed to fully make up for soil moisture lost during 
the previous years and because of the lack of late 
precipitation to satisfy spring season growing needs 
of such shallow-rooted crops as wheat and barley. 
Where possible, these deficiencies were met with 
supplementary irrigation to complete the crop grow- 
ing cycle. 

Days of strong, dry winds greatly increase the rate 
of evapotranspiration and are another factor affect- 



ing ETAW. Such winds blew in the Sacramento Val- 
ley during the spring of 1976, compounding the 
effects of inadequate rainfall. To compensate, sig- 
nificantly more irrigation was necessary than would 
have been needed in a more normal springtime. 

Applied Water. Although the ET rate for each 
crop IS relatively constant within a region, irrigation 
efficiencies range considerably; therefore, the 
amount of water applied varies considerably. (Irriga- 
tion efficiency is computed by dividing ETAW by 
AW.) Applied water data are assembled by making 
on-site measurements and acquiring data from other 
agencies and individuals who also measure water 
applications. In many cases, however, no measured 
data are available; therefore, estimates are obtained 
from knowledgeable individuals. The amount of wa- 
ter applied varies, depending upon such factors as 
crop ETAW, climate, soil texture and depth, land 
slope, cost of water, cost of labor, water table 
depths, leaching requirements, type of irrigation sys- 
tem, and method of operating the irrigation system. 
Usually some water is applied in excess of ET and 
leaching requirements (water needed to flush harm- 
ful quantities of salt from the surface and the root 
zone), even in the most carefully managed irrigation 
system. This is because of: 

• The relatively high cost of making precise applica- 
tions compared to the benefits (which are related 
to water price). 



THE ALFALFA STORY IN NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 



Substantial increases in alfalfa acreage have been record- 
ed in northeastern California over the past ten years. For the 
most part, these increases have occurred because plantings 
in the Central Valley have declined. Cotton in the San Joa- 
quin Valley is the key to the situation. The demand for cotton 
has been so great that much of the good-quality row crop 
land in the San Joaquin Valley has been planted to high- 
income-producing cotton. Total acreage of lower-income-pro- 
ducing alfalfa, which also competes for the higher quality 
land, has diminished markedly. This has caused a shift in 
acreage within California and increased the demand for alfal- 
fa from neighboring Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona. 

Consequently, areas such as Surprise Valley, Butte Valley, 
and the upper Pit River basin in Northern California are 
currently in the midst of an alfalfa boom. These mountainous 
areas have always been noted for their premium quality hay 
(high in total digestible nutrients), but they have had to 
compete directly with the lower quality, but higher yield, 
harvests in Central Valley areas. Higher-yielding alfalfa varie- 
ties and better irrigation techniques have combined to meet 
increased market demands. New center-pivot and wheel-line 
sprinkler systems have proliferated, many of these delivering 
new water supplies from ground water. 

Land use surveys during the summers of 1979 and 1980 
indicate that more than 80 large center-pivot sprinkler sys- 
tems — most covering 160 acres, with some to 640 acres — are 
now operating in the northeastern area. More are planned in 



the immediate future, particularly around Goose Lake in the 
North Fork Pit River area. For more popular, however, are the 
standard wheel-mounted sprinkler systems that are estimated 
conservatively to outnumber center pivots twentyfold. Some 
of the advantages of sprinkler systems, particularly those 
designed for low pressure (around 20 pounds per square 
inch), are relatively low costs of maintenance, labor and 
energy; capability of applying water evenly; and elimination 
of land leveling, a particularly important factor on shallow 
soils. Sprinkler systems can also be used to irrigate undulating 
or steep land parcels. 

Since nearly all the existing surface water in these moun- 
tain valleys is already in use, farmers have turned to drilling 
wells or converting meadow pasture served from ditch sys- 
tems to higher-return alfalfa hay. The following tabulation 
gives some insight into the direction alfalfa plantings have 
taken in northeastern California. 



In 1,000s of acres 



Area 1970 

Surprise Valley 11.9 

Upper Pit River 13.4 

Butte Valley 9.4 

Total 34.7 



1980 Chartge 



+ 4.4 

-1-16.0 

-h8.3 

+ 28.7 



35 



Figure 9. AVERAGE UNIT EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WATER 
FOR ALFALFA AT SELECTED SITES (Feet) 



NC - 


NORTH COAST 


SF - 


SAN FRANCISCO 


CC - 


CENTRAL COAST 


LA - 


LOS ANGELES 


SA - 


SANTA ANA 


SD - 


SAN DIEGO 


SB - 


SACRAMENTO 


SJ - 


SAN JOAQUIN 


TL - 


TULARE LAKE 


NL - 


NORTH LAHONTAN 


SL - 


SOUTH LAHONTAN 


CR - 


COLORADO RIVER 


%A-^ 


Hydrologic Study 




Area Boundary 




36 



• The risk of miscalculation when trying to provide 
only enough for ETAW (which could cause under- 
irrigation and reduce crop production in the event 
of unexpected high winds or temperature). 

• Factors inherent in the design and performance of 
the various irrigation systems, including the inabili- 
ty to account for all variations in soil characteris- 
tics throughout a field. 

Water applied in amounts that exceed the rate of 
ET IS not necessarily lost, however, but may be avail- 
able for reuse later through percolation to usable 
ground water or by return flow, which may provide 
a water supply to down-slope users. This is discussed 
in more detail in the section, "Net Water Use," later 
in this chapter. 

Recent Trends in Irrigation Systems. Almost 
80 percent of California's cropland is irrigated by sur- 
face (flood) irrigation systems, such as border, basin, 
or furrow systems (Table 3). Sprinklers and drip sys- 
tems have been increasing in popularity, however, 
because they have characteristics not found in sur- 
face methods. This does not mean that surface irriga- 
tion is necessarily inefficient by comparison; rather, 
sprinkler and drip systems usually require less labor 
and attention to operate at a high level of efficiency. 
The problem of paying for converting existing sys- 
tems to newer, more efficient systems has been a 
deterrent. Improvements in surface irrigation meth- 
ods have created a potential for increasing water use 
efficiency, while retaining the advantage of relatively 
lower installation cost and energy requirements. 
These improvements include precision land leveling 



with laser-controlled equipment and systems for 
recovering and recycling irrigation water after it has 
been used (pump-back systems). 

Highlights of some of the surface, sprinkler, drip, 
and subsurface systems and their uses are given be- 
low. The acreages irrigated by each type of system 
are given in Table 3. 

• Surface Systems 

Surface irrigation is used on the major portion of 
irrigated land — 7,800,000 acres — and involves two 
general types of operation: complete flooding 
(wild flood, border, and basin) and partial flooding 
(furrow) of the soil surface. The border strip sys- 
tem, the principal complete flooding method, con- 
sists of wide, bordered channels in which the 
water flows across the field from the water supply 
ditch to the end of the field in a relatively thin 
sheet. 

For the level basin system, an area is completely 
surrounded by a dike and the entire amount of 
water is applied quickly to the area and slowly 
absorbed by the soil. Very high irrigation efficien- 
cies with relatively uniform applications can be 
achieved by this method. Laser-controlled land lev- 
eling, which smoothes the ground surface with a 
precision of less than a one-inch variation in 40 
acres, can reduce the quantity of water that must 
be applied. 

With furrow irrigation, small channels convey the 
water over the soil surface in narrow, parallel 
streams. After it has infiltrated the soil, the water 



TABLE 3 
ESTIMATED CROP ACREAGE IRRIGATED BY MAJOR TYPES OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 

(In 1,000s of acres) 





1980 
Irngated 

Crop 
Acreage 


Surface Systems 


Sut>- 
surface 
System 


Sprinkler Systems 




HSA 


Wild 
Flood 


Border 


Basin 


Furrow 


TOTAL 


Solid 
Set 


Hand 
Move 


fvlectianical 
Move 


TOTAL 


Drip 
Systems 


NO 


310 

70 

530 

130 

150 

110 

2.180 

2,140 

3,380 

150 

80 

690 

9.920 


25 

100 
5 

100 
30 

260 


135 
5 
26 

10 

750 

860 

1.000 

15 

410 
3210 


5 

410 
76 

180 
25 

35 
730 


5 

310 

65 

16 

5 

520 

980 

1.460 

5 

5 

240 

3,600 


166 

6 

340 

65 

25 

5 

1.780 

1,920 

2.630 

145 

35 

685 

7.800 


— 
85 
40 

125 


25 
40 
55 
10 

50 
70 
66 
80 

396 


10 
10 

110 
35 
85 
20 

170 
36 

530 

30 
1.036 


110 
5 
16 

70 
36 
60 
6 
15 

306 


145 

55 

180 

45 

85 

70 

310 

135 

660 

5 

46 

1.735 




SF 


10 


CO 


10 


1_A 


20 


SA 


40 


SD 


35 


SB 


5 


SJ - 

TL .. . 


45 
90 


1^:::::::..;...::::.: :: :.... 




SL 


_ 


OR 


5 


TOTAL 


260 






PERCENT 


100 


3 


33 


7 


36 


79 


1 


4 


10 


3 


17 


3 







No data shown for less than 3.000 acres. 

Estimates based upon information provided by the U C Cooperative Extension Service, 
In the case of dual irrigation systems (for example, where sprinklers are used tor 
leaching before planting and a furrow system is used for regular irrigation), only the 
principal irrigation system is indicated. 



37 



moves laterally as well as downward to wet the 
plant root zone. 

To achieve high efficiency with both furrow and 
border strip systems, care must be taken to stop 
the flow of water soon enough to minimize the 
amount that runs off the field or collects at its end. 
Moreover, the length of the run and the gradient 
are extremely important in controlling the water to 
attain percolation into the soil as evenly as possible 
at both ends of the field. Soil texture and structure 
are important considerations in designing an effi- 
cient furrow or border strip system. In recent 
times, water recovery (pump-back) systems have 
gained popularity because they permit the opera- 
tor to capture and re-apply excess irrigation flows 
that run off the field from furrow or border strip 
systems. 

Wild flooding is the least extensive and most primi- 
tive of the surface irrigation systems. It consists of 
random spilling of water over the edge of a ditch, 
with the water flowing over the natural contours of 
the land. Its only significant use occurs in mountain 
meadow areas, principally in Northern California. 

Sprinkler Systems 

There are three types of sprinkler systems; hand- 
moved pipeline (or hose line), permanently in- 
stalled (solid-set) systems, and mechanically 
moved systems. 

Wheel-mounted pipelines moved by machine have 
been used for years throughout the State. Center- 
pivot sprinkler systems that rotate about a central 
point (the source of water for the system) have 
been used only on a limited basis in the Central 
Valley, but to a much greater extent in the 
northeastern part of the State. These systems are 
designed to automatically irrigate a large circular 
area of a quarter-section or more. Corner swing 
arms may be added to irrigate field corners that are 
not otherwise reached in a circular pattern. Of 
more promise for increased use in the flat Central 
Valley floor is the recently developed automated 
linear-move sprinkler system, which moves in a 
straight line across the field. New designs use com- 
puter-controlled tractor units, flexible water supply 
lines that automatically couple and uncouple to a 
series of valves spaced along a buried mam supply 
line, and low-pressure sprinkler heads. This system 
is totally self-contained and is powered by a fuel- 
efficient diesel generator. 

Drip Systems 

Drip irrigation is now used on about 260,000 acres 
of irrigated land, and it has been increasing in pop- 



ularity. Unlike other methods that apply large 
amounts of water periodically, drip irrigation sys- 
tems use small amounts of water flowing more or 
less continuously. The steady flow of drops or drib- 
bles IS accomplished by plastic emitters, or a per- 
forated tube, fed with water that has been 
carefully filtered to prevent the minute orifices 
from clogging. Drip systems moisten less ground 
surface area than do sprinkler or surface systems, 
thereby reducing the amount of water evaporated 
from bare soil. Although drip systems can be oper- 
ated at very high efficiencies, the rate of ETAW 
remains about the same, except for some signifi- 
cant reduction in evaporation from the soil where 
young trees or grape vines are being grown. 

Drip systems are costly to install; however, the use 
of this system has increased, often where other 
methods are unsuitable or where water costs are 
high. An example of both conditions exists in San 
Diego County where avocados are cultivated on 
steep, rocky slopes with very expensive water. If 
other methods of irrigation were used there, runoff 
and soil erosion would be excessive. Another im- 
portant area of use is the southern San Joaquin 
Valley where young trees and vineyards are irrigat- 
ed by this method. Even where water costs are not 
high, drip irrigation is of interest to farmers be- 
cause it offers opportunities to save on labor. 



Subsurface System 

This is a unique system used only in a very limited 
area. In much of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Del- 
ta, the water level in the channels is considerably 
higher than the ground surface of the islands. To 
keep the islands from being inundated, deep drain 
ditches carry water to pumps that dispose of it into 
the river channel. To irrigate a crop, the pumps are 
shut off, which allows the water to rise in the soil. 
The pumps are then restarted to draw this water 
below the level of the root zone of the plants. 



Agricultural Water Conservation. As used in 
this report, any increase in on-farm irrigation effi- 
ciency is considered water conservation. Whether 
such action results m a saving of basic water supply 
depends on the hydrologic characteristics of a par- 
ticular situation. (This is discussed in detail under 
"Net Water Use" later in this chapter.) Agricultural 
water conservation has benefits other than water 
savings, however. These may include reduced ener- 
gy use. increased flows in certain reaches of rivers, 
less need for fertilizer, fewer weed control problems, 
and, in some instances, increased crop yields. 



38 




IRRIGATION METHODS (1) Linear-move sprinklers. (2) Hand-moved pipeline sprinklers. (3) Hand-moved side-roll sprinklers. (4) Subsurface 
irrigation. (5) Basin irrigation. (6) Drip irrigation by perforated tube. (7) Wild flooding. (8) Center-pivot. 



39 




IRRIGATION METHODS (9) Gated pipe furrow system. (10) Drip irrigation by plastic emitters. (11) Border irrigation. (12 Laser-con- 
trolled land leveling. (13) Solid-set sprinklers. (14) Mechanically moved side-roll sprinklers. (15) Pump-bock system. (16) Siphon tube 
furrow system. 



40 



Urban Water Use 

This section describes how urban water use is de- 
termined and the historic trends in the factors in- 
fluencing urban water use. 

Estimates of urban water use are based upon esti- 
mates of the area's population and representative 
values for the per capita rate of water use. These 
values are based on a sampling of water service 
agencies' records of deliveries, the number of con- 
nections served, and estimates of the number of per- 
sons per connection. Sample data from individuals 
who develop their own water supplies are also in- 
cluded. As with agricultural applied water, a portion 
of urban applied water is evapotranspired, principal- 
ly by landscape vegetation. 

Population 

California continues to be the most populous state 
in the nation, with 23,773,000 people reported in the 
1980 census (Table 4). From 1972 to 1980. the State's 
population grew by more than 3 million, a 15-percent 
increase, or 1.8 percent per year. The Santa Ana Hy- 
drologic Study Area (HSA) added the greatest num- 
ber— 610,000 people. 

Migration. From 1972 to 1980, immigration ac- 
counted for 60 percent of California's growth (Fig- 
ures 10 and 11). Half these people came from the 
industrialized states of New York, Illinois, Ohio, New 
Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Two-thirds of the immi- 
grants settled in the metropolitan areas of Los Ange- 
les, San Diego, and south San Francisco Bay. It is also 
suspected that an additional significant number of 
undocumented immigrants from Mexico and various 
countries in Asia were not counted in the 1980 cen- 
sus. 

Employment opportunities have been the mam 
force behind this migration influx. While the nation 




A developing area in Sacramento typifies the urban expan- 
sion that occurred in California between 1972 and 1980. 



was experiencing employment growth of 3 percent 
in the nonagricultural sectors, California experienced 
a 4-percent employment growth (more than 30 per- 
cent greater than the nation as a whole). The result 
was that half the immigrants came to California ei- 
ther for a job transfer, to take a new job, or to look 
for work. 



TABLE 4 

CALIFORNIA'S POPULATION GROWTH 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1972 and 1980 





Population 


Increase 


HSA 


1972 


1980 


Persons 


Percent 


NC 


363.000 

4.475.000 

833,000 

7,398.000 

2.364.000 

1,529.000 

1.311.000 

805,000 

989,000 

44,000 

245,000 

237.000 

20.593.000 


459,000 

4.790.000 

1.005.000 

7,927.000 

2.974.000 

2.068,000 

1,674.000 

1.014.000 

1.178,000 

61,000 

303,000 

320,000 

23.773,000 


96.000 

315,000 

172,000 

529,000 

610.000 

539.000 

363.000 

209.000 

189,000 

17,000 

58,000 

83,000 

3.180.000 


26 


SF 


7 


CC 


21 


LA 


7 


SA 


26 


SD 


35 


SB 


28 


SJ 


26 


TL 


19 


NL 


39 


SL 


24 


CR 


35 


STATE TOTAL 


15 







41 



Figure 10. ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH BY COMPONENTS 



700- 



600- 



500 



® 

a. 
o 
o 
a. 



•jr 400- 



co 

c 

(0 
CO 



300 



200 



100 




1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 



Years 



42 



Figure 11. CALIFORNIA POPULATION BY COMPONENTS OF GROWTH 

1940 - 1980 




1975 



Other forces contributing to California's growth 
from migration have been the greater number of re- 
tirees, who are often free to resettle where they wish; 
greater freedom of movement of families due to the 
decrease in the birth rates; the increase in the num- 
ber of women in the labor force; climate; and the 
desire to be near relatives. 

Natural Increase. The remaining 40 percent of 
California's growth from 1972 to 1980 came from 
natural increase — births minus deaths. While both 
the birth rates and death rates have been declining, 
the numbers of births and deaths have been increas- 
ing. The greater number of deaths is attributed to the 
increase m the number of elderly people. The rise in 
births results from two factors: 

• Women born during the post-World War II "baby 
boom" who have now reached childbearing years. 

• Women in the labor force who delayed marriage 
and childbearing now deciding to start their fami- 
lies. 

Inter-County Growth Patterns. For the first 
time since 1850, when California became a state. 



population in the 50 counties north of the Tehachapi 
Mountains, which separate the Central Valley from 
Southern California, grew between 1972 and 1980 at 
a greater percentage rate than did the eight counties 
south of the Tehachapis. Since 1970, the northern 
counties have grown almost 19 percent, and the 
southern counties by 17 percent. 

Migrants to California tend to move first into the 
metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Fran- 
cisco: but, within a few years, many move to the less 
congested surrounding counties. Perhaps one-quar- 
ter to one-third of the growth in non-metropolitan 
counties can be attributed to this resettlement to 
outer suburban areas. The population in counties 
with commuting ties to the metropolitan areas grew 
more than population in the more remote counties 
(Figure 12). The mam forces behind the growth in 
non-metropolitan counties have been: 

• The search for less expensive housing. 

• The increase in employment opportunities result- 
ing from recent decentralization of employment 
centers. 

• The attraction of coastal, lake, and hill counties. 



43 



Figure 12. POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNTY 

1972-1980 




100,000 OR MORE 
POPULATION INCREASE 

55.000 - 99,999 

27.500 - 54.999 

27,499 OR LESS 
POPULATION INCREASE 



\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



>o^=^ 






44 



The 1980 population was based on the census, 
which tabulated population by county and county 
subdivisions. The Department then allocated these 
figures to the appropriate HSA and detailed study 
areas. 

Urban Per Capita Applied Water 

The gross per capita urban applied water value is 
a factor selected to represent total average urban 
applied water per permanent resident. This value in- 
cludes residential, industrial, commercial, and gov- 
ernmental use. On a statewide basis, 61 percent of 
the applied water is residential, 16 percent is com- 
mercial, 16 percent is industrial, and 7 percent is gov- 
ernmental (Figure 13). 

The gross per capita applied water value is ex- 
pressed as gallons per capita daily or acre-feet per 
capita annually. These values are derived from sam- 
ple data, principally from two sources: water agen- 
cies that serve a large number of customers and 
individual entities that develop their own supply. To 
calculate urban applied water for a particular geo- 
graphic area, per capita applied water values derived 
from data for communities within, or most similar to, 
the area in question are selected and multiplied by 
the area's population. Important community charac- 
teristics considered are climate, type of housing, 
housing density, age, industrial activity, and general 
economic level. 



Figure 13. PERCENT OF URBAN 
APPLIED WATER BY TYPE OF USE 

San Francisco, Los Angeles 
Santa Ana and San Diego HSA'S 

GOVERNMENT 



SIDENTIA 



INDUSTRIA 
16% 



Gross Per Capita Use of Agency-Supplied Wa- 
ter. Gross per capita use of agency-supplied water 
IS computed by dividing the total quantity of water 
supplied to the conveyance system of a water serv- 
ice agency by the number of permanent residents 
living within the agency's service area. Industrial and 
commercial water uses are included in the average 
per capita applied water value derived by this com- 
putation method. Large deliveries for industrial or 
transient recreational purposes will result in higher 
per capita values. The quantity of water supplied to 
the conveyance system differs from "water deliv- 
ered" (a term used to denote the quantity delivered 
to the users' connections) in that it includes all losses 
between the point of introduction into the system 
and the users' connections. 

In gathering data from water suppliers, a sampling 
procedure is employed whereby information on wa- 
ter supplied, number of connections, and population 
served is obtained from most large water agencies, 
as well as representative smaller water agencies, 
throughout the State. The single-unit value that 
represents average use for a particular study area is 
computed by weighting the unit gallons per capita 
daily (gpcd), calculated for each of the suppliers 
sampled in the area, by the population served by 
each supplier. When little or no sample data are avail- 
able for an area (which sometimes is the case for 
relatively small study areas), values are derived by 
weighting those obtained from samples of similar 
areas. 

This procedure is not a rigid statistical sampling 
process because water suppliers are not randomly 
selected. This is because of the great variation in 
record-keeping practices by water agencies, a factor 
that can add greatly to the cost of collecting, aug- 
menting, and processing data from some agencies. 
Rather than limiting data to a specified preselected 
sample, all readily obtainable data of acceptable 
quality are used in the calculations. 

California does not require the reporting of water 
use data to a central State agency, as do many other 
states, and it becomes necessary to locate individual 
data sources and obtain and verify these records. 
Special atttention is given to verifying the "popula- 
tion served" estimate, which is often just a rough 
estimate by the agency. The Department of Water 
Resources periodically updates gross per capita ap- 
plied water estimates on the basis of data from about 
175 water service agencies throughout the State. Es- 
timates for selected communities are shown in Fig- 
ure 14. They range from 553 gpcd in Palm Springs in 
the Colorado River HSA to 85 gpcd at Pacifica, a 
largely residential community on the coast south of 
San Francisco. 

Gross Per Capita Use of Self-Supplied Water 

Periodic surveys of manufacturing water use are con- 
ducted to determine quantities of self-supplied wa- 
ter. The local water agency supplies water to most of 



45 



Figure 14. GROSS DAILY PER CAPITA 
WATER USE FOR SELECTED COMMUNITIES 
(Agency Supplied Water- 1980) 



1 






"1 


BLYTHE 










PALM SPRINGS AND VICINITY 










RIVERSIDE 










SAN DIEGC 


3 










LOS ANGELES 

1 








BEVERLY HILLS 












SANTA BARBARA 








PASO ROBLES 








BAKERSFIELD 








FRESNO 








SACRAMENTO 










SALINAS 








SAN JOSE 








PACIFICA 








SAN FRAN 

1 


CISCO 








EAST BAY CITIES 








CORNING 










REDDING 










EUREKA 






I 








I 





100 200 300 400 500 

GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY 



600 



the smaller manufacturing facilities situated in cities; 

however, larger users located both inside and out- 
side urban areas have tended to develop their own 
ground water supplies or to divert from local streams 
as a less costly alternative to purchasing it from a 
public agency. The surveys are directed principally at 
water-intensive manufacturing plants, such as can- 
neries, refineries, and pulp and paper mills. 

A sampling procedure is used in which readily 
available data on water use are gathered and aver- 
aged by each specific type of industry. In this proc- 
ess, each industry value obtained is weighted 
according to the number of persons employed. Unit 
employee use (expressed in gallons per employee 
working day), averaged from replies from a particu- 
lar county or study area, is assumed to be typical of 
all industry of that type in the area. The quality of the 
computed unit-employee-use data depends on the 
level of response for each industry type. Where data 
from certain industry types are deficient or missing 
for a particular service area, statewide averages are 
substituted. The sample data for each type of indus- 
try in an area are then expanded to represent total 
use of each type by multiplying the unit employee 
use by the total number of employees in that indus- 
try. Some of the findings of the most recent survey 
m 1979 are presented in the sidebar, "Industrial Wa- 
ter Use." 

Water self-supplied by all types of industry in an 
area is divided by the area's total resident population 
and added to the per capita value based on agency- 
supplied water to obtain the total gross per capita 
applied water value. 

Factors Responsible for Changes in Per Capi- 
ta Applied Water. Many different factors may in- 
fluence urban water use, and the effect will vary 
widely among service areas, depending on local 
situations. These factors are: 

• Housing Density: Increasing density of residen- 
tial development is generally associated with a de- 
creasing rate of per capita residential applied 
water. This results from the reduced amount of 
landscaped area per capita where lot sizes are 
small and/or multi-family housing has been devel- 
oped. 

Single-family construction decreased from about 
90 percent of all new housing starts m the mid- 
1950s to just over 50 percent by the late 1960s. 
During this same period, multi-family apartment 
construction increased from less than 10 percent 
to over 40 percent of all new housing starts. By 
1972, multi-family units had increased to 55 per- 
cent. However, in recent years, as interest rates 
climbed, finding financing for the larger, multi-fam- 
ily unit projects has been more difficult, which has 
caused this type of construction to drop to 44 per- 
cent of new housing starts (1980) . Numbers of sin- 



J/ Water supplied by public water purveyors-additional 
water may be supplied by Indivduals and industries 
for their own use. 



46 



INDUSTRIAL WATER USE 



The Department o< Water Resources conducted a survey of 
1979 industrial applied water by lorgewater-use manufactur- 
ing plants throughout California, updating information last 
obtained for 1970. The results of the survey have been pub- 
lished in Water Use By Manufacturing Industries in California, 
1979 (Bulletin 124-3, May 1982) . Highlights of the survey of 
1979 water use are: 

• About 3,000 plants responded, accounting for about 55 
percent of the total fresh-water intake by manufacturing 
industries in California. 

• Total water use, based on expansion of sample returns, 
was about 920,000 acre-feet. 

• Some 33,000 manufacturing plants with five or more em- 
ployees operate in California. 

• About 58 percent of the fresh-water supply was reported 
to have been purchased from water service agencies, and 
the remaining 42 percent was self-produced, principally 
from wells located at plant sites. 

• Water recycling has increased about 20 percent over the 
last ten years. 

• Los Angeles remains first among the State's 58 counties, 
with a total annual fresh-water use of 272,000 acre-feet 
(and first in total number of manufacturing plants) . Contra 
Costa County is second, with an annual use of 89,000 
acre-feet. 

• Plants with high water requirements are often located near 
bays, estuaries, or on the coast where large quantities of 
brackish or saline water are available for cooling. Most of 



these plants are situated in Contra Costa County. Others 
are located in Los Angeles, Monterey, Alameda, and San 
Mateo Counties. 

Brackish water composed 37 percent of the total water 
intake reported by the manufacturing industry. 

Although most plants require water only for employees' 
sanitation and drinking needs, process water use is now the 
major fresh-water application in manufacturing, followed 
closely by cooling water. 

The food processing industry, the major industrial user of 
fresh water, uses an estimated 224,000 acre-feet of fresh 
water annually. 

Second in level of use is petroleum refining, which uses 
150,000 acre-feet, followed, in declining order, by lumber 
and wood products; paper and allied products; chemicals; 
stone, clay and glass; and primary metals. 

The use of water varies considerably among plants. The 
discharge-intake ratios vary from slightly more than 0.25 
to more than 0.94 for those industries that replied to the 
questionnaire. 

Total manufacturing water use in 1979 was about 918,000 
acre-feet. This is slightly less than the 1970 level, although 
the number of industrial plants increased by some 4,000. 
The rates of water use by the various major industries have 
changed somewhat, with most industries now using less 
water. 

The industrial sector uses about 18 percent of the State's 
total urban applied fresh water. 



gle-family units have exceeded multi-family units 
since 1973 (Figure 15). 

Water-Using Appliances: Following World 
War II, average per capita residential water use 
began a steady climb, as automatic clothes wash- 
ers, automatic dishwashers, garbage disposals, 
and other water-using appliances were introduced 
and widely purchased by the public. The use of 
major water-using appliances may have ap- 
proached a saturation level in many communities 
by now. 

Persons-per-Household: During the 1970s, the 
population increased 18 percent, but the number 
of households increased 31 percent. Much of this 
increase in households can be attributed to the 
growth in numbers of single-person households 
arising from higher divorce rates, longer life ex- 
pectancy, and the postwar "baby-boom" genera- 
tion's early departure from home and delayed 
marriage. 

There were 2.9 persons per household in 1970; this 
figure has now dropped to 2.6. The impact of this 
change is to increase per capita applied water be- 
cause some household water uses are somewhat 



independent of the number of household resi- 
dents. Landscape irrigation is an example. 

l\/letering: Metering of water to customers has a 
pronounced effect on residential water use. Stud- 
ies have indicated that conversion from a flat rate 
to metered billing may reduce water use by as 
much as 50 percent initially; although this level of 
reduction commonly is not permanent, use will 
normally continue to be significantly less than 
before metering began. Most of the major urban 
areas of California are already metered; statewide, 
more than 90 percent of delivered water is me- 
tered. The San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles, and 
San Diego metropolitan areas are almost com- 
pletely metered; but only about 10 to 15 percent of 
the Central Valley and upland communities meas- 
ure water delivered to customers. 

Water Costs: Escalation of materials and labor 
costs, extension of service to more distant areas, 
and, in some cases, necessary development of 
remote and costly supply sources have contribut- 
ed to increasing real water costs. Present condi- 
tions indicate a continuing general trend toward 
higher costs of water service. With rising water 



47 



Figure 15. TOTAL NEW SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS 

1972-1980 




1972 



1973 



1974 



1975 



1976 
YEAR 



1977 



1978 



1979 



1980 



prices, the customer is becoming more aware of 
the relationship between amount of use and water 
cost. An additional impact occurs where sewer 
service costs are billed on the basis of water used. 
This IS discussed further in Chapter IV. 

Climate: Statewide, an average of about 47 per- 
cent of residential applied water is used for land- 
scape irrigation. The influence of changes in 
climatological conditions on applied water varies 
widely, depending on the amount of supplemental 
irrigation normally required for landscape plant 
growth and the magnitude and occurrence of cli- 
matological extremes. 

An examination of historic data suggests that an- 
nual variations in rainfall exert the greatest influ- 
ence on annual fluctuations in residential water 
use in California. In some communities, per capita 
applied water has typically varied inversely with 
annual variations in precipitation, with landscape 
irrigation requiring more water in long, dry periods 
and less in prolonged wet periods. Variations in the 
growing season rainfall pattern have caused resi- 
dential use to vary by 25 percent or more. Howev- 



er, in areas where average annual precipitation is 
less than five inches, water use is only slightly af- 
fected by variances in rainfall distribution and 
amounts. 

The patterns of per capita applied water in the 
several California urban areas shown in Figure 16 
illustrate the fundamental divergence in rates of 
use between inland valley cities and coastal cities, 
due mainly to differences in climate. High summer 
temperatures in Redding, Sacramento, and Fresno 
require much heavier watering to sustain land- 
scapes. 

• Urban Redevelopment: In some cases, exten- 
sive urban redevelopment has had a significant lo- 
cal impact on the amount and nature of water use. 
Usually It reduces use as residences are replaced 
by commercial, governmental, or light industrial 
development. 

Trends in Gross Per Capita Use 

The overall trend in per capita applied water for 
many cities and regions appears to have been down- 
ward or tended to level off over the past decade. 



48 



Figure 16. HISTORICAL GROSS PER CAPITA 
URBAN APPLIED WATER FOR SELECTED CITIES 



400 



300 



CO 

I- 

o 



a. 

« 200 



o 

Q. 
CO 

c 
o 

"5 
(D 




100 



J I L 



EAST BAY j|tUD 



h^^' 
O*^' 



.eLES, 




J L 



J L 



\ 






1960 



1965 



1970 



1975 



1980 



Years 



49 



Water-using oppliances such as this au- 
tomatic dishwasher have contributed to 
the increase in per capita water use. 




although interpretation of the trend line has been 
somewhat complicated by the 1976 and 1977 drought 
(Figure 16). During the drought, many communities 
experienced mandatory or voluntary water rationing. 
Since 1977, per capita applied water appears to be 
returning to about the level of use that prevailed just 
prior to the drought. 

Between 1960 and 1980 (excluding 1976 and 1977), 

calculated trend lines for the communities included 
in Figure 16 show an overall increase, except in the 
city of Fresno. However, more years of data beyond 
the 1976-1977 drought are needed to determine the 
direction of the long-term trend and the impact of 
water conservation. 

Water Conservation Efforts. In the past few 
years, water conservation — that is, increased effi- 
ciency of use — has become an important considera- 
tion in the management of public water and 
sewerage utilities. The traditional approach to 
managing utilities was to enlarge the delivery system 
continually and seek new sources of water as popula- 
tion growth increased use: however, in recent years, 
water utilities serving growth areas have begun to 
see water conservation as a way to reduce the im- 
mediate need to develop new supplies. In the past, 
high levels of consumption tended to reduce unit 
costs for the water utility because of the economies 
of scale in larger pipelines and more reservoirs and 
treatment plants. Many water utilities, however, have 
reached the limit of their less expensive sources of 
water and must turn to more costly sources of water 
as use increases. In an attempt to avoid as much of 
these high costs for as long as possible, many utilities 



have taken measures to encourage their customers 
to use less water. These conservation efforts have 
evidently had an effect on per capita applied water 
rates in these areas. 

Other Water Uses 

While irrigated agriculture and urban water use 
make up the major water uses, there are other impor- 
tant beneficial uses of water. They are discussed in 
this section. 

Energy Production 

Water use by oil refineries and supplemental small 
thermal electric generation plants are included in the 
estimates of total urban water use. Since all the wa- 
ter IS returned later to the stream, use of water by 
hydroelectric generation plants is included under the 
"Instream Water Use" section later in this chapter. 
On the other hand, substantial quantities of cooling 
water for major inland thermal electric generation 
plants and water for enhanced oil recovery is con- 
sumed, and very little of it is available for reuse. 

Power Plant Cooling. Steam electric power 
plants require high-quality water for steam genera- 
tion, most of which is recycled continuously and only 
a small part of which is lost in the process. The high- 
quality make-up water for steam generation is fre- 
quently obtained initially by distillation to remove all 
constituents that might cause scaling or corrosion of 
the boiler, or in any way affect the steam generation 
equipment. Much larger quantities of cooling water 
are required to recondense the steam for reuse. The 



50 



cooling water is either passed through the plant and 
returned to its source (once-through cooling) or re- 
cycled through a cooling tower. 

The thermal electric plants located on the coast of 
California or at its bays and estuanes take advantage 
of the large volume of cold water available from the 
ocean for the once-through cooling process. Inland 
power plants, such as Sacramento Municipal Utility 
District's Rancho Seco nuclear power plant, use 
evaporative cooling towers and recycle fresh cooling 
water until the concentration of total dissolved solids 
approaches specific waste water discharge quality 
limits set by the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board. These limits are designated to protect the 
quality of the body of water receiving the discharged 
water. 

About 79 percent of the present statewide steam 
electric generation plant capacity uses once-through 
ocean-water cooling. Plants aggregating 19 percent 
of such capacity use cooling towers. Present use of 
fresh water for cooling is 42,000 acre-feet per year. 
Existing geothermal plants also employ cooling tow- 
ers, but they are not included here because their 
cooling water requirements are met with geothermal 
steam that has been condensed back to water. 

The potential for once-through ocean-water cool- 
ing for new electric generating facilities in California 
has steadily diminished over the last decade. Under 
the California Coastal Act of 1976, the California 
Coastal Commission has designated much of the 
coastline as unsuitable for siting new power plants. 
When federal lands, urban development, and topo- 
graphic constraints are considered, only 3 percent of 
the coastline remains for consideration as potential 
power plant sites; however, even before the coastal 
protection movement began, seismic, population 
safety, and air quality considerations limited coastal 
siting. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
restrictive approach to controlling thermal dis- 
charges has further discouraged the use of once- 
through ocean-water cooling. Forecasts of electrical 
energy use by the California Energy Commission are 
now more conservative, so fewer new power plants 
will be required to meet future energy needs. 

Geothermal electric generation is emerging as an 
important energy source in California. Two types of 
geothermal resources — vapor-dominated (dry 
steam) and liquid-dominated (hot water) systems 
with temperatures above 150°C — are considered 
economically feasible for commercial electric gener- 
ation. The vapor-dominated resource has undergone 
the greatest development. Current production in Cal- 
ifornia at the Geysers in Sonoma County is 908 mega- 
watts, with an additional 326 megawatts under 
construction. At the Geysers, condensed steam is 
used in the cooling towers and is sufficient to meet 
cooling water needs. At present, there are only two 
liquid-dominated geothermal electric generation 
plants in California. These are 10- and 1 1.2-megawatt 



demonstration projects located in the Colorado Riv- 
er Hydrologic Study Area (HSA) . Together they use 
a total of 3,000 acre-feet per year. 

Enhanced Oil Recovery. A large amount of Cal- 
ifornia's oil reserves are extractable only through the 
use of enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Enhanced oil 
recovery includes waterflooding and thermal stimu- 
lation that forces or improves the flow of oil to pro- 
duction wells. In California, EOR has been used to 
extend the life of old oil fields and facilitate extrac- 
tion of California's heavy oils. 

Waterflooding is a process in which water is inject- 
ed into an oil reservoir to increase the pressure and 
force oil to flow toward the production wells. The 
Wilmington field in the Los Angeles HSA is the site 
of one of the largest waterflooding projects in the 
world. Its yield from waterflood operations has been 
more than 20 million barrels of oil per year in recent 
years. 

Thermal stimulation, the injection of steam, has 
also been used for a relatively long time in California, 
primarily because the more viscous oils flow more 
readily when heated. The major area for thermal 
stimulation is the Tulare Lake HSA, where close to 90 
million barrels of oil were produced by that method 
in 1980. 

Water uses in HSAs in which onshore oil recovery 
occurred in 1980 are listed in the following table. 

Water Uses for 

Enhanced Oil Recovery in California 

1980 

In 1,000s of acre-feet 

Fresh Other 
HSA Water Water' Total 

Tulare Lake 7 56 63 

Los Angeles 2 93 95 

Central Coast 7 8 15 

Santa Ana 1 26 27 

' Production water (water produced along with the oil), sea water, and treated waste 
water. 

Water Quality Control 

Actions by the State Water Resources Control 
Board (SWRCB) in water quality control and related 
water rights matters have had significant impacts on 
water use and water supply in the past few years. 

Recent water quality control efforts by SWRCB 
have been notably effective in protecting overall wa- 
ter quality in streams. Improved stream conditions 
have resulted largely from State and federal laws 
requiring clean-up of discharges from waste water 
treatment plants and industries. Municipal waste wa- 
ter treatment plants are eligible for State and federal 
assistance in complying with strict standards, and 
some $4 billion in State, federal, and local funds have 



51 



PROTECTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE 
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN ESTUARY 



The Sacramento-San Joaquin Del»a, the Suisun Marsh, and 
San Pablo and San Francisco Boys provide vital habitat for 
a variety of fish and wildlife. The most significant sport fish 
ore anadromous species — striped bass, chinook salmon, stur- 
geon, American shad, and steelhead rainbow trout. All these 
fish spawn in fresh woter and spend most of their lives in the 
lower bays of the estuary or in the ocean. The Delta is an 
important nursery area for most of these fish. Of the several 
resident fish that also depend on the Delta, white catfish ore 
a particularly important sport fish. 

The Suisun Marsh is a vital wintering area for waterfowl 
of the Pacific Flyway. Many small mammals and more than 
200 species of shore and song birds also inhabit the estuarine 
marsh habitat. Two endangered species, the California clap- 
per rail and the salt-marsh harvest mouse, and the rare Cali- 
fornia block roil are indigenous to the marsh. 

The Delta and the fish and wildlife it supports contribute 
significantly to the orea's economy. Central Valley rivers sup- 
ply about 75 percent of California's commercial chinook 
salmon catch in ocean waters and contribute to both the 
ocean and inland sport fishery. The overage annual commer- 
cial catch is about 550,000 fish, which represents an annual 
return to the industry of about SI 3.4 million at 1981 prices. 
The salmon sport fishery was projected to be worth $1.3 
million annually in 1970 (1965 dollars). It is undoubtedly 
worth far more than that today, although no current estimates 
exist. 

Striped bass hove long been one of California's top-rank- 
ing sportfish. Significant fisheries also exist for American 
shod, sturgeon, steelheod, and several resident fish, including 
lorgemouth bass and catfish. 



The kinds of fish caught in the Delta ore very different from 
those that might hove been caught historically. Native spe- 
cies, such as salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, have been 
supplemented by such introduced species as striped bass, 
American shod, and catfish. 

Historically, annual runoff from the estuary's watershed 
varied more widely than it does today. Spring flows were 
always high, even in dry years, and summer flows were low. 
In August, for instance, there was almost no outflow from the 
Delta and salt water intruded farther into the system than it 
does now. Releases from SWP and CVP reservoirs now ensure 
outflow and control of salt-water intrusion. 

Fish and wildlife studies over the last 20 years have identi- 
fied major impacts associated with the altered flow regimes 
described above and the way in which the Central Valley 
Project and State Water Project are operated in the Delta. 

In 1977 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted 
Decision 1485, pertaining to Delta water rights for the CVP 
and SWP, which set stringent water quality standards for the 
Delta and for part of the estuary surrounding the Suisun 
Marsh. These standards were arrived at after consideration 
of testimony from local. State, and federal agencies, as well 
as private conservation groups and individuals. Nearly 15 
years of intensive research, a large part of which was fi- 
nanced by the major water development agencies, provided 
important information. As a result of D-1485, the Department 
of Water Resources is currently constructing a multi-million- 
dollor system of water control structures. These ore designed 
to redistribute water from the Sacramento River in a manner 
that will provide the managed wetlands in the Suisun Marsh 
with water meeting the D-1485 stondords. This system, com- 
bined with improved marsh management practices, is intend- 
ed to protect the marsh habitat. 



52 




The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, looking west. The wider 
waterway at center is the Sacramento River, as it meets the 
San Joaquin River near Antioch. Just above center, the chan- 
nel narrows as it passes between the Montezuma Hills (right) 
and the foothills of Mt, Diablo (left). The waterway then 
opens into Suisun Boy before passing through the Corquinez 
Straits and San Francisco Bay and finally enters the Pacific 
Ocean through the fog-shrouded Golden Gate. 



53 



been spent since 1972 on the clean-up program. Cali- 
fornia's industries have also spent large sums of 
money in reducing discharge of pollutants. Where 
required by local environmental conditions, 
municipalities and industries have successfully met 
more stringent advanced waste water treatment re- 
quirements. Additional clean-up measures to control 
acidic and metallic drainage from abandoned mines 
and special requirements at high erosion sites and 
elsewhere have also contributed to improved stream 
water quality. 

In 1978. SWRCB adopted water right Decision 
1485, defining water quality standards to protect the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh. 
The standards are also included in the Water Quality 
Control Plan for these areas. The standards are tai- 
lored to the hydrology of the area, with less stringent 
standards m drier years than in wetter years. D-1485 
standards are very complicated. Relationships 
between Delta water quality and Delta outflow have 
been developed through three decades of prior 
investigations by the Department to estimate the 
magnitude of outflow required to satisfy those stand- 
ards. Applying these relationships to the historic hy- 
drologic sequence of Central Valley runoff indicates 
that minimum annual Delta outflow required by 
D-1485 will range from 3 million to 6 million acre-feet 
and will average about 5.1 million acre-feet per year. 

Present average annual Delta inflow is 21.2 million 
acre-feet per year. For an average water year. 24 
percent (5.1 million acre-feet per year) is required as 
Delta outflow to meet the water quality standards, 
and another 8 percent (1.6 million acre-feet) is used 
consumptively within the Delta. Existing storage and 
export capability of the State Water Project and the 
Central Valley Project diverts 29 percent (about 6.2 
million acre-feet), of which 5.8 million acre-feet is 
classified as firm yield. The remaining 39 percent (8.3 
million acre-feet) flows into the San Francisco Bay as 
additional outflow. 

The Department notified the SWRCB in 1982 that 
the Suisun Marsh facilities will not be completed by 
the October 1, 1984, deadline provided in Decision 

TABLE 5 

TYPICAL NET DELTA OUTFLOW 

REQUIREMENTS^ 

FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF WATER YEARS 

(In acre-feet) 



Water Year 


Net Delta Outflow 


Wet 


5.800.000 


Above normal 


5.200.000 


Below normal 


4.900.000 


Dryf 


3.100.000 


Critical 


2.800.000 



' Approximate requirements under 1960 level of development, in accordance vnth water 
rights Decision 1485. 



1485. The current estimate of the earliest possible 
completion date is October 1987. However, it is 
proposed to construct the facilities in stages, as an 
alternative to completing construction by 1987. This 
will allow the Department to test their performance 
against model predictions before beginning the next 
facility. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will build its 
portion as funds and authorization are obtained. The 
Montezuma Slough control structure will be the first 
unit of the overall facilities to be built, as originally 
planned. 

Decision 1400 of the State Water Resources Con- 
trol Board pertaining to water rights for Auburn Dam 
has had no impact to date on water use and water 
supply because it would apply only after the dam had 
been built. Because it controls flows only in the lower 
American River. Decision 1400 would have little over- 
all impact on water supply, in any case. Decision 
1422, pertaining to New Melones Dam, has also had 
limited impact on water supply because it has re- 
stricted storage in New Melones Reservoir only from 
1979; high inflows during the wet years of 1982 and 
1983 negated the storage restrictions. SWRCB has 
since ruled that New Melones may be filled for pow- 
er and water because the U.S. Bureau of Reclama- 
tion is actively seeking to sign water contracts. 
During this period, nonstored water has been avail- 
able for use downstream in the Delta. The practical 
impacts of D-1422 appear to rest with future court 
decisions. D-1422 allows storage to satisfy prior 
rights, water quality flows, and fishery flows, in addi- 
tion to the federal provision for flood control storage. 
Water under prior rights in an amount up to 654.000 
acre-feet per year is diverted at Goodwin Dam 15 
miles below New Melones. The fishery below Good- 
win Dam is provided for by releases of up to 98,000 
acre-feet per year. The Department of Fish and Game 
is authorized to test lower flows in below-normal wa- 
ter years. The release schedule is not definite at 
present; it is subject to studies to be conducted by 
the Department of Fish and Game. 

Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Offstream 
Water Uses 

Offstream uses of water for fish, wildlife, and recre- 
ation take place outside natural stream channels and 
riparian habitat, such as along canals and drainage 
ditches. Water used by vegetation (evapotranspira- 
tion) that provides wildlife habitat in and near canals 
and drainage facilities is not available for other uses. 
Water conservation often includes measures to 
reduce runoff from farm fields and to prevent seep- 
age from conveyance systems that support this vege- 
tation. The effects of such conservation practices on 
wildlife habitat should be evaluated before they are 
implemented. 

Urban Parks and Landscaped Recreation 

Areas. Water used to irrigate lawns and other land- 



54 




The irrigated lawn at the entrance to An- 
gel Island State Park is an example of 
water use in nonurbon public porks. 



scape vegetation at park and recreation areas may 
constitute a nnajor local use. Evapotranspiration at 
these facilities may amount to several acre-feet per 
acre of landscaping each year. Water use for these 
purposes is included in the urban water use esti- 
mates in this report. 

Other Parks and Recreation Areas. Most re- 
gional. State, or national park and recreation areas 
emphasize natural environmental systems and there- 
fore have little landscaping to be irrigated. Water use 
in such areas is often primarily domestic use by visi- 
tors and employees. Planning studies of the Depart- 
ment of Water Resources assume 20 to 40 gallons per 
person per day for such use. Part of this water is 
available for reuse, either directly or after reclama- 
tion. 

Waterfowl Management Areas. Both the Cali- 
fornia Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service manage waterfowl re- 
source areas in California. The federal system totals 
230.000 acres in 21 major areas, while the State pro- 
vides 70,000 acres in 12 major areas for waterfowl 
management. Some part of these lands is planted to 
feed crops, and the remainder, in most cases, is 
marshland. 

Wetlands, including marshes, once totaled 5 mil- 
lion acres in California, with 4 million acres in the 
Central Valley alone. Most of these lands have been 
reclaimed and converted to other uses. Today only 
about 250,000 acres of these original wetlands remain 
in the Central Valley. These wetlands and adjacent 



croplands provide an important part of winter habitat 
for 12 million waterfowl annually. The wetlands also 
provide permanent and seasonal homes for other 
birds, and for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. 
Survival of rare and endangered species such as the 
American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, California yel- 
low-billed cuckoo, and giant garter snake depends on 
these wetlands. Wetlands may also improve water 
quality, recharge ground water, and detain flood- 
flows. 

At one time, all wetlands were sustained by sea- 
sonal or perennial streamflows. In the Central Valley 
and the Delta, nearly all major wetlands are now 
managed for maximum wildlife benefits with water 
applied directly or incidentally as agricultural return 
flows. 

Some lands other than wetlands are irrigated and 
crops are grown that will provide habitat for water- 
fowl, mainly during fall and winter when Pacific Fly- 
way waterfowl are occupying the southern areas of 
their range. This practice provides alternative food 
sources, thereby reducing crop depredation by 
waterfowl on nearby farmlands. Part of the land is 
used for managed hunting programs. The evapotran- 
spiration of water on major Central Valley wetlands 
and other waterfowl areas amounts to about 900,000 
acre-feet annually. About 250,000 acre-feet occurs in 
the designated public waterfowl management areas. 
The remainder is supported by losses from water 
conveyance systems, agricultural return flows, and 
other incidental water sources. Some of this water is 
otherwise unusable brackish irrigation return flows. 



55 



J- 



y 



^^^m 



im 







Wetlands are essential to the vast waterfowl population that 
migrates through central California along the Pacific Flyway. 

TABLE 6 
RECREATION AT SELECTED WATER PROJECTS WITH OVER 500,000 VISITOR-DAYS ANNUALLY 

(In 1,000s of visitor-days) 



U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation 


Visitor- 
days 
1380 


U.S. Corps of 
Engineers 


Visitor- 
days 
1980 


State Water 
Protect 


Visitor- 
days 
1980 


Local Projects with 
Recreation Grants 


Visitor- 
days 
1977 


Cachuma 


918 
1.000 

615 
1.300 

800 

891 
1.527 

7,051 
2.392 

9,443 


Lake Mendocino 


2.650 
714 
682 
933 

1.489 

6.468 
1.834 

8.302 


Lake Oroville Complex 

Castaic 


811 
1.054 

670 
1.186 

3.621 
2.079 

5.700 


San Antonio 

Lopez 

Subtotal 

27 Other Projects 

TOTAL 


513 


Foisom 


Pine Flat 


500 


Natoma 


Kaweah 

Success 

Isabella 

Subtotal 




Shasta 






Whiskeytown 


Subtotal 

9 Other Facilities 








Casitas 




Subtotal 


1013 


13 Ott\er Resewoirs 


3826 


TOTAL 


TOTAL 


TOTAL 


4839 







Source: Data furnished by agencies responsible for project operation- 



56 



TABLE 7 

PARTICIPATION IN WHITEWATER BOATING AND FISHING 
ON NORTH COAST WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 





Whitewater 

Boating 

(recreation-days) 


Fishing (angler-days) 


River Segment 


Juvenile 
Salmon Steelhead Steelhead 


Smith (entire) 


1,000-3,000 

10,000-25,000 



100-500 



500-1,000 

5,000-10,000 





500-1,000 

5,000-10.000 

1,000-2,000 

1.000-2,000 

100-500 

1,000-2.000 

25,000-57,000 


11 500 16 600 16000 


Klamath 
Iron Gate to mouth 


47 000 69 000 90 000 


Salmon 
Mam 





North Fork 


1 200 1 200 30 000 


Wooley Creek 





Scott 


200 1000 14 000 


Trinity 
Main 


16000 13000 36000 


North Fork 




New River 


Trinity River 
Included with Trinity River 

5 000 12 500 30 000 


South Fork 


Eel 
Mam 




2 700 15 000 40 000 


Middle Fork 


200 1 700 3 500 


North Fork 


4000 


Van Duzen 


700 3 000 3 000 


TOTAL 


84 500 133 000 266 500 







Source: U.S. Department of the Interior. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Designation of Five California 
Rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Volume 1. December 
1980. 

TABLE 8 

RECREATION ON SELECTED NORTHERN CALIFORNIA STREAMS 



Stream 



Boating 
Boating- (non- 

Fishing Swimming Molomed motorized) Picnicking Camping 



Riding ' 



Sight- 
seeing 



Other'' 



TOTAL 



SURVEY PERIOD: MEMORIAL DAY AND LABOR DAY, 1978' 
(In user-hours) 

South Fofl( American Rivec, Coioma and Lotus 16,000 82,000 — 93.000 53.000 199.000 6.000 7,000 134.000 

Cache Creek. Bear Creek Confluence to Guinda 2.000 32.000 — 44.000 20,000 15.000 1,000 2.000 16.000 

SURVEY PERIOD: MEMORIAL DAY AND LABOR DAY, 1977' 
(In user-hours) 

North Fork Feather River. Belden Dam to State Route 

70 

Putah Creek, Monticello Dam to Pleasant Valley Road 
Tuolumne River in Modesto 

SURVEY PERIOD: JANUARY-DECEMBER, 1980* 
(In user-hours) 

Sacramento River, Keswick to Courtland 1.890,000 437.000 548.000 259.000 288.000 249.000 40.000 16.000 



Lower American River . 



SURVEY PERIOD: MARCH 1978-MARCH 1979* 
(In visitor-days) 

380.000 380.000 56.000 400.000 204.000 



— 296.000 532.000 



Middle Fork Feather River.. 



SURVEY PERIOD: OCTOBER 1979-SEPTEMBER 1980' 
(In visitor-days) 

18.000 11,000 — 1.000 2.000 23.000 



11,000 



41,000 



39,000 



590,000 
312.000 



13.000 


9.000 


— 


1,000 


1,000 


38,000 


1,000 


3.000 


22.000 


88.000 


58.000 


20.000 


— 


5,000 


14.000 


3,000 


1,000 


4,000 


21.000 


126,000 


6.000 


45.000 


— 


— 


25,000 


2.000 


1,000 


4,000 


36,000 


19,000 



1.073.000 4,800,000* 



1.628,000 4,000,000 



146.000 



' "Riding" includes horses, bicycles, motorcycles, and off-road vehicles, 
^ "Other" includes relaxing, photography, nature study, golf, games, jogging, and walk- 
ing. 

* Source; DWR Technical Information Report "River Recreation Activity Survey Data of 

Selected Northern California Streams During 1977 and 1978". February 1979- 

• Source DWR Northern District Report (Review Draft), "Sacramento River Recreation 

Survey", December 1981- 



* The total Sacramento River use count of 4,800.000 recreation hours translates 

to 2.000,000 visitor-days 
"Source: Sacramento County. Department of Parks and Recreation, interview, 
'Source: U.S. Forest Service. Plumas National Forest- 



57 



Figure 17. STREAMFLOW DIVERSION 
SITES WITH AGREEMENTS FOR FISH 
FLOW RELEASES 



• •.•.•\ 



•^ ^ 




\ 






\ 



/ 




/ 



• • '^ • • 
•••• . 



o •• \ 






\ 




\ 



\ 



Legend 

• Single Diversion 
O Group of 20 
D Group of 40 



r 



r 



Many privately owned holdings are managed en- 
tirely or in part to attract waterfowl during the fall 
and winter hunting season. These areas — collectively 
known as duck clubs — comprise an estimated 
417,000 acres of land in California. In addition to pro- 
viding a great deal of waterfowl hunting for their 
owners or members, these clubs provide a significant 
amount of critically needed waterfowl wintering 
habitat and feed. The Department of Fish and Game 
considers them a strong, positive force m manage- 
ment of the resource. 

The public waterfowl management areas and pri- 
vate duck clubs are similar in their general manage- 
ment and water use. They are usually planted, at least 
in part, to a crop requiring irrigation that will have 
value as food for ducks and geese. For the private 
duck club land, the evapotranspiration associated 
with this crop is included in the estimates of agricul- 
tural water use in this report. Sometimes the duck 
clubs can include the production of a cash crop or 
livestock grazing in their operations. In the fall, at a 
time planned to coincide with the arrival of the mi- 
grating birds, much of the available non-wetted land 
IS flooded to increase its attractiveness to the birds. 
Due to the time of year, evapotranspiration losses 
are assumed to be minimal. 

Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, and Hydropower 
Instream Water Uses 

Instream water uses relate directly to natural 
stream channels and their associated riparian vegeta- 
tion. The major uses in this category are fish, wildlife, 
recreation, and hydroelectric energy generation. Wa- 
ter is required to support such uses, but, with the 
exception of riparian habitat, these uses do not sig- 
nificantly deplete streamflow. They may, however, 
compete with other potential uses that require diver- 
sion from the stream. The water that riparian vegeta- 
tion takes up through evapotranspiration represents 
a streamflow depletion that is accounted for in the 
determination of water supply; therefore, this use is 
not included in the water use tabulations in this re- 
port. 

Water is of such fundamental importance to fish, 
wildlife, and recreation that these resources and ac- 
tivities are found in almost all water environments. 
Water flowing in streams bordered by vegetation 
creates one of the most attractive and productive 
settings for fish, wildlife, and recreation. When water 
is impounded in reservoirs, it also attracts numerous 
users of these resources. In fact, some of California's 
major producers of water recreation benefits are its 
large water supply reservoirs. 

Water conveyance facilities are also attractive to 
recreationists and can provide habitat for fish and 
wildlife. No large aqueduct system in California is 
without a fishing access program, and several aque- 
duct rights-of-way have been improved to provide 
safe routes for bicycle nding and hiking. 



'^^W* 



58 



Protection of Instream Water Uses. The State 
Constitution and the State Water Code both recog- 
nize that fish, wildlife, and recreation are beneficial 
uses of water. The Water Code specifies that these 
uses be considered before issuing water right per- 
mits or making water quality control and other ad- 
ministrative decisions that could adversely affect 
fish, wildlife, and recreation. The State Fish and 
Game Code declares that protection and conserva- 
tion of fish and wildlife resources are of utmost pub- 
lic interest, and recognizes the importance of 
commercial and sport uses, as well as esthetic, scien- 
tific, and educational uses. 

State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts 
have been enacted to control development and pro- 
tect instream uses and other environmental uses. 
The rivers covered under these acts are depicted on 
Plate 1. 

Water of adequate quality that is released in suffi- 
cient quantity and at the proper time is critically im- 
portant to streamflow for fish, wildlife, and riparian 
vegetation. Until recently, the importance of main- 
taining adequate streamflows and water quality for 
fish and wildlife was often not given sufficient recog- 
nition. Even when these factors were considered, the 
effort sometimes failed because of inadequate 
knowledge of the ecosystem. The Department of 
Fish and Game has negotiated streamflow agree- 
ments throughout the State. Most have been north of 
Bakersfield in the Sierra Nevada and the Coast 
Range (Figure 17). The agreements reflect the water 
that has been specifically allocated by the State Wa- 
ter Resources Control Board and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to instream and offstream 
water needs, as determined by both agencies at the 
time the permit terms are established. The stream- 
flow allocations have often proved to be less than the 
amount necessary to maintain fish life at preproject 
levels. This is particularly true for permits issued 
before 1960, which were established when less 
weight was given to instream uses and less was 
known about instream requirements. However, in 
some cases, hatcheries are provided to mitigate the 
loss of habitat. 

Hydropower Projects. Since 1980, there has 
been a rush to file for development of small hydro- 
power generation facilities throughout the country, 
particularly in California. This activity is motivated 
largely by changes in federal law that require electric 
utilities to purchase power from small power produc- 
ers at rates equal to the cost of the most expensive 
power the utility produces or obtains from other 
sources (avoided cost). In California, this purchase 
rate is based primarily on the cost of burning import- 
ed oil to generate electricity; thus the potential rate 
of return for small hydropower investors is great. In 
addition, recent changes in federal tax laws encour- 
age investment in small hydropower facilities. Most 
of the proposed projects in California are small 



Figure 18. NUMBER OF FERC NOTICES 
AND WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONS 
FOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS 
SINCE JANUARY 1980 



600 



500- 



400- 



< 

o 



300- 



< 

_j 



3 
O 



200- 



100- 



- 




il II II II 
1982 



facilities with a capacity of 5 megawatts or less. 

Small hydropower proposals come in the form of 
applications for State water rights permits and Fed- 
eral Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permits. 
These applications increased dramatically in 1981. 
Figure 18 shows the frequency of filing for both per- 
mits since January 1980. The large number of applica- 
tions submitted for these projects (generally five 
megawatts or less) also spawned considerable inter- 
est in examining their potential environmental im- 



59 



pacts. The Department of Fish and Ganne and others 
have expressed concern regarding cumulative im- 
pacts of construction and operation that would be 
caused by many small hydropower projects — par- 
ticularly impairment of flows in sections of streams, 
changes in stream hydrology caused by changes in 
the time and duration of flow, and sharp reductions 
in flows needed to flush and otherwise maintain grav- 
els. Proposals for projects on river systems that sup- 
port anadromous fisheries have raised the most 
questions. 

Net Water Use 

Both the derivation of net water use and the dis- 
tinction between net water use and applied water 
are important in evaluating various aspects of water 
use. To understand the impact of applied water for 
the various uses discussed in the preceding sections 
on existing water supplies, the substantial amount of 
reuse and depletions that take place in most situa- 
tions must be considered. This is important not only 
in comprehending how present needs are being sat- 
isfied, but also the impact that increasing the effi- 
ciency of water use (water conservation) may have 
on the amount of water supply needed. 

The basic water supply information available for 
analysis is expressed in terms of streamflow. stream 
diversion, yield of surface water reservoirs, ground 
water pumping, and ground water levels. The expres- 
sion of water use that most directly relates to these 
data elements has been termed "net water use." The 
purpose of computing net water use is to determine 
the amount of water supply needed in an area to 
support ail uses in that area — residential, agricultural, 
industrial, and others. Net water use in an area is the 
sum of the water depletions within the area, plus 
outflow from the area. Water depletions include 
crop ETAW (evapotranspiration of applied water), 
evapotranspiration and evaporation of water as- 
sociated with the water supply and drainage sys- 
tems, and other irrecoverable losses, including water 
percolating to unusable ground water. 

The quantity of outflow from an area is a function 
of the water distribution system and on-farm irriga- 
tion practices in the area. Except where the outflow 
goes into a salt sink (such as the ocean), it usually 
constitutes a part of the water supply to downstream 
users. Tightening of water distribution system opera- 
tions and increased on-farm irrigation efficiency may 
reduce outflow and total net water use for the area; 
however, in many notable cases in California, this 
does not reduce the total quantity of net water sup- 
ply needed because equivalent quantities from other 
sources are required to replace the reduced outflow 
that no longer supplies downstream users. However, 
energy savings, water quality improvements, and in- 
stream flow increases may occur. Generally speak- 



ing, net water use is less than total applied water by 
the amount of excess applied water that is reused 
within the area. This is demonstrated m Figures 19 
and 20. 

In Figure 19. total applied water is the sum of the 
water (157 units) applied to Farms "A" and "B". to 
the wildlife area, and that which is delivered to the 
city. The total amount of water reused (57 units) 
consists of (1) surface return flows (45 units) from 
Farm "A", the wildlife area, and the city; and (2) the 
pumping of water that has percolated to ground wa- 
ter (12 units) from Farm "A" and the city. The result- 
ant net water use in this example is 100 units (157 
units of total applied waterless 57 units of total water 
reused). The 10 units of outflow from the service 
area will be part of a prime water supply to a down- 
stream user. 

An effect of agricultural water conservation (in- 
creased on-farm irrigation efficiency) can be ob- 
served by comparing Figures 19 and 20. In Figure 19, 
the irrigation efficiency of Farm "A" is 61 percent 
and of Farm "B" is 69 percent, if, through conserva- 
tion efforts, both farms were to increase their irriga- 
tion efficiencies to 75 percent, then the results would 
be as shown in Figure 20. Farms "A" and "B" would 
apply 73 and 29 units of water, respectively, for a total 
of 102 units (down from the 122 total units they ap- 
plied in Figure 19). The 97 units of water diverted 
from the river (net water supply) is in balance with 
the 97 units of the net water use. This compares to 
the 100 units of diversion and the 100 units of net use 
shown in Figure 19. Net depletion of river flow down- 
stream from the return flow site would be the same 
in both examples, 90 units. A major benefit would be 
the additional 3 units of water in the river between 
the diversion and return flow sites. To keep the max- 
imum amount of water in the river for instream bene- 
fits (without reducing offstream benefits), the return 
flow from Farm "B" would be only the water required 
to leach salts from the soil. 

These examples also demonstrate that reductions 
in quantities of on-farm applied water may increase 
farm irrigation efficiency, but they do not necessarily 
save any water, viewed from a service area or hy- 
drologic area standpoint. All that might differ is the 
routing of water through or around a given service 
area. However, in some cases, a portion of the return 
flow moves into a saline dram or percolates to salty 
or otherwise unusable ground water basins, thus 
eliminating or greatly reducing opportunities for 
reuse. 

Although greatly simplified, the foregoing discus- 
sion illustrates situations typical of most Hydrologic 
Study Areas and their subunits in California. One sig- 
nificant item has been omitted from the examples — 
irrecoverable losses from the water distribution sys- 
tem. These consist of losses experienced in bringing 



60 



Figure 19. DERIVATION OF 
NET WATER USE 



Figure 20. EFFECT OF IMPROVED 
IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY ON 
NET WATER USE 



50p UNITS 

(<<^^ 



^UNITS 



DIVERSION TO SERVICE 
r-^ AREA 100 UNITS 

I EVAPOTHANSPIRATION I 1 

OF APPLIED WATER | ' 



r 



Applied Water 
90 Units 
/ FARM 'A' _, 

Iff .Ell. 5 |4 X 100.61%' 



90 



DEEP PERCOLATION 
10 UNITS 



EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 

OF APPLIED WATER 

3 UNITS 




Applied Water 10 Units 



RETURN FLOW 

2 5 UNITS 



EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 

OF APPLIED WATER 

10 UNITS 



WILDLIFE AREA 



iDEEP PERCOLATION 
UNITS 



EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 

OF APPLIED WATER 

22 UNITS 




TREATED 
RETURN FLOW 

I 5 UNITS 



GROUND WATER 

PUMPAGE 

12 UNITS 



Applied Water 
5 + 15+ 12 = 32 Units 

FARM "B" 
Irr.EII.- II X 100»69% 



OUTFLOW FROM 
SERVICE AREA 

10 UNITS 




Reuseable in Downstream Service Area 



NET WATER USE 



Farm *A' 
Wildhle Area 
Cilv 
Farm "B* 



- 90 Units 

- 25 Unit! 

- 10 Units 
• 32 Units 



Total Applied 


- 157 Units 


Minus reuse 


- 57 Units 


Within Service Area 





Service Area 
Net Water Use 



500 UNITS 




DIVERSION TO SERVICE 
97 UNITS 



EVAPOTR 
OF APP 

55 UNITS 



lANSPIRATION I 1 ''' '"^'^ - 
LIED WATER I I 



BYPASS 



/ 



/Applied Water 
' 73 Units 

FARM 'A" 



Irr.EII. I ^ X 100.75X 



DEEP PERCOLATION 
10 UNITS 



EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 

OF APPLIED WATER 

3 UNITS 



Applied Water 10 Units 



RETURN FLOW 

8 UNITS 



EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 

OF APPLIED WATER 

10 UNITS 



WILDLIFE AREA 



EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 

OF APPLIED WATER 

22 UNITS 




TREATED 
RETURN FLOW 

5 UNITS 



GROUND WATER 
PUMPAGE 
"" \ 12 UNITS 

Applied Water * 
5+12+ 12 = 29 Units 

FARM 'B' 



OUTFLOW FROM 
SERVICE AREA 

7 UNITS 




Reuseable In Downstream Service Area 



NET WATER USE 



Farm 'A' 


- 73 Units 


Wildllte Area 


- 22 Units 


City 


- 10 Units 


Farm *B' 


- 29 Units 


Total Applied 


134 Units 


Minus reuse 


- 37 Units 


Within Service Area 




Service Area 




Net Water Use 


97 Units 



61 



the water to the point of use and losses within the 
area by evaporation from water surfaces and evapo- 
transpiration by natural vegetation growing along 
ditch banks and fringes of fields. These losses add to 
net water use for the area. Part of the total irrecover- 
able losses from the distribution system is composed 
of losses experienced in conveying water from one 
study area to another. In the tables in this report that 
present agricultural, urban, and other net water use, 
these additional losses are identified as "conveyance 
losses." 

The handling of waste water reclamation repre- 
sents a modification of procedures generally em- 
ployed in computing other types of reuse. In the 
examples in Figures 19 and 20. treated waste water 
was considered as reuse of a return flow (incidental 
reclamation) that was used by Farm "B". However, 
deliberately reclaimed municipal and industrial 
waste water for a specific purpose would be consid- 
ered as a new supply, rather than reuse. For example, 
if Farm "B" had a contract with the city for the 5 units 
of reclaimed water, this water would be counted as 
a new supply and the 5 units of reclaimed water 
would be added to the 100 units of net water supply, 
giving a total of 105 units. The 5 units would also be 
subtracted from the total reuse of 57 units (Figure 
19). leaving instead 52 units of reuse. 

Net water use in an area is normally somewhat less 
than total applied water; however, where convey- 
ance losses are relatively large and reuse is small, net 
water use can exceed applied water. The Colorado 
River HSA is one such example. Conveyance losses 
from the All-Amencan Canal occur before the water 
in transit reaches the service areas in the Imperial 
and Coachella Valleys and these are lost to the sys- 
tem: reuse of irrigation water in this region is limited 
because excess applied water either percolates to 
saline ground water or runs off into drainage ditches, 
carrying highly saline water from subsurface drain- 
age systems. In this region, applied water in 1980 was 
3,650,000 acre-feet, including the reuse of 90,000 acre- 
feet. Conveyance losses were 540,000 acre-feet. This 
resulted in a net water use of 4,100,000 acre-feet. 

Net water use by Hydrologic Study Areas is shown 
in tables in the "Statewide Hydrologic Balance" sec- 
tion of this chapter. 

Present Sources of Supply 

In an average water year, aoout 75 percent of Cali- 
fornia's present net water use is met from regulated 
surface water supplies and direct diversion from 
streams. An extensive network of local. State, and 
federal storage reservoirs provides a significant de- 
gree of regulation on most streams in the Central 
Valley and those coastal regions that have been high- 
ly developed. At present, there are 450 reservoirs in 
California having a storage capacity of 1,000 acre- 



feet or greater. The sources and amounts of surface 
and ground water being used at the current (1980) 
level of development are identified on a statewide 
basis and by HSAs under "Statewide Hydrologic Bal- 
ance" later in this chapter. Major surface water sup- 
ply and conveyance facilities are shown in Figure 21 
and listed in Tables 9 and 10. 

Generally speaking, water supplies are available 
for present needs in all areas of the State, except in 
periods of drought. In some local areas, a full irriga- 
tion supply is not available in years of below-normal 
rainfall. Some foothill and coastal communities also 
experience shortages during these periods. Howev- 
er, present needs in some areas are being met by 
overdrafting the ground water reservoirs. The aver- 
age rate of overdrafting of ground water supplies 
under 1980 conditions of development is 1.8 million 
acre-feet per year. This rate has been as high as 2.2 
million acre-feet (1972), but, with the use of SWP 
surplus supplies, when available, the rate has been 
reduced. 



IDENTIFICATION OF OWNERS OF 


RESERVOIRS AND AQUEDUCTS 


LISTED IN TABLES 9 & 10 


DWR 


California Department of Water 




Resources 


EBMUD 


East Bay Municipal Utility District 


HSVID 


Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District 


KCWA 


Kern County Water Agency 


LADWP 


Los Angeles Department of Water and 




Power 


MCFCWCD 


Monterey County Flood Control and 




Water Conservation District 


MID 


Merced Irrigation District 


MWD 


Metropolitan Water Distict of Southern 




California 


OID-SSJID 


Oakdale Irrigation District — South San 




Joaquin Irrigation District 


OWID 


Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District 


PCWA 


Placer County Water Agency 


PGandE 


Pacific Gas and Electric Company 


SCE 


Southern California Edison 


SCVWD 


Santa Clara Valley Water District 


SD 


City of San Diego 


SF 


City and County of San Francisco 


SMUD 


Sacramento Municipal Utility District 


SSWD 


South Sutter Water Distnct 


TID-MID 


Turlock Irrigation District — Modesto 




Irrigation District 


USCE 


U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 


USER 


U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 


UWCD 


United Water Conservation District 


VID 


Vista Irrigation District 


YCFCWCD 


Yolo County Flood Control and Water 




Conservation District 


YCWA 


Yuba County Water Agency 



62 



TABLE 9 

STATISTICS FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS SHOWN 

ON FIGURE 21' 



Reservoir (Dam) 



Clear Lake 

Tahoe 

Clear Lake 

Huntington Lake 

Big Sage 

Pillsbury 

Hetch Hetchy 

Henshaw 

Calaveras 

Shaver 

Almanor 

Bucks 

Pardee 

Salt Springs 

Havasu (Parker) 

Mathews 

Crowley , 

San Vicente , 

Shasta , 

Millerton (Fnant) 

Anderson 

Isabella 

Cachuma 

Edison 

Pine Flat 

Piru 

Folsom 

Lloyd 

Beardsley 

Nacimiento 

Berryessa 

Twitchell 

Wishon 

Casitas 

Little Grass Valley ... 

Success 

Clair Engie (Trinity) 
Kaweah (Terminus)., 

Black Butte 

Camp Far West 

Union Valley 

Camanche 

Whiskeytown 



HSA 



NC 

NL 

SB 

SJ 

SB 

NC 

SJ 

SD 

SF 

SJ 

SB 

SB 

SJ 

SJ 

CR 

SA 

SL 

SD 

SB 

SJ 

SF 

TL 

cc 

SJ 
TL 
LA 
SB 
SJ 
SJ 

cc 

SB 
CC 
TL 
LA 
SB 
TL 
NC 
TL 
SB 
SB 
SB 
SJ 
SB 



Area 



Acres 



24,800 

122,000 

43,000 

1,440 

5,270 

2,000 

1,960 

6,000 

1,450 

2,180 

28,260 

1,830 

2,130 

920 

20,400 

2,750 

5,280 

1,070 

29,500 

4,900 

980 

11,400 

3,090 

1.890 

5,970 

1,240 

11,450 

1,760 

650 

5,370 

20,700 

3,670 

1,000 

2,720 

1,430 

2,400 

16,400 

1,940 

4,560 

2.680 

2,869 

7,700 

3,200 



Capacity 



Acre-feet 



527,000 

745,000 

420.000' 

89.000 

77,000 

94,000 

360,000 

204,000 

100,000 

135.000 

442,000' 

103.000 

210,000 

139.000 

648,000 

182,000 

184,000 

90,000 

4,552,000 
520,000 
91,000 
570,000 
205,000 
125,000 

1,000,000 
100,000 

1.010,000 

268.000 

98,000 

350,000 

1,600,000 

240,000 

128,000 

254,000 

93,000 

82,000 

2,448,000 
150,000 
160,000 
103,000 
271,000 
431,000 
241,000 



Owner ^ 



USBR 

USBR 

YCFCWCD 

SCE 

HSVID 

PGandE 

SF 

VID 

SF 

SCE 

PGandE 

PGandE 

EBMUD 

PGandE 

USBR 

MWD 

LADWP 

SD 

USBR 

USBR 

SCVWD 

USCE 

USBR 

SCE 

USCE 

UWCD 

USBR 

SF 

OID-SSJID 

MCFCWCD 

USBR 

USBR 

PGandE 

USBR 

OWID 

USCE 

USBR 

USCE 

USCE 

SSWD 

SMUD 

EBMUD 

USBR 



Year 
Completed 



1910 

1913 

1914 

1917 

1921 

1921 

1923 

1923 

1925 

1927 

1927 

1928 

1929 

1931 

1938 

1938 

1941 

1943 

1945 

1947 

1950 

1953 

1953 

1954 

1954 

1955 

1956 

1956 

1957 

1957 

1957 

1958 

1958 

1959 

1961 

1961 

1962 

1962 

1963 

1963 

1963 

1963 

1963 



75.000 acre-feet or larger. 

Above natural outlet 

See separate list of identification of owners 

Under Construction. 



(TABLE 9 continues on Page 66) 



63 






/ 



\ 



o / 



.-"t 



\ 



\ 



Alturas 



\ 






\ 






/^ 



f-' 



\ 



\ 



\ 



/ 



/ 




Cl§ii EfH Lttt 



-1* 



\ 

^.x 



Redding 



Litllt erastVtlHf fitl 



Eureka 







»«<(»sj 2:-'"»""' 






V/orA 



P^Ui/M Vkl/t/ f!« 



£?■ 






/Sun 
/>es mSearasle/ Res 



£!!■ P.-'l 'tl ^ 



,.,,.,. s S^ .,., 







San Francisco 



Hilksltr Cmtl 



tocimitmit ffes- 



FIGURE 21. MAJOR STORAGE RESERVOIRS 



64 



Legend 



LOCAL PROJECTS 



STATE WATER PROJECT 



FEDERAL PROJECTS 



Xx-^. 



DASHED LINES DELINEATE AUTHORIZED 
FACILITIES NOT VET CONSTRUCTED 



NEVADA 




iopei Res 



'achiitna Res 



Sa"^^ R'^f 




AND CONVEYANCE FACILITIES 



EDITION OF 1982 



65 



TABLE 9— Continued 
STATISTICS FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS SHOWN 

ON FIGURE 21 ' 



Reservoir (Dam) 

Loon Lake 

French Meadows 

San Antonio 

Hell Hole 

Davis (Grizzly Valley) 

San Luis 

McClure (New Exchequer) . 

Oroville 

New Bullards Bar 

Stampede 

Mojave 

New Don Pedro 

Silverwood (Cedar Springs) 

Castaic 

Perns 

Pyramid 

Indian Valley 

Buchanan 

Hidden 

New Melones 

Auburn 

Sonoma (Warm Springs) 

Dutch Gulch 

Tehama 



HSA 



Area 



Acres 



Capacity 



Acre-feet 



Owner ' 



Year 
Completed 



SB 
SB 
CC 
SB 
SB 
SJ 
SJ 
SB 
SB 
NL 
SL 
SJ 
SL 
LA 
SA 
LA 
SB 
SJ 
SJ 
SJ 
SB 
NC 
SB 
SB 



1.450 
1.420 
5.720 
1.250 
4.000 

12.700 
7,130 

15,800 
4.810 
3,440 
1,980 

12,960 
980 
2,240 
2,320 
1.360 
4.000 
1.780 
1.570 

12.500 

10.400 
3.600 

11.200 

10.200 



77,000 

134.000 

348.000 

208.000 

84.000 

2.039,000 

1,026.000 

3.538,000 

970.000 

225,000 

90,000 

2.030.000 

75.000 

324,000 

131,000 

171,000 

300.000 

150.000 

90,000 

2.400.000 

2.326,000 

381,000 

900,000 

700,000 



SMUD 

PCWA 

MCFCWCD 

PCWA 

DWR 

DWR-USBR 

MID 

DWR 

YCWA 

USCE 

USCE 

TID-MID 

DWR 

DWR 

DWR 

DWR 

YCFCWCD 

USCE 

USCE 

USCE 

USBR 

USCE 

USCE 

USCE 



1963 
1965 
1965 
1966 
1966 
1967 
1967 
1968 
1970 
1970 
1971 
1971 
1971 
1973 
1973 
1973 
1976 
1979 
1979 
1979 

uc- 

U.C. 
Authorized 
Authorized 



' 75.000 acre-feet or larger 
Above natural outlet 



See separate list of identification of owners. 
* Under Construction. 



TABLE 10 
STATISTICS FOR AQUEDUCTS SHOWN ON FIGURE 21 



Name 



Capacity'' 



Cubic 
feet 
per 

second 



Length 



Miles 



Owner' 



Initial 

Year 

of 

Operation 



Los Angeles 

Mokelumne River 

Hetch Hetchy 

All American 

Contra Costa 

Colorado River 

Friant-Kern 

Coachella 

San Diego No. 1 

Delta-Mendota 

Madera 

Putah South 

Santa Rosa-Sonoma 

San Diego No. 2 

Corning 

Petaluma 

Tehama-Colusa 

South Bay 

North Bay 

California 

Folsom South 

Cross Valley 



710 

590 

460 

15.100 

350 

1.600 

4.000 

2.500 

200 

4.600 

1.000 

960 

62 

1.000 

500 

16 

2.530 

360 

46 

13.100 

3.500 

740 



244 
90 

152 
80 
48 

242 

152 

123 
71 

116 
36 
35 
31 
93 
21 
26 

113 
43 
26 

444 
27 
20 



LAPWP 

EBMUD 

SF 

USBR 

USBR 

MWD 

USBR 

USBR 

SD 

USBR 

USBR 

USBR 

SCWA 

SD 

USBR 

SCWA 

USBR 

DWR 

DWR 

DWR 

USBR 

KCWA 



1913 

1929 

1934 

1938 

1940 

1941 

1944 

1947 

1947 

1951 

1952 

1957 

1959 

1960 

1960 

1961 

1961' 

1965 

1968' 

1972' 

1973' 

1975 



' A number of major irrigation canals in tfie Central Valley, some as large as tfiose sfiown. could not be included on tfie figure because 
of tf^e tack of space. 
Initial reach only for most irrigation canals. Interim tacililieS- 

See separate list of identification of owners. To Southern California. 

Tehama and Glenn Counties. Reaches 1 and 2. 



66 



Figure 22. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE STATE WATER PROJECT 
AND THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 




» 
« 



c 
o 

« 

> 



L egend 

— — Stat« Water Project 

—— Central Valley Project 

~~ Joint Use Facilities 

PH Powerplant 

PP Pumping Plant 

PG Pump-generating Plant 

Authorized aqueducts are stiown as dashed lines 



Cimlrn Co.s'Ki C> 

San Francisco(*\\ 

South Bay Aqueduct- 



\ 



LAKE DEL VALLE' 

I 

Santa Ctani Canal 



Hollister Cunduii 

sai/luis res.- 

Joint Use 



MILURTOM LAKe 



Fn'ont K,H' 



Pleasant VaUi^v Canal 

/ 9 % 
o° (^^ V Bakersfield 

)bispo ioo 11 

°0 13 14 




San Luis 



N 



12 

16 '"O" 15 

PYRAMID LAKE^ 
17A) 
CASTAIC LAKE 

Los Angeles* 



18 



\ 



4000 



3000 



2000 



1000 



SWP Aqueduct Profile 

Key 



1 EDWARD HYATT PG 

2 THERMALITO PG 

3 H BANKS DELTA PP 

4 SOUTH BAY PP 

5 DEL VALLE PP 

6 SAN LUIS PG 

7 DOS AMIGOS PP 

8 LAS PERILLAS PP 

9 BADGER HILL PP 
10 BUENA VISTA PP 



*y. ^i o^ 



11 WHEELER RIDGE PP 

12 WIND GAP PP 

13 EOMONSTON PP 

14 OSO PP 

15 ALAMO PH 

16 WILLIAM E WARNE PH 

17 CASTAIC PH 

18 PEARBLOSSOM PP 

19 DEVIL CANYON PH 




SILVERWOOD LAKE 
^19 
\ 

(7 LAKe FERRIS 



/ 



\ 



15 
16^ 



»13 




17 






■^10 



012 
'11 



67 



The Federal Central Valley Project 

The Central Valley Project (CVP) was conceived as a 
plan to correct the problems of natural maldistribution of 
water supply and needs in the great Central Valley of Cali- 
fornia. It was apparent as early as the 1920s that the natural 
water supply of the southern San Joaquin Valley was 
inadequate to meet the needs of this fertile area. 

Planning and Implementation 

In 1921, the State Legislature authorized the State's wa- 
ter officials, then in the Department of Public Works, to 
conduct a statewide water resources investigation. The 
Department made several reports to the State Legislature 
during the next 10 years, and in 1931 submitted a report on 
the "State Water Plan," The plan provided for a transfer of 
surplus water from the northern to the southern portion of 
the Central Valley and served as the basis for the present 
federal Central Valley Project. 

In 1933, the Legislature passed the State Central Valley 
Project Act to implement the CVP, the initial feature of the 
State Water Plan. In addition to water storage and convey- 
ance features, the act included a provision for public con- 
struction of both generating plants and transmission lines. 
As a result of a referendum campaign, the proposal was 
then placed before the voters of the State m a special 
election held in December 1933, and the act authorizing the 
CVP obtained statewide approval by a narrow majority. 
State funds to begin construction could not be obtained, 
however, because the nationwide economic depression 
made the revenue bonds unmarketable. Consequently, ar- 
rangements were made for federal authorization and fi- 
nancing, first administratively, and later under the Rivers 
and Harbor Act of 1937. Congress authorized the project 
for construction by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
(USSR) to improve navigation, regulate the flows of the 
San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, control floods, store 
water, reclaim arid and semiarid lands, and generate elec- 
tric energy. 

The authorizing act declared that the dams and reser- 
voirs "shall be used first for river regulation, navigation and 
flood control; second for irrigation and domestic uses; and 
third for power." Salinity control in the Delta was not spe- 
cifically listed as a project purpose; development of facili- 
ties and water supplies for recreation, fish, and wildlife 
have been included in subsequent reauthorizations of the 
CVP. 

Principal Features and Operation 

USBR operates the CVP principally to transport water 
from the Sacramento, Trinity, American, and San Joaquin 
River Basins to the water-deficient areas of the Sacra- 
mento and San Joaquin Valleys. The key water supply fea- 
ture IS Shasta Reservoir on the Sacramento River. Water 
stored here is first used to generate power — as at most 
CVP reservoirs — and then flows south in the natural chan- 
nel of the Sacramento River toward the Delta. Diversions 
from the Trinity Division (Clair Engle Lake) also flow in the 
Sacramento River to the Delta. Water stored by the Friant 
Division IS transported to the Tulare Lake Basin by the 
Friant-Kern Canal and to the San Joaquin Basin by the 
Madera Canal. 

At Red Bluff, a diversion dam diverts water from the 
Sacramento River to the Corning Canal and the Tehama- 



Colusa Canal to irrigate lands in Tehama. Glenn, and Co- 
lusa Counties, and northern Yolo County. In addition, nu- 
merous CVP water users divert their supply directly from 
the Sacramento River. 

American River water is stored in Folsom Lake for use in 
the Folsom-South service area and for release to the Delta. 
Below Folsom Dam, Nimbus Dam acts as an afterbay, 
reregulating the releases for power, and directs water into 
the Folsom-South Canal to provide cooling water for Ran- 
cho Seco power plant. Completion of the canal to provide 
water to San Joaquin County has been deferred, pending 
resolution of problems concerning Auburn Dam and the 
lower American River. 

South of Sacramento, the Delta Cross Channel facilitates 
the flow of water from the Sacramento River across the 
Delta to the Rock Slough Intake of the Contra Costa Canal 
and to the export pumps near Tracy, while improving the 
quality of irrigation supplies m the central Delta. 

From Rock Slough in the southern Delta, the CVP sup- 
plies water to the Contra Costa Canal, the first unit of the 
CVP to become operational (1940). This canal extends 
west 48 miles to the vicinity of Martinez, providing water 
for municipal, industrial, and irrigation uses. 

The Tracy Pumping Plant lifts as much as 4,600 cubic feet 
per second 197 feet into the Delta-Mendota Canal, which 
delivers water to the lower San Joaquin Valley as far as 1 17 
miles south, terminating at the San Joaquin River at the 
Mendota Pool. There it replaces a portion of the natural 
flows of the San Joaquin River that are stored by Friant 
Dam (Millerton Lake) in the Sierra Nevada foothills 
northeast of Fresno. Water from Millerton Lake is distribut- 
ed north and south, respectively, through the Madera and 
Fnant-Kern Canals. 

About 60 miles south of the Delta, between the Delta and 
the Mendota Pool, is the federal-State, joint-use San Luis 
Dam and Reservoir, an offstream storage facility of the 
CVP and the SWP. Water diverted from the Delta by both 
the Delta-Mendota Canal (CVP) and the California Aque- 
duct (SWP) IS pumped into San Luis Reservoir during the 
winter and early spring for release to service areas during 
the summer and fall. 

The most recent addition to the CVP (1979) is New Me- 
lones Dam and Reservoir on the Stanislaus River. Contro- 
versy surrounding this project has resulted in two 
statewide initiatives. Proposition 17 m 1974 and Proposi- 
tion 13 in 1982, along with several legal actions. The project 
was constructed by the Corps of Engineers and has been 
turned over to USBR for operation. 

New Melones Reservoir provides additional flood con- 
trol protection and releases for downstream fishery pur- 
poses, water quality control, downstream water rights, 
power generation, recreation, and a water supply for irriga- 
tion and municipal and industrial uses. In March 1983, the 
State Water Resources Control Board lifted the restric- 
tions it had previously placed on the filling of New Melones 
Reservoir, permitting the full storage of water for power 
generation and consumptive use. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is well advanced in pursuing 
water service contracts for interim and firm water supplies 
with the Tuolumne Regional Water District, the Central 
San Joaquin Water Conservation District, and the Stock- 
ton-East Water District. It is expected that the water serv- 



68 



ice contracts wi 
of 1983. 



have been approved and executed m fal 



The San Felipe Division of the CVP is presently under 
construction. By pumped diversions from San Luis 
Reservoir via the Pacheco tunnel, service will be provided 
to parts of the Santa Clara Valley and Santa Clara and San 
Benito Counties, and possibly later to Santa Cruz and Mon- 
terey Counties. 

Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts 

The development and growth of the Central Valley 
Project has stimulated economic and social growth 
throughout California's Central Valley — especially in the 
San Joaquin Valley. Communities have developed in some 
of the new farming areas. Several San Joaquin Valley coun- 
ties are among the top counties in the nation in value of 
farm products — due to farming operations made possible 
by CVP and other water supplies. 

In 1982, nearly 2.7 million acres of farmland in the Central 
Valley received irrigation water service from the CVP. This 
service contributed to the production of approximately 
$3 billion in gross crop receipts at the farm, which in turn 
stimulated an estimated S3-$4 billion in additional econom- 
ic activity elsewhere in California and the nation. 

Californians spend millions of "recreation days" each 
year enjoying the boating, fishing, swimming, picnicking, 
and other outdoor recreation opportunities afforded by 
CVP facilities. While many of these environmental benefits 
represent improvement over previous opportunities, not all 
CVP environmental impacts have been beneficial. Effects 
unrecognized at the time of planning and construction 
have harmed fish and wildlife. Red Bluff Diversion Dam has 
been implicated m a variety of negative impacts on anadro- 
mous fish in the upper Sacramento River. The Tehama- 
Colusa Canal Fish Facilties were constructed as mitigation 
for the dam. The fish facilities slightly exceed the original 
mitigation requirements, but there are additional problems 
that were not anticipated when the dam was built. Pres- 
ently, USBR is funding two separate programs to develop 
and implement solutions to the fish problems at the dam 
and fish facilities. The unfenced, concrete-lined Tehama- 
Colusa Canal is also a hazard to wildlife, claiming as many 
as 300 deer per year by drowning as they attempt to cross 
the canal. Friant Dam was completed in June 1944, without 
mitigation provisions for salmon. Since then, salmon runs 
on the San Joaquin River have been depressed. 

Trinity Dam blocks anadromous salmon and steelhead 
from reaching the upper part of the Trinity River. The Trin- 
ity Hatchery was built to offset the loss of habitat upstream 
from the dam. A minimum flow release was agreed upon, 
but the release proved inadequate to prevent degradation 
of the downstream habitat. USBR was the lead agency for 
a multi-agency investigation of fish problems in the Trinity 
River, and a multi-year study of a variety of solutions, in- 
cluding increased streamflow releases, has been 
proposed. 

Financing and Repayment 

Financing of the CVP facilities has its roots in federal 
reclamation laws and policies. Under existing laws and 
current policies, capital and operation and maintenance 
costs are allocated to and repaid by those who benefit 



from the project. Costs allocated to flood control and navi- 
gation are considered to benefit the nation and are repaid 
from the federal treasury. Costs allocated to recreation, 
fish, and wildlife enhancement are borne by both federal 
and nonfederal interests. Costs allocated to the municipal 
and industrial water supply and commercial power pur- 
poses are repaid with interest by the municipal and indus- 
trial and power contractors. Costs allocated to irrigation 
are repaid without interest by the CVP irrigation contrac- 
tors, with provisions for financial assistance from other 
water and power beneficiaries whenever the cost of irriga- 
tion water service exceeds the irrigator's repayment abili- 
ty- 

CVP water and power users are scheduled to repay 
about 85 percent of the authorized project costs, inasmuch 
as the water and power customers will realize the largest 
portion of the project benefits. The State of California will 
contribute an amount equal to about 3 percent of the au- 
thorized capital cost as payment of its share of the cost of 
the joint federal-State San Luis facilities. Local entities will 
repay an amount equal to less than 1 percent of the total 
project cost as their share of local recreation, fish, and 
wildlife enhancement. The remaining 11 percent will be 
repaid by the federal government as its contribution to- 
ward flood control, navigation, and nonreimbursable recre- 
ation, fish, and wildlife. 

Figure 23a. CVP DELIVERIES ^ 
FOR THE PERIOD 1951-1980 



4- 



Jty For reimbursement 



UJ 

u. 

' 3 

c 

U 

< 

CO 



:; 2- 



1- 



J] 






1951 1955 



— n — 

1960 



— n — 
1965 



— n — 

1970 



I I 
1975 1980 



69 



YEARS 



CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT FEATURES 



Reservoir (Dam) 

Shasta Lake 

Clair Engle Lake (Trinity) . 

Lewiston Lake 

Whiskeytown Lake 

Spring Creek Debris 

Keswick 

Red Bluff Diversion 

Black Butte ' 

Jenkinson Lake (Sly Park) 
Folsom Lake 

Lake Natonna (Nimbus) 

Contra Loma 

San Luis^ 

O'Neill (San Luis Forebay) 
Los Banos' 

Little Panoche' 

Millerton Lake (Friant) 

New Melones 

Sugar Pine 



Capacity 



Acre- 
feet 



4.552,000 

2.448,000 

14,600 

241,000 

5,900 

23,800 

3,900 

160,000 

41,000 

1,010,000 

8,800 

2,100 

2,038,800 

56,400 

34,600 

5,600 

520,500 

2,400,000 

7,000 



Surface 
Area 



Acres 



Purpose ' 



29,740 

16.535 

800 

3,220 

87 

640 

530 

4,560 

650 

11,450 

540 

81 

12,700 

2,250 

470 

188 

4,900 

12.500 

142 



W, P, F, R 
W, P, R 
W, P 
W, P, R 
D 

P. S 

W 

W, F, R 

W. R 

W, P, F, R 

P. S 
R, S 
S, R, P 
S 
D 



D 

W, 

W, 



F. R 
F, R 



W. R 



Year 
Compieted 



1945 
1962 
1963 
1963 
1963 

1950 
1964 
1963 
1955 
1956 

1955 
1967 
1967 
1967 
1965 

1966 
1942 
1979 
1982 





Capacity 


Length 




Aqueduct 


Cubic 
feet 
per 

second 


Miies 


Year 
Compieted 


Corning 


500 
3.500 

350 
4.600 

13,100 
1.000 
4.000 
2.530 


21 
27 
48 
116 

101 
36 
151 
113 


1959 


Folsom South . 


1973' 


Contra Costa ^ 


1948 


Delta-Mendota 


1951 


San Luis ' 


1967 


Madera 


1952 


Friant-Kern 


1944 


Tehama-Colusa 


1961 







Figure 23b SOURCES OF REPAYMENT 
OF PROJECT COSTS TO END OF 
REPAYMENT PERIOD (2050) 



' Operated by the Corps of Engineers 
'Operated by El Dorado Irrigation District 

^ Joint use with State Water Project, operated by State of California 
* Only first 27 miles complete out of a total of about 68 miles 
'Operated by Contra Costa County Water District 

'W— Water supply. P— Power. F — Flood control. R — Recreation, D — Debris control. 
S — Reregulatory storage. 





Area 
irrigated 


Year 


Acres 


1968 . .. . 


1 464 100 


1969 


1.530.200 


1970 


1 542 000 


1971 


1 624 200 


1972 


1733 400 


1973 


1.933,900 


1974 


2,040,500 


1975 


1,932 700 


1976 


1 958 100 


1977 


1814 100 








Federal government t 

(flood control, navigation) 



Other, such as 
Stale share of 
San Luis facilities 



Recreation, Fi sheries 
and Wildlife 



Source; US. Department of the Interior. Water and Power Resources Service. Project 
Data. 1981 



70 



The California State Water Project * 

Planning for the State Water Project (SWP), originally 
called the Feather River Project, began after World War II, 
During the latter part of the 1940s, the State Division of 
Water Resources conducted two programs. One concen- 
trated on collecting basic data and developing a statewide 
water plan — the California Water Plan. The other consid- 
ered a specific project as the initial State-constructed por- 
tion of the plan. The first complete report on the project, 
published in 1951, proposed a multiple-purpose dam and 
reservoir on the Feather River near Oroville, with a power 
plant, an afterbay dam and power plant, a Delta cross chan- 
nel, an electric power transmission system, an aqueduct to 
transport water from the Delta to Santa Clara and Alameda 
Counties, and an aqueduct to transport water from the 
Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. 

Some of the factors that influenced the State to become 
directly involved in water development were: 

• Rapid population growth in Southern California was ex- 
pected to exceed the capacity of available water sup- 
plies, and additional water could be obtained only in 
Northern California. 

• Federal water development agencies were primarily 
concerned with providing irrigation supplies (USBR, un- 
der the federal Reclamation Act) or flood control (U,S. 
Army Corps of Engineers), They were not authorized to 
construct major inter-basin water supply projects to 
meet municipal and industrial needs. Therefore, the 
State was the more appropriate agency. 

• A number of State and local water agencies were dissat- 
isfied with federal policies affecting construction and 
operation of the federal CVP, the project originally con- 
ceived and planned by the State, It was believed that the 
irrigation and power policies of the CVP should be di- 
rected by the State so that the project could be more 
responsive to California's social and economic issues, 

• San Joaquin Valley farmers believed the 160-acre limita- 
tion on use of CVP water was inappropriate because the 
water was being used as a supplement by large farms 
that were already established through the use of ground 
water and local surface water supplies, 

• Private utilities wanted to prevent further expansion of 
low-cost, subsidized public power generation and trans- 
mission. 

The project was authorized by the Legislature in 1951 
under the State Central Valley Project Act, It was designat- 
ed "The Feather River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
Diversion Project." Operating under authorization of the 
State Central Valley Project Act of 1933, the Water Project 
Authority, through the Division of Water Resources, con- 
tinued investigations, surveys, and studies, including the 
preparation of plans and specifications for construction of 
the authorized works. 

In 1955, after approval of its plans by the Water Project 
Authority, the Division submitted another report to the 
Legislature on the proposed project. This report stated 
that the project had engineering and financial feasibility 
and recommended that the Legislature appropriate funds 

■ For a more complete discussion, see; Department of Water Resources, 
California State Water Project. Bulletin 200, Vol. I. "History, Planning, 
and Early Progress," November 1974. 



to Start construction The report also recommended add- 
ing San Luis Reservoir on the west side of the San Joaquin 
Valley for offstream storage of Delta surplus flows. 

To further the development of the State's water re- 
sources program, the Legislature, in 1956, established the 
Department of Water Resources, and nearly all the func- 
tions and authorities of the Water Project Authority, the 
State Water Resources Board, and the Division of Water 
Resources of the Department of Public Works were trans- 
ferred to the new department. Appropriation of water and 
the determination of water rights were vested in a new 
State Water Rights Board (now the State Water Resources 
Control Board). 

Construction funds for the SWP were first made avail- 
able to the Department in 1957, when the Legislature, 
reacting to the widespread flooding that occurred during 
December 1955 and January and February, 1956, appro- 
priated over $25 million in State tidelands oil revenues to 
begin highway and railroad relocation around the Oroville 
reservoir site. Year-to-year funds were appropriated 
through 1960 to permit continuation of the Oroville reloca- 
tions and to permit the start of construction of the South 
Bay and California Aqueducts in 1959. 

An assured source of project funds was established 
when the Legislature enacted the California Water Re- 
sources Development Bond Act (Burns-Porter Act) in 1959 
and California voters approved it in November 1960 by a 
margin of 173,944 out of a total of 5.8 million votes cast. 
Popular support in Southern California delivered this nar- 
row victory. Butte County, site of the proposed Oroville 
Dam, and Yuba County were the only two counties north 
of Fresno to vote for the bond act. These results represent- 
ed a reversal of the votes cast in the 1933 referendum on 
the State CVP Act when Southern California voted against 
the issue and Northern California supported it. 

The 1959 bond act authorized issuance of $1.75 billion in 
general obligation bonds, backed by the State's full faith 
and credit, and appropriated all moneys in and accruals to 
the California Water Fund for construction of the SWP. 

The Burns-Porter Act authorized certain facilities, includ- 
ing: 

• A multiple-purpose dam and reservoir at Oroville, and 
five upstream reservoirs in Plumas County, 

• An aqueduct system, including North Bay, Soutn Bay, 
San Joaquin Valley-Southern California, and coastal 
aqueducts: and an offstream storage reservoir near Los 
Banos. 

• Facilities in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for water 
conservation, water supply in the Delta, transfer of water 
across the Delta, flood and salinity control, and related 
functions, 

• Additional unspecified facilities in the Sacramento and 
certain north coastal watersheds for local needs and to 
augment water supplies in the Delta, as necessary. 

• Local projects provided for under the Davis-Grunsky Act 
for which State loans and grants are authorized. 

The State entered into contracts with 31 water agen- 
cies "" to deliver an ultimate 4,23 million acre-feet of water 



' Because two contracting agencies have since merged, there are now 30 
water service contractors. The total SWP water service obligations are 
unchanged. 



71 



annually to service areas in northern, central, and southern 
parts of California. The facilities now constructed can 
deliver about 2.3 million acre-feet of water per year on a 
dependable basis and up to 3 million acre-feet m a wet 
year. Additional facilities will be required to meet full con- 
tract entitlements and to compensate for future depletion 
of Delta surplus flows. Present excess supplies are sold as 
"surplus water for irrigation and ground water recharge." 

Principal Features and Operation 

The Initial facilities of the SWP are shown on the accom- 
panying map. The project begins with three small reser- 
voirs on Feather River tributaries in Plumas County — Lake 
Davis and Frenchman and Antelope Lakes — which are de- 
voted primarily to recreation. Farther downstream, water 
released from the mam storage facility. Lake Oroville. flows 
through power generating facilities, thence down the 
Feather River and the Sacramento River, and into the net- 
work of channels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

The North Bay Aqueduct, scheduled for completion 
before 1990, will deliver water to Napa and Solano Coun- 
ties. Interim facilities serve Napa County with water from 
the Solano Project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

At the southern edge of the Delta are the Clifton Court 
Forebay, the John E. Skinner Fish Protective Facilities, and 
the Harvey 0. Banks Delta Pumping Plant. 

At the pumping plant, water is lifted 244 feet into the 
California Aqueduct.' The South Bay Aqueduct branches 
at this point and delivers water as far west as San Jose. The 
California Aqueduct conveys water south to the San Joa- 
quin Valley and Southern California. Surplus winter and 
spring flows from the Delta are stored in San Luis Reser- 
voir, a joint federal-State facility, for use later in the year. 
An aqueduct planned to serve areas in San Luis Obispo and 
Santa Barbara Counties has been delayed and the area's 
entitlement was reduced as the result of action by Santa 
Barbara County. 

Environmental Impacts 

Operation of the SWP has both a positive and a negative 
effect on the environment. Fish species characteristic of 
the Bay-Delta system have declined because of the transfer 
of SWP and CVP water across the Delta. These diversions 
have resulted m reverse flows in some waterways that in- 
terfere with migrating salmon. Loss of fish fry and food 
organisms occurs in the Harvey 0. Banks Delta Pumping 
Plant. 

On the other hand, salmon runs in the Feather River are 
greater now than before Oroville Dam was built. Releases 
are controlled to produce better water temperature condi- 
tions and improved habitat, especially during subnormal 
periods of runoff. A substantial striped bass fishery has 
become established in the California Aqueduct and in 
Southern California reser\/oirs, providing fishing opportuni- 
ties where few existed before. Streamflow releases from 
Antelope Reservoir have improved the fishery potential m 
many miles of Last Chance Creek. 

'The aqueduct was renamed the Governor Edmund G. Brown California 
Aqueduct in December 1982. 



Economic Impacts 

The SWP not only has had an immediate economic im- 
pact upon the surrounding region during construction, but 
also has long-term effects upon regional and State econo- 
mies. 

In some areas, the impact has substantially affected the 
entire growth pattern and economy of a region. For exam- 
ple, within Kern County (the primary county in the San 
Joaquin service area), about 90 percent of the SWP deliv- 
eries are used for agriculture. SWP supplies comprised 
about 25 percent of the county's overall water supplies in 
1980. In 1980, Kern was the State's third leading agricultural 
county, with gross farm receipts of more than $1.27 billion. 
Cotton, the leading crop, accounts for almost half the 
county's harvested acreage. Grapes rank second in agricul- 
tural value, followed by almonds. 

In addition to the direct value of crops, economic activity 
IS also stimulated in those secondary industries supplying 
the agricultural producers with products and services, as 
well as in the food processing industries. 

Water supplies can also have an economic impact upon 
urban areas, although the effect is much more complex 
and more difficult to quantify than for agricultural regions. 
SWP deliveries to the Southern California. Central Coast, 
South Bay, and North Bay service areas are necessary for 
economic growth. However, other factors — such as em- 
ployment opportunities, resource availability, climate, 
housing markets, community lifestyles, and local growth 
management policies — also influence growth. The relative 
significance of water compared to these other factors is 
difficult to assess. 



Financing and Repayment 

Capital cost financing for the SWP is obtained from sev- 
eral sources. Major sources are general obligation bond 
proceeds, the California Water Fund (tideland oil reve- 
nues), revenue bond proceeds, and miscellaneous re- 
ceipts. 

The basic concept for repayment for the State Water 
Project (SWP) IS that the costs are to be allocated to and 
repaid by those who benefit from the project. Major 
beneficiaries of the SWP are the now 30 agencies that have 
long-term water service contracts with the State. Under 
the terms of their contracts, these agencies will repay all 
reimbursable costs of the project that are allocated to wa- 
ter supply (about 96 percent of total project costs, under 
current allocations) . Those who receive the direct benefits 
repay the entire principal and interest cost of the general 
obligation bond issue, plus all other construction and oper- 
ation costs of the project. 

The water users — the major beneficiaries — are paying 
the largest part of the costs. State funds repay cost of the 
broad benefits for all Californians — the costs allocated to 
recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement (about 3 per- 
cent of costs). Costs of providing flood control at Lake 
Oroville and Lake Del Valle (about 1 percent of the costs) 
are not repaid (nonreimbursable) by SWP contractors; 
they are repaid by the federal government. 



72 



Figure 24a. SWP DELIVERIES^ 
FOR THE PERIOD 
1962-1981 



4 - 



UJ 
UJ 

u. 
I 

UJ 

cc 
o 

< 

o 

a> 

z 
o 



2 - 



STATE DELIVERIES 

^ OTHER WATER 

(Mostly 'surplus') 

□ ENTITLEMENT WATER 



1/ No surplus -mostly 

MWD exchange Fp 

4 



1965 



1970 
YEARS 



Figure 24b. SOURCES OF REPAYMENT 

OF PROJECT COSTS TO END 

OF REPAYMENT PERIOD 

(2035) 




M 

1975 1980 




Recreation, 
Fisheries 
and Wildlife 



Other, such as rentals, sale 
of excess property and 
lands, interest earnings, etc. 

Federal Government, Flood Control 



73 



STATE WATER PROJECT FEATURES 



Reservoir (Dam) 

Frenchman Lake 

Antelope Lake 

Lake Davis 

Lake Oroville 

Thernnalito Diversion Pool 

Thermalito Forebay 

Thermalito Afterbay 

Clifton Court Forebay 

Bethany 

Lake Del Valle 

San Luis' 

O'Neill Forebay 

Los Banos 

Little Panoche 

Silverwood Lake 

Lake Perns 

Quail Lake 

Pyramid Lake 

Elderberry Forebay 

Castaic Lake , 

Castaic Lagoon 





Surface 






Capacity 


Area 




First 






Acre- 






Year of 


feet 


Acres 


Purpose ' 


Operation 


55,500 


1.580 


R, W 


1961 


22,600 


931 


R 


1964 


84,400 


4.026 


R, W 


1966 


3.537,600 


15.805 


W, P, F, R 


1968 


13,300 


323 


P 


1967 


11,800 


630 


P. R 


1967 


57,000 


4 302 


S. R 


1967 


28,700 


2 109 


S 


1969 


4,800 


161 


S. R 


1961 


77,100 


1,060 


S, R 


1968 


2,038.800 


12,700 


S, R, P 


1967 


56,400 


2.700 


S 


1967 


34,600 


623 


D 


1965 


13,200 


354 


D 


1966 


75,000 


976 


S, R 


1971 


131,500 


2.318 


S, R 


1973 


5.000 


223 


S 




171,200 


1.297 


S. P 


1973 


28,200 


460 


S. R 


1974 


323,700 


2.235 


S. P. R. W 


1973 


5,700 


196 


R 


1972 





Capacity 


Lengtfi 


Aqueduct 


Cubic 
feet 
per 

second 


f^iles 


North Bay 


46 

360 

13,100 

3.130 
450 


25' 


South Bay 


43 


California (mam line) 


444 


California (branches) 
West Branch 


32 


Coastal Branch 


96' 







W — Water supply, F — Flood control. D — Debris control. P — Power, R — Recreation, 

S — Reregulatory storage. 
Joint use with Central Valley Project, operated by State of California 
Total of connpleted and proposed length. 



74 



Recent Surface Water Projects 

Several major water storage and distribution facili- 
ties have been completed by federal. State, and local 
agencies since publication of Bulletin 160-74 in 1974. 
In addition, another major reservoir project. Warm 
Springs Dam, is nearing completion, and construc- 
tion has been suspended on another (Auburn Dam), 
pending redesign and reauthorization. 

Local Projects. Projects completed by local 
agencies were Indian Valley Dam on North Fork 
Cache Creek in Lake County, Soulajule Dam on a 
tributary to Walker Creek in Marin County, and the 
Cross Valley Canal in Kern County. 

The Indian Valley project was constructed by Yolo 
County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis- 
trict to provide supplemental water supplies to east- 
ern Yolo County, an area of ground water overdraft. 
It will augment the district's surface supplies avail- 
able from Clear Lake. 

Soulajule Dam was constructed by the Marin Mu- 
nicipal Water District to provide about 5,000 acre- 
feet more water per year to the district's service area 
in eastern Mann County. Water is pumped from the 
10,560-ac re-foot capacity reservoir through a pipeline 
to Nicasio Reservoir (see Plate 1 for location). From 
there it enters the district's delivery system. 

The Cross Valley Canal was constructed to facili- 
tate exchanges of Central Valley Project water to 
nine agencies in three counties in the Tulare Lake 



HSA. 1 he water is made available to the agencies 
through an exchange agreement between the agen- 
cies and the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District 
(WSD). CVP water carried in the Cross Valley Canal 
IS pumped from the Delta and conveyed to the head 
of the canal near Tupman via the California Aque- 
duct. The water is then conveyed through the canal 
to Arvin-Edison WSD. An equal amount of water is 
thereby made available to CVP's Cross Valley Canal 
contractors from Arvin-Edison WSD's Friant-Kern 
Canal contractual entitlement. 

Federal Projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engi- 
neers completed Hidden Dam on the Fresno River 
and Buchanan Dam on the Chowchilla River and is 
nearing completion of Warm Springs Dam on Dry 
Creek, a tributary of the Russian River. All three reser- 
voirs provide flood control, water supply, recreation 
areas for public use, and habitat for fish and wildlife. 
The Hidden and Buchanan projects have been incor- 
porated into the CVP. The Corps of Engineers also 
completed New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus Riv- 
er in 1979 and has turned it over to the U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation for operation as part of the CVP. 
USBR IS currently negotiating for the sale of project 
yield to water users in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuol- 
umne, and Calaveras Counties, which make up the 
designated service area. This project has been in- 
volved in considerable controversy. 

USBR completed construction of Sugar Pine Dam 
and pipeline, a feature of the Auburn-Folsom South 



Wafer pumped from natural 
underground reserves is a vital 
source for irrigated agricul- 
ture. 




75 



Unit of the CVP, The project (shown on Plate 1) will 
provide supplemental water supplies for the service 
area of the Foresthill Divide Public Utility District, 

Ground Water 

Hydrologically, the ground water supply consists 
of the average annual natural and artificial recharge, 
deep percolation of excess applied surface water, 
and extraction fronn long-term ground water storage 
(overdraft). 

Present Knowledge of Ground Water Condi- 
tions. Current statistics on ground water recharge, 
storage capacity, empty storage capacity, and water 
in storage are not readily available for the entire 
State because there is no statewide requirement for 
reporting ground water extraction, use, or artificial 
recharge. The Department of Water Resources 
makes detailed studies of a few of California's 394 
ground water basins each year, and determines cur- 
rent yield, water-in-storage, and storage capacity. In 
1975 the Department published California's Ground 
Water (Bulletin 118), which presented the informa- 
tion available at that time. It was not complete for all 
basins, however, and some information was consid- 
erably out of date. . 

As should be expected, the most information ex- 
ists for the most heavily used basins. There is sub- 
stantial knowledge of many of the developed 
Southern California basins and most of the San Joa- 
quin Valley basins. Moderate information is available 
on other basins in the South Coastal region, the west- 
ern areas of the Colorado River and South Lahontan 
HSAs, and Central Valley areas near the Delta. Lim- 
ited information is available on ground water basins 
in the Sacramento Valley and the Coastal Range val- 
leys, the northeast basins, and some desert basins. 
Only superficial information is available on the re- 
maining basins, predominantly situated in desert 
areas. Moreover, little is understood of the potential 
yield in fractured-rock ground water areas, which are 
an important source of water for some agricultural 
and residential development m the Sierra Nevada 
foothills and other foothill and mountain areas. Fresh 
ground water is known or suspected to exist offshore 
in more than 10 coastal areas, but specific data are 
lacking, except for Monterey Bay and the area off the 
coast of Ventura County. General information on wa- 
ter in storage and total storage capacity by major 
regions of the State is summarized in Table 11. 

Dependable Ground Water Supply and Over- 
draft. Ground water supply is presented in this re- 
port by HSA, rather than by specific ground water 
basin. Dependable ground water supply is defined as 
average natural recharge, together with intentional 
artificial recharge with local surface water. Deep per- 
colation of excess applied water, intentional re- 



TABLE 11 

GROUND WATER STORAGE CAPACITY 

BY REGION 

1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 


Region 


Water in 
Storage 


Empty 
Storage 
Capacity 


Total 
Storage 
Capacity 




4.000 

18.000 
95.000 

540.000 

100.000 

100,000 
857.000 


1.000 

2.000 
5.000 

38.000 

57.000 

58.000 
161.000 


5.000 


(North Coast and San Francisco Bay 
HSAs) 


20.000 




100,000 


(Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego 
HSAs) 
Cpntral Vallev 


578,000 


(Sacramento. San Joaquin, and Tulare 
Lake HSAs) 


157,000 


(North Lahontan and South Lahontan 
HSAs) 
Colorado River HSA 


158,000 


TOTAL 


1,018,000 







charge with imported water supplies, and seepage 
from water conveyance systems are also compo- 
nents of ground water recharge. However, they are 
not counted as part of dependable ground water sup- 
ply because doing so would, in effect, constitute 
double counting and would overstate the basic sup- 
ply available to meet net water use. 

Overdraft of a ground water basin occurs when the 
amount of water pumped exceeds the amount of 
recharge water from all sources over a long period of 
time. In Ground Water Basins in California (Bulletin 
118-80, January 1980), the Department of Water Re- 
sources defines a basin as subject to critical condi- 
tions of overdraft when continuation of present 
water management practices would probably result 
in significant overdraft-related environmental, social, 
or economic impacts. The Department's report iden- 
tified 40 basins in California known to be in overdraft, 
with 11 of them in "critical" conditions of overdraft 
(Figure 25). Basins not indicated on the figure may 
also be in overdraft, but they have not been studied. 

The hydrologic balances by HSA appearing at the 
end of this chapter reveal the present status of the 
ground water supply; that is, those HSAs in which 
overdraft occurs and those in which pumping and 
recharge approach a balance. Such balances, as 
summarized, may be misleading where more than 
one ground water basin is included in one HSA or 
where more than one HSA overlies a single ground 
water basin. For example, in an HSA, one ground 
water basin may be in hydrologic balance, while an- 
other may be in a condition of overdraft. 

Ground Water Levels and Pumping Costs. 

The water level in basins north of the city of Sacra- 
mento IS less than 100 feet below the surface in all but 
isolated areas in late summer. Coastal basins general- 



76 



ly have relatively high water levels, but sea-water in- 
trusion can occur where inland ground water levels 
have been drawn below sea level, such as in Ventura 
County. Basins in Southern California generally have 
water levels less than 200 feet below ground surface. 

Water levels have been declining in overdraft 
areas for a long tinne, but this decline is not economi- 
cally significant in most areas, although in parts of 
the San Joaquin Valley, the resultant subsidence has 
damaged wells and conveyance systems, and water 
may have to be lifted as much as 800 feet in some 
wells. In most of the valley, where ground water is 
used, pumping lifts are less than 400 feet, with much 
of the area having lifts of less than 200 feet. 

The 1980 cost of pumping ground water in Califor- 
nia, including capital cost and maintenance, ranges 
generally from about $10.00 per acre-foot in shallow 
water depth areas to about $40.00 per acre-foot in 
areas with lifts of 400 feet, such as portions of Kern 
County. Energy use varies with the size and condition 
of the pump and motor and the height of the pump- 
ing lift — all factors that affect the cost of pumped 
ground water. 

Conjunctive Use and Ground Water 
Management 

Ground water management develops locally in 
stages. Early indications of falling water levels are 
usually followed by some artificial recharge of the 
ground water basin with excess surface water in wet 
years or wet periods of the year. The next step, con- 
junctive use, is taken when water levels continue to 
drop. This procedure involves artificial recharge in 
wet times and installation of joint delivery systems so 
that surface water can be used directly when avail- 
able, and ground water can be pumped when surface 
water is not available. The co-delivery systems can 
function on individual farms or as part of a water 
agency's facilities. Much of the east side of the San 
Joaquin Valley operates in this manner. 

Coordination of surface storage with conjunctive 
use is one step closer to full ground water manage- 
ment. Storm runoff is captured in surface water 
reservoirs and released to ground water at an appro- 
priate recharge rate. Empty space is retained in the 
reservoirs to capture the runoff from the next storm. 
Local surface water is managed this way in the Santa 
Clara Valley south of San Francisco Bay. 

Ground water management, as defined in Bulletin 
118-80, includes planned use of the ground water ba- 
sin yield, storage space, transmission capability, and 
water in storage. It includes: 

• Protection of natural recharge and use of artificial 
recharge. 

• Planned variation in amount and location of pump- 
ing over time. 



• Use of ground water storage conjunctively with 
surface water from local and imported sources. 

• Protection and planned maintenance of ground 
water quality. 

The term planned, appearing throughout the 
ground water management definition, implies a local 
commitment to some regulation of pumping and zon- 
ing of recharge areas. This full ground water manage- 
ment concept is approached by the Santa Clara 
Valley Water District m Santa Clara County and the 
Orange County Water District without adjudication, 
and by most adjudicated basins. The unadjudicated 
basins rely on a combination of imported water and 
pump taxes to regulate pumping. 



GROUND WATER STORAGE 
DEFINITIONS 

Five different kinds of ground water storage ore recog- 
nized: total storage capacity, water in storage, available 
storage capacity, regulatory storage capacity, and usable 
storage capacity. 

Total storage capacity of a ground water basin is the total 
volume of space between soil particles that could be occupied 
by ground water. It is computed as the product of the average 
depth of the basin material, the area of the basin, and the 
average specific yield* of basin materials, usually expressed 
in acre-feet. Some limit of upper and lower elevation is usu- 
ally given to define total storage capacity. A reasonable 
upper limit is 20 to 50 feet below the ground surface. 

Water in storage is the portion of total storage capacity 
that is presently full of water. Available storage capacity is 
the remaining portion, which is empty and available for the 
storage of water. The annual variations in ground water re- 
charge necessitate regulatory storage capacity to sustain a 
uniform annual yield. 

Some of the storage capacity may also serve to regulate 
local recharge. When the available storage capacity is larger 
than is needed to regulate recharge, additional water from 
other sources may be stored in that basin without the risk of 
spill to surface water flows. 

Usable storage capacity^ storage capacity that is capable 
of yielding water to wells economically and of being readily 
recharged (filled). Two decades ago, when many of the 
estimates of usable storage capacity were made, the econom- 
ical limit in many inland areas was considered to be a depth 
of 200 feet, and, in other inland areas, it was the base of the 
fresh water in a ground water basin. For coastal basins, the 
maximum economical limit of usable storage capacity was 
considered to be sea level. Some of those earlier assumptions 
are now no longer valid, and the data that are available are 
very conservative. 



' Specific yield is the amount of water by volume released from a 
volume of saturated material under the force of gravity. It is 
expressed as a ratio or percentage. 



77 



Figure 25. BASINS SUBJECT TO CRITICAL CONDITIONS OF 
OVERDRAFT OR WITH SPECIAL PROBLEMS 



BASINS SUBJECT TO CRITICAL CONDITIONS OF OVERDRAFT 

PAJARO BASIN 



jy 



2- CUYAMA VAUEY BASIN 

3. VENTURA COUNTY BASIN 

A JOAQUIN COUNTY BASIN 



*■ EASTERN SAN __ _ 

5- CHOWCHILLA BASIN 

6- MADERA BASIN 
T- KINGS BASIN 

8- KAWEAH BASIN 

9- TULARE LAKE BASIN 
'O- TULE BASIN 

■•I- KERN COUNTY BASIN 




BASINS WITH SPECIAL PROBLEMS 
■4- suRPRise VALur basw 

*• LOIVG VALLEY BASIN 

\C- SIERKA VALLEY BASIN 
O. OWENS VALLEY BASIN 

: s 

_.-~,^ . . . ,. > ^^^ WATER BEARING MATERIALS 



jy' As defined in Bulletin I I 8-80, a basin is 
subject to critical conditions of overdraft 
when continuation of present water management 
practices would probably result in significant 
adverse overdraft — related environmental, social, 
or economic impacts 



78 



Reclaimed Urban Waste Water 

Waste water reclamation is the reuse of treated 
urban waste water for beneficial purposes. Biological 
treatment is involved and, in some cases, desalting 
may also be needed. Some key considerations, such 
as dissolved mineral levels, health concerns, costs, 
and institutional conflicts, have strongly affected pol- 
icy decisions by local agencies in pursuing waste 
water reclamation. 

There are two terms used to designate waste wa- 
ter reclamation: intentional and incidental. Reclama- 
tion of waste water that would otherwise be 
discharged to salt sinks (such as the ocean or saline 
estuaries) or reclamation of water so degraded that 
it cannot be discharged to fresh water, would be 
intentional and would create a "new" water supply. 
On the other hand, some of the urban water used in 
California is returned to the fresh water cycle after it 
has been treated. This is termed incidental reclama- 
tion because additional use made of this water is 
only incidental to waste water treatment and dis- 
posal. 

Up to 50 percent of an urban supply is used for 
landscaping and is transpired or evaporated or per- 
colates into the ground. The remainder is collected 
and conveyed to waste treatment plants. Not all the 
collected waste water can be reclaimed, however. 
Twenty to 30 percent is needed to carry off concen- 
trated wastes. Accordingly, only 20 to 30 percent of 
the original supply may be available for reclamation. 

Mineral quality of fresh-water supplies is important 
in evaluating reclamation. A single cycle of water use 



in an urban area normally adds about 300 milligrams 
of salts per litre of water. The recommended upper 
limit for salts in municipal supplies is 500 milligrams 
per litre (mg/L), but up to 1,000 mg/L is acceptable. 
A large share of the urban water supply in the coastal 
area of Southern California is derived from the Colo- 
rado River and has a salt content of around 750 mg/L. 
A single use would concentrate the salt sufficiently 
to exceed the acceptable limit, and reclaimed water 
would have to be desalted or blended with less saline 
water. Water delivered by the SWP to Southern Cali- 
fornia has a monthly average of only 100 to 440 mg/L. 
With an increasingly greater share of the water used 
in Southern California supplied by the SWP, mineral 
concentrations in the resulting waste water will be 
reduced. 

Presen t Waste Wa ter Reclama tion. T h e h i g h- 

er levels of waste water treatment, motivated largely 
by public health, esthetic, and ecological concerns, 
have resulted m more complete treatment of wastes 
before they are discharged. This treatment makes 
the waste flows more suitable for reclamation and 
reuse and lowers the incremental cost of reclama- 
tion. The competitive position of waste water recla- 
mation IS thereby enhanced in comparison with 
alternative water supply sources. Increasing de- 
mands on the limited water supplies in some areas 
have also encouraged waste water reclamation. 

Almost 3.4 million acre-feet of urban waste water 
was treated in 1980 in California. The disposition of 
this treated water (Table 12) shows that 2.4 million 
acre-feet of treated waste effluent produced was dis- 
charged into salt sinks. As shown, statewide total 



TABLE 12 

DISPOSITION OF TREATED URBAN WASTE WATER 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





Waste Water Reclaimed 


Waste 
Water 
Discharged 
to Salt 
Sin/cs 


Total' 

Waste 

Water 

Produced 


Percent 

Waste 

Water 

Reclaimed 


HSA 


Intentional 


Incidental 


Total 


NC 


9 

10 

9 

59 

29 

9 

17 

21 

67 

5 

9 

3 

247 


3 

3 

11 

17 

74 

292 

141 

41 

6 

14 

10 

612 


12 

13 

20 

76 

103 

9 

309 

162 

108 

11 

23 

13 

859 


62 
568 

93 

1,003 

383 

275 

8 

44 
2,436 


74 

584 

113 

1.079 

486 

284 

329 

176 

126 

11 

46 

58 

3,366 


16 


SF 


2 


CC 


18 


LA 


7 


SA 


21 


SD 


3 


SB 


94 


SJ 


92 


TL 


86 


NL 


100 


SL 


50 


CR 


24 


TOTAL . . 


26 







This total also includes evaporation from waste water flows 



79 



reclamation (the sum of the intentional and inciden- 
tal reclamation) is 26 percent of the total treated 
urban waste water produced. However, a very large 
percentage of total waste water production in the 
inland Hydrologic Study Areas is reused — about 100 
percent m those HSAs that do not discharge waste 
water to salt sinks. Thus, most waste water discharge 
in these inland areas is reused, even though only 
small quantities of waste water are intentionally re- 
claimed. 

At present, intentionally reclaimed water is used 
chiefly for crop irrigation, industrial purposes, munic- 
ipal irrigation, wildlife habitat, and ground water re- 
charge. The major use of water resulting from 
intentional reclamation of urban wastes in 1979, as 
reported by municipal, federal, and private agencies, 
IS for irrigation— 137,600 acre-feet out of a total of 
197,600 acre-feet — as shown in Table 13. Crop irriga- 
tion IS the largest single use — 106,900 acre-feet or 54 
percent of the total. Almost 84,000 acre-feet is used 
in the three small HSAs in the South Coastal region. 

Agricultural uses include irrigation of (1) pasture; 
(2) fodder, fiber, and seed crops; (3) crops that are 
grown well above the ground, and out of the reach 
of the water, such as fruits, nuts, and grapes; and (4) 
other crops that are processed so that pathogenic 
organisms are destroyed before human consump- 
tion. 

Use of intentionally reclaimed water to recharge 
ground water basins — 23,900 acre-feet in 1979 — not 
only provides storage but also some natural treat- 
ment as it percolates to an underground domestic 
supply. Use can also include injection into the 
ground m coastal areas to form a sea-water intrusion 
barrier. 



Industrial uses of reclaimed water — 4,600 acre-feet 
in 1979 — include cooling water, process wash water, 
boiler feed water, quenching spray water, fire protec- 
tion, and secondary product recovery. These are car- 
ried out chiefly at metallurgical manufacturing and 
fabrication plants, electric power generation plants, 
oil refineries and petrochemical plants, and mines 
and quarries. 



The use of reclaimed water for municipal irrigation 
and recreational pursuits includes (1) irrigation of 
parks, freeway landscapes, golf courses, and athletic 
fields; (2) creation of scenic and ornamental lakes 
and ponds; (3) maintenance of recreational lakes for 
picnicking, boating, and swimming; (4) irrigation of 
landscapes in commercial and industrial develop- 
ments; and (5) maintenance of marshes and ponds 
for wildlife habitat and fish. 



Limitations and Constraints. At this time, sig- 
nificant health concerns greatly limit urban use of 
reclaimed water. These concerns arise because of 
stable organic compounds and viruses that may re- 
main in some municipal waste water after treatment. 
Development and use of a wide range of organic 
compounds for industrial, commercial, agricultural, 
and household uses have influenced the quality of 
some water supplies. Many of the complex com- 
pounds are stable; that is, they persist for a long time 
and they do not break down into simpler nontoxic 
forms. The long-term effect of ingesting even minute 
amounts of some stable organic compounds is un- 
certain; therefore, efforts are made to avoid the use 
of water containing these compounds where that 
use may be detrimental to public health. 



TABLE 13 

REPORTED INTENTIONAL USE OF RECLAIMED WATER 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1979 

(In acre-feet) 





Industrial 


Irrigation 


Other Uses 




HSA 


Power 

Plant 

Cooling 


Other 


Crops 


Landscape 


Golf 
Course 


Orna- 
mental 
Lakes 


Ground 

Water 

Recharge 


Recre- 
ation 


Wild- 
life 
Habitat 


Unclass- 
ified 


TOTAL 


NO 


200 


800 
300 

400 
1.600 

400 
900 

4.400 


8.000 

6.500 

8,800 

1.700 

3.70O 

100 

14.200 

20,300 

34.600 

5,400 

2.000 

1.700 

106.900 


1.200 

200 

11.400 

200 
100 

300 

13.400 


200 
13.600 
2,000 

800 

700 

17.300 


900 
1,100 

2.000 


12.800 

10.400 

700 

23.900 


200 
200 


100 

3,700 

200 
4,000 


600 

2,100 

100 

6,300 

14,500 

1,700 


9,400 


SF 


10.400 


cc 


9.100 


LA 


45.800 


SA 


29.000 


SO 


9.100 


SB 


17,100 


SJ 


20,600 


TL 


34.500 


NL 


5.600 


SL 


3.700 


OR 


3.300 


TOTAL 


200 


25.300 


197.600 







Data in this table are based on responses to a 1980 survev of California waste water 
treatment plants by the Department of Water Resources. The table is not a complete 
accounting of intentional use. 



80 



Health officials reject direct distribution of re- 
claimed water for human consumption. They also 
have severely restricted the use of reclaimed water 
to recharge ground water basins drawn on for human 
use because of the possible effects of stable organic 
compounds and heavy metals. Because ground wa- 
ter migrates slowly and does not intermix well, re- 
claimed water introduced into a ground water basin 
would move away from the area of entry in a body 
and might not dissipate for many years. 

Distribution of fresh-water supplies and treatment 
and disposal of municipal waste water are usually 
handled by different agencies with different objec- 
tives. Because of this, institutional constraints on 
marketing the reclaimed water have tended to inhibit 
its reclamation and reuse. Water supply agencies 
generally build a new pipeline to take the reclaimed 
water from the waste water treatment plant to the 
areas of use. In marketing this water, these agencies 
may be burdened with the costs of maintaining dual 
water distribution systems, one for fresh water and 
one for reclaimed water. In addition, the price of 
reclaimed water is often established through 
negotiation, and the ultimate users may pay less for 
it then they do for fresh water. This occurs because 
they also have the added expense of operating dual 
water systems and controlling water use to meet 
public health criteria. 

Energy Use. Since a water reclamation project 
provides water to a local area, less energy may be 
consumed to operate it than to import water to the 
area from a distant source. In Southern California, for 
instance, water reclamation projects use from 200 to 
2,200 kilowatthours per acre-foot (kWh/ac-ft), while 
about 2,900 kWh/ac-ft is required to transport SWP 
water from the Delta. The actual energy required 
must be determined on a case-by-case basis and de- 
pends on the amount of treatment the waste water 
needs and the pumping lift required for distribution 
and storage of the water (reclamation plants are usu- 
ally situated at elevations below that of the place of 
use). 

Current Costs. Because of the unique nature of 
each water reclamation project, costs must also be 
determined case by case. An economical project 
should produce water at a cost that does not exceed 
the cost of project alternatives, presently $200-350 
per acre-foot in most areas of the State. 



Water Prices 

More than 2,500 agencies in California are engaged 
in selling water: over 500 independent special dis- 
tricts, 257 municipal waterworks, about 400 private 
companies regulated by the State Public Utilities 
Commission, and about 1,200 mutual water compa- 
nies. Together these represent more than 30 legally 
distinct types of entities. Each water purveyor distrib- 
utes water within a pricing framework based on its 
own policies, costs, objectives, and institutional con- 
straints. As a result, a great number of water pricing 
systems currently are in use in California. Water 
prices vary from less than $1.00 to nearly $200 per 
acre-foot for some agricultural water and from less 
than $40 to more than $400 per acre-foot for urban 
water. Water often passes through one or more 
wholesalers and a retailer before it reaches the ulti- 
mate consumer. 

Policies of water purveyors are important factors 
in pricing. For example, the policy of the State Water 
Project is to require full repayment by the users of all 
costs associated with delivery of the allocated water, 
and the SWP water contracts require that this be 
done. In keeping with federal reclamation policy, the 
irrigation water charges by the Central Valley Project 
do not include repayment of interest on construction 
costs of the project. 

Because of the large number of water purveyors 
and the wide range in pricing structures, it is difficult 
to develop and present an overall picture of water 
pricing. Based on available data, a weighted average 
water rate and the range of water rates for both 
urban and agricultural water is shown by county in 
Table 14. It also includes costs for self-produced wa- 
ter for the agricultural sector. (Self-produced water 
is either pumped from wells or diverted directly from 
a stream.) Examination of the table reveals that (1) 
agricultural water is priced highest in the South 
Coastal region HSAs and lowest in the Sacramento 
HSA portion of the Central Valley: and (2) urban 
water is generally priced higher than agricultural wa- 
ter. This IS partly because urban supply systems are 
more complex and involve greater costs for local 
facilities for system regulation, treatment plants, dis- 
tribution systems, water meters, and system opera- 
tion, including meter reading and customer billing. In 
addition, in some cases, the water rate includes a 
charge for waste water treatment. 



TABLE 14 
AVERAGE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL RETAIL WATER PRICES 

BY COUNTY 
(In dollars per acre-foot) 



County 



Alameda .. 

Alpine 

Amador .... 

Butte 

Calaveras.. 



Colusa , 

Contra Costa 

Del Norte 

El Dorado 

Fresno 



Glenn 

Humboldt 
Imperial .... 

Inyo 

Kern 



Kings 

Lake 

Lassen 

Los Angeles . 
Madera 



Mann 

Mariposa 

Mendocino . 

Merced 

Modoc 



Mono 

Monterey.. 

Napa 

Nevada 

Orange 



Placer 

Plumas 

Riverside 

Sacramento.. 
San Benito .. 



San Bernardino ... 

San Diego 

San Francisco 

San Joaquin , 

San Luis Obispo 



San Mateo 

Santa Barbara.. 

Santa Clara 

Santa Cruz 

Shasta 



Sierra 

Siskiyou 

Solano 

Sonoma 

Stanislaus 



Urban 
Prices ' 



Range 



265 
260 
230 
130 
210 

110 
245 
230 
220 
65 

140 
195 
175 
110 
175 

140 
170 
190 
210 
105 

340 
210 
170 
65 
155 

130 
195 
310 
145 
195 

160 
220 
190 
65 
175 

150 
265 
200 
180 
305 

285 
315 
235 
265 
145 

110 
165 
200 
245 



221-369 

261 

88-403 

94-320 

210 

99-149 

197-261 

205-324 

169-261 

61-80 

70-22 
173-289 

147-192 

0-225 

148-193 

137-149 
165 
189 

108-273 
82-117 

283-394 
211 

16&-175 

61-78 

156 

128 
165-260 
305-318 
126-194 
147-236 

127-188 

220 

156-248 

40-81 

152-208 

139-166 

223-346 

200 

96-303 

247-323 

164-344 
195-401 
169-278 
264-281 
109-200 

85-118 
150-188 
153-351 
225-288 

54-173 



Agricultural 
Prices^ 



N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
5.00 
N/A 

2.90 
5.30 
N/A 
N/A 
14.90 

4.20 
N/A 

7.50 
12.60 
31.00 

20.50 
15.90 
6.30 
36.50 
11.50 

N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
9,40 
10.50 

14.70 
38.00 
N/A 
8.60 
63.00 

7.20 
2.80 

12.00 
5.50 

18.90 

36.00 

145.00 

N/A 

6.90 

32.00 

N/A 
45.00 
21.00 
N/A 
500 

N/A 
5.20 
6,70 
N/A 
3.20 



Range 



N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

1,00-12.00 

N/A 

1.00-12,00 

2.00-9.00 

N/A 

N/A 

100-65.00 

1.00-12,00 

N/A 

7,50 

10,00-37.60 

6.60-78.00 

2-70-37.20 
3.00-19.00 
4.0O-10.00 
30.00-86.00 
3,70-18.60 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4.00-21.00 

5,5044.00 

3.00-25.70 

19,80-55,00 

N/A 

8.0O-20.00 
40.00-75.00 

2.00-24.00 
1.00-16,00 
3.40-133,00 
1. 00-20.00 
1.50-19.80 

12,00-52,00 

40.00-192,00 

N.'A 

1,50-16-00 

28,50-35.00 

N/A 

25.30-109,00 

11,00-30,00 

N/A 

2,90-10,00 

N/A 
2,00-10.00 
2.0O-20-0O 

N/A 
0.65-6.90 



82 



TABLE 14 — Continued 
AVERAGE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL RETAIL WATER PRICES 

BY COUNTY 
(In dollars per acre-foot) 



County 


Urban 
Prices ' 


Range 


Agricultural 
Prices' 


Range 


Sutter 


145 
135 
330 
130 
280 

240 
70 
110 


133-181 
132-145 
277^25 
108-137 
279 

206-283 

56-97 

100-120 


4.10 
7.60 
N/A 
14.00 
N/A 

31.50 
6.60 
5.80 


1.00-6.50 


Tehama 


2.70-11.37 


Trinity . 


N/A 


Tulare 


3.40-23.30 


Tuolumne 


N/A 


Ventura 


14.00-78.00 


Yolo 


1.00-20.00 


Yuba 


0.75-14.00 







' The average urban water prices shown m this table are approximate weighted averages based on a recent DWR survey of 107 
cities and service areas The figures represent the 1980 or 1981 cost per acre-foot of water for a fannily using three-fourths 
acre-toot of water each year. 

^The average agricultural water prices are approximate weighted averages based on a recent DWR survey of 161 water districts 
and other water sources The price figures include per-acre assessments and represent 1979, 1980. or 1981 They represent the 
rates farmers pay for irrigation district water, and the estimated costs of self-produced water, such as ground water and direct 
diversion of river water 

N/A = Not available 



PUMPING ENERGY USED FOR CALIFORNIA'S WATER SUPPLIES 



A significant amount of electricity is used by pumps to 
produce, transport, and distribute water to homes, businesses, 
factories, and farms. In turn, many utility districts and water 
agencies produce hydroelectric energy when they store and 
deliver water, even though pumping may be required as part 
of the system. 

Examples of the energy required to provide water supplies 
throughout California are shown in Table 15. There are some 
significant omissions; the table does not include information 
on some major producers of water, such as the Los Angeles 
Department of Water and Power; the East Bay Municipal 
Utility District; the San Francisco Water Department; the Im- 
perial, Modesto, and Turlock Irrigation Districts; and the Coa- 
chella Valley Water District. The systems of these water 
agencies generate more electricity than they consume since 



they are basically aqueducts and canals that are gravity-flow 
systems. Table 15 is based on 1.75 kilowatthours per acre- 
foot (kWh/oc-ft) per foot of lift. For the energy-using sys- 
tems shown in the table, kilowatthours per acre-foot range 
from 25 for diversion from a stream in the Central Valley to 
about 3,000 kWh/ac-ft for SWP supplies in Southern Califor- 
nia. The information in this table is given to provide a repre- 
sentation of energy used in furnishing water supplies. The 
data are not sufficient to summarize on the basis of regional 
or statewide averages. 

A few conclusions can be drawn from the information In 
Table 15. Areas with expensive water (see Table 14) also 
have water with relatively high kWh/ac-ft ratios. An acre- 
foot of imported water generally uses more electricity than an 
acre-foot of local surface water. 



TABLE 15 
EXAMPLES OF PUMPING ENERGY USED FOR WATER SUPPLY 



Region 

Southern California 
Metropolitan Water District 

Orange County 

Chino Basin, West San Bernardino County 

San Francisco Bay 

South Bay Aqueduct 

Entire Bay Area 

Central Valley 

Central Valley Area 

Lost Hills WSD, Kern County 

Wheeler Ridge-Mancopa WSD. Kern County 

Butte County 

Sacramento County 

Fresno County 

Kern County 

Salinas Valley 
Salinas River Valley Area 



Water 

Source 



Colorado River 

Aqueduct 
SWP 

Ground water 
Ground water 

SWP 
Ground water 

CVP 

River diversion 

SWP 

SWP 

Ground water 

Ground water 

Ground water 

Ground water 

Ground water 



Year 



1980 
1980 
1975 
1981 

1979 
1975 

1972 
1981 
1980 
1980 
1979 
1979 
1979 
1979 

1975 



Average 
kWh Per 
Acre-Foot 



2.050 

2.950 

175 

630 

840 

155 

360 

25 

550 

1,100 

90 

210 

180 

440 

100 



83 



TABLE 16 

TOTAL APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





NC 


SF 


CC 


^ 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


rOTAL 


APPLIED WATER 

Aoriculture 


821 

153 
260 

1 


1J36 

714 
151 
215 

1 

1.081 


121 

967 

100 

2 

6 

1.196 

121 

967 

94 

2 

6 

14 

1.204 


1.189 
231 

2 
7 

1.429 

902 
188 

2 
7 

1.099 


348 

1.654 

7 

1 
7 

2.017 

276 

1.534 
7 

1 

7 

81 

1.906 


412 
734 

2 
9 

1.151 

320 
586 

2 
9 
45 

962 


228 
389 

5 
2 

624 

198 
389 

5 
2 

40 

634 


9.223 

570 

167 

3 

9.963 

6.682 
493 
157 

I 

129 

7.464 


7.474 

403 

86 

10 

15 

7.988 

5.892 
249 
64 
10 
15 
111 

6.341 


11.424 
425 
45 

7 
10 

11.911 

7.781 

236 

31 

7 

10 

123 

8.188 


442 
23 
10 

1 

476 

387 
23 
10 

1 

421 


493 

95 

3 

9 

2 

602 

338 
60 
3 
9 
2 
7 

419 


3.460 

118 

17 

3 

3 

3.601 

3434 
102 

'\ 

3 

543 

4.102 


35.636 


Urban 


5.762 


Wildlife - 


700 


Recreation _ 

Energy Production _ 

TOTAL 


43 
59 

42.199 


NET WATER USE 


27.045 


Urban 


4.978 


Wildlife - 


603 




43 




59 


Conveyance Losses....- 

TOTAL 


1.093 
33.821 







TABLE 17 

CHANGES IN NET WATER USE 

BY REGION 

1972 to 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Regions 

North Coast 

(North Coast and San Francisco Bay HSAs) 

Central Coast HSA 

South Coast 

(Los Angeles. Santa Ana. and San Diego HSAs) 
Central Valley 

(Sacramento. San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake HSAs) 

North Lahontan HSA 

Southeastern Desert 

(South Lahontan and Colorado River HSAs) 

TOTAL 



f972 



1980 



Amount 
of Change 



Percent 
Change 



2.210 

950 
3.080 

20.000 

43C 
4.350 

31.020 



2.230 



1.100 


3.500 


22.000 


420 


4,520 



33.820 



+70 

+ 150 
+420 

+2.000 

-10 
+ 170 

+2.810 



+3 

+ 16 
+ 14 

+ 10 

-2 
+4 

+9 



TABLE 18 

DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLIES, 1980 LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



MC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


Si 


CR 


TOTAL 


PRESENT USE OF DEPENDABLE 
SUPPLY 

Local Surface 


388 

2 
243 

458 

9 
1.060 

9 
1.089 


ra 

454 

211 
81 
56 

157 = 
10 
1.197 

138 
1.335 


39 

768 

54 

9 
870 

17 
887 


29 
752 
483 

20 

481 

59 

1.824 
164 

1.988 


93 
290 
402 

138 
29 

952 

203 

1.155 


37 

290 

77 

221 
9 

634 

46 

680 


7886 

9 

1.798 

2.422 

259 

17 
7.371 

535 
7.906 


3.065 

972 

1.838 

55 

8 

21 

5.949 
191 

6.140 


2.199 

551 
Z736 

243 

1.536' 

67 

7.332 
56 

7.388 


312 
11 
88 

5 
416 

17 
433 


44 
178 

85 
9 

316 
33 

349 


4 

68 

3.970 

30 

3 

4.075 

4 
4.079 


9J74 


Imports by Locals 


1.806 




5.839 


CVP 


issn 


Other Federal „ _ - 


5.115 


SWP ».. . 


2.656 




247 


Subtotal 


3Z016 


RESERVE SURFACE WATER 
SUPPLY 


1.413 


TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 
SUPPLY 


33.429 







' Not including overdraft. 



'Includes SWP surplus water deliveries. 



84 



Statewide Hydrologic Balance 

The relationship between water use and water 
supplies in California is determined through analysis 
of the hydrologic balance. The major components of 
the balances for each HSA are summarized in tables 
appearing later in this chapter that show applied wa- 
ter, net water use, and developed water supplies in 
1980. The full complexity of a statewide hydrologic 
balance is illustrated at the end of this section. 

A summary of applied water in 1980 (Table 16) 
indicates the quantities of water delivered to the 
point of use, such as municipal system, factory, or 
farm headgate. The summary of net water use in 
1980, also shown, indicates the water supplies actual- 
ly needed to support this level of development. Net 
water use is considerably less than applied water, 
primarily because of the extensive reuse that takes 
place. Net water use is the amount of water required 
to meet the evapotranspiration of applied water and 
the irrecoverable distribution system losses, as well 
as the outflow from the area. 

Between 1972 and 1980, a substantial increase in 
net water use occurred — 2.8 million acre-feet — most- 
ly in the Central Valley. Net water use in 1972, as 
presented in Bulletin 160-74, is compared in Table 17 
by regions (HSAs or combinations of HSAs), with 
the current estimate of net water use for 1980 (also 
shown in Table 16). In the Central Valley, the in- 
crease was 2 million acre-feet, a 10-percent increase 
from 1972 to 1980. This increase was mostly in sup- 
port of irrigated agriculture. The other region of sub- 
stantial increase was in the South Coastal region, 
where there was additional net water use of 420,000 
acre-feet, mostly for urban purposes. 

Statewide, the total annual long-term dependable 
developed water supply is 33,429,000 acre-feet, of 
which 32,016,000 acre-feet is currently used. This 
leaves 1,413,000 acre-feet as a reserve developed sur- 
face water supply. 

The dependable water supplies used to meet the 
net water uses are summarized in Table 18. The re- 



serve surface water supply indicated in the table 
represents the portion of developed water supply 
from specific water projects where the use by the 
service areas for those projects has not yet reached 
the full capability of the water supply. In general, the 
reserve surface water supplies indicated are commit- 
ted to the designated service areas and are not avail- 
able to meet needs of other areas, even temporarily, 
because of a lack of conveyance systems and of insti- 
tutional arrangements to make the water available. 

The statewide summary of net water use. present 
use of dependable water supplies, ground water 
overdraft, and reserve supply is presented in Table 
19. The Sacramento HSA has the largest net use of 
dependable water supply and the largest reserve 
supply, 7.4 million acre-feet and 535,000 acre-feet, re- 
spectively. The Tulare Lake HSA has the second larg- 
est use of dependable supply: but, with the largest 
net water use, 8.2 million acre-feet, it also has the 
largest overdraft. 

Statewide ground water overdraft is estimated at 
1.8 million acre-feet annually. Table 19 indicates that 
ground water overdraft occurs in some HSAs where 
reserve supplies are present. The most notable exam- 
ple of this is the San Joaquin HSA because, as in- 
dicated above, local areas where the ground water 
overdraft occurs do not have access to the reserve 
supplies. 

One of the major water problems in California is 
the lack of natural surface water supplies in the areas 
where the most development using water has taken 
place. The extensive conveyance systems necessary 
to move the water to the area of use are shown on 
Plate 1 and are generalized in Figure 26, together with 
the substantial quantities of water transferred. More 
than 18 million of California's 23.8 million people live 
in the coastal metropolitan areas of San Francisco 
Bay and the South Coastal region (1980). This popu- 
lation is supported substantially by imported water 
supplies. Large imports of water are also required to 
sustain the current level of irrigated agriculture in the 
San Joaquin Valley. 



TABLE 19 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



NC 



SF 



CC 



LA 



SA 



SO 



SB 



SJ 



TL 



NL 



SL 



CR 



TOTAL 



Net Water Use 

Present Use of Dependable Supply 

Ground Water Overdraft 

Shortage ' 

Reserve Surface Water Supply 

' Shortage in urban water supply, 

' Includes SWP surplus water deliveries. 



1.081 
1,080 



1.204 

1.197' 

7 

138 



870 

224 

6 

17 



1.906 

1.824 

82 

164 



962 

952 

10 

203 



634 
634 



46 



7,464 

7.371 

86 

8 

535 



6.341 

6.949 

391 

1 
191 



8.188 

7,332 ' 

856 

56 



421 

416 

5 



419 
316 
103 

33 



4.102 

4.075 

27 



33.821 
32.016 

1.790 
15 

1.413 



85 



Figure 26. EXISTING INTRASTATE WATER TRANSFERS 
AT 1980 LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT 

ACRE-FEET PER YEAR 




1 South Bay Aqueduct 150 000 

2 Contra Costa Canal 81.000 

3 Mokelumne Aqueduct 210.000 
4, Hetch Hetctiy Aqueduct 240.000 



The four regions that import significant amounts of 
water and now have, or previously have had, substan- 
tial ground water overdraft are shown in Table 20. In 
all these regions, the imported supplies have been 
developed to offset overdraft conditions and meet 
anticipated future needs. In the South Coastal re- 
gion, ground water basins are now mostly managed. 
Many of them have been adjudicated, and overdraft 
has been largely eliminated. However, the area im- 
ports 62 percent of its net water supply, as does the 
San Francisco Bay HSA. The Tulare Lake HSA has 
the largest ground water overdraft — about 850,000 
acre-feet per year — and imports 36 percent of its net 
water supply. Most of the net water use in the South 
Coastal region and the San Francisco Bay HSA is for 
urban purposes, while in the Tulare Lake HSA, it is 
primarily for irrigated agriculture. 



TABLE 20 

COMPARISON OF LOCALLY DEVELOPED 

AND IMPORTED NET WATER SUPPLIES 

1980 

(In percent) 



Location 


Water Supply 

Developed 

within the 

Area 


Water Supply 
Imported 


San Francisco Bay HSA 


38 

38 
76 
64' 


62 


South Coast Region (Los Angeles, Santa 
Ana and San Diego HSAs) 


62 




24 


Tulare Lake HSA 


36 







' CVP water delivered through Friant-Kern Canal was considered as a water supply 
developed within the area. 



STATEWIDE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE NETWORK 



California's natural water supplies are derived 
from an average annual statewide precipitation of 
193 million acre-feet. This amount translates to an 
average depth of nearly 2 feet, varying from nearly 
zero to more than 100 inches across the State. About 
60 percent of this precipitation is consumed through 
evaporation and transpiration by trees, brush, and 
other vegetation. Most of the remainder comprises 
the State's average annual runoff, 71 million acre- 
feet. Of this, more than 4 million acre-feet percolates 
from stream channels to ground water basins. This 
amount is about 80 percent of the total prime supply 
to ground water in California. Most of this 80 percent 
is naturally recharged to ground water. The rest is 
local surface supplies that are recharged by artificial 
means. The remaining 20 percent is derived from 
precipitation percolating directly to the ground wa- 
ter through the soil. Average annual precipitation 
and runoff by Hydrologic Study Areas are shown in 



the series of maps appearing in "Summaries of Hy- 
drologic Study Areas" in this chapter. 

The overall balance between water use and the 
water resources of California is shown in Figure 27. 
The amounts shown represent average hydrologic 
conditions, current water development, and 1980 lev- 
el of water use in relation to: 

• Natural water resources of California, both surface 
and ground water. 

• Interstate imports and exports. 

• Developed water supplies. 

• Surface water and ground water. 

• Applied water. 

• Consumptive use of precipitation and developed 
water supplies. 

• Reuse of water. 

• Final outflows to the ocean and other salt sinks. 



87 



Figure 27. HYDROLOGIC BALANCE NETWORK FOR CALIFORNIA 1980 

IN MILLION ACRE-FEET 




I 



i I 



QROUNO 


w* 


cn 


C-'IME SUfPL 




8 B 


• NI,MCl*L RtCHAHGE 1 1 1 


MbP PERCOL 

•fpiieo *AT 


»T10N 


Of 


..EBOIXFT 




> B 


. ..Nvf .*NCt 


5.ES1 


• 0£ _0J 



\ 




J* 




DESCRIPTIONS OF 

COMPONENTS OF THE 

HYDROLOGIC BALANCE 

NETWORK FOR 

CALIFORNIA 

(Figure 27) 

Sequence on Chart Is 

Top to Bottom and 

Left to Right 

1. Colorado River — Representative 1980 level of use 
of water diverted from the Colorado River by The Metropoli- 
tan Water District of Southern California, Imperial Irrigation 
District, Coachella Valley Water District, Palo Verde Irriga- 
tion District, the Yuma Project, and others under California's 
entitlement to use of Colorado River water. 

2. Inflow from Oregon— Klamath River inflow from 
Oregon. 



3. Precipitation — Long-term average annual precipi- 
tation falling in California. 

4. Runoff — The portion of long-term overage annual 
precipitation which runs off the land and makes up the natural 
flow in rivers and streams. 

5. Effect of Land Use Changes — The portion of 
average annual precipitation that would have been used by 
natural vegetation but now contributes to runoff. This is a 
result of roads, paved areas, building roofs, land drainage 
systems, fields developed for irrigation, and other changes in 
land use. 

6. Ground Water Prime Supply — The long-term 
average annual percolation to the major ground water basins 
from precipitation falling on the land and from flows in rivers 
and streams. Also includes recharge from local sources that 
has been enhanced by construction of spreading grounds and 
other structural devices. Recharge of imported and reclaimed 
water is not included. 



88 



7. Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from 
Forest, Rangeland, Unirrigated Agriculture, Na- 
tive Vegetation, and Other Lands — The statewide 

evaporation of precipitation from land surfaces and the 
evapotranspiration of precipitation by nonrrrigated trees, 
brush, dry-farmed crops, gross, and other plonts. 

8. Total Streamflow — The long-term overage annual 
natural streamflow and the increase in streamflow due to land 
use changes. 

9. Ground Water in Storage — The estimated total 

fresh water stored in the major ground water basins within the 
Stote. 

10. Evaporation from Lakes and Reser- 
voirs — The overage annual surface evaporation from natu- 
ral lakes and constructed surface water storage reservoirs. 

11. Agriculturally Effective Evapotranspira- 
tion on Irrigated Lands — Average annual precipitation 
used by crops planted in developed irrigated land areas. 

12. Central Valley and State Water Projects, 
Water Stored for Salinity Repulsion — Represents 

releose of carryover storage (port of the firm yield) of these 
two projects to supplement natural flows to meet outflow 
requirements for protection of beneficial uses in the Sacra- 
mento-San Joaquin River Delta. 

13. Local (In State) Imports — The average annual 
inter-watershed transfers of water supply within the State. 

14. Local Development — The average annual sur- 
face water supplies of individuals and from local water 
ogency water projects. It includes direct deliveries of water 
from streomflows, as well as local water storage facilities. It 
excludes artificial recharge of local water to ground water 
basins (port of ground water prime supply). 

15. Central Valley Project — The sum of estimated 

deliveries, conveyance losses, and available reserves in 1980 
from the Central Valley Project. 

16 Other Federal — The sum of estimated deliveries 
and available reserves in 1980 from federal projects other 
than the Central Valley Project. 

17. State Water Project — The sum of estimated 
deliveries, conveyance losses, and available reserves from the 
existing facilities of the State Water Project. 

18. Artificial Recharge of Imported Sup- 
plies — The average annual contribution from imported wa- 
ter supplies and planned waste water reclamation projects. 
Does not include recharge of local supplies to ground water 
recharge by specific recharge project. 

19. Conveyance Losses — The overage loss from ma- 
jor water supply conveyance systems to evaporation, seep- 
age from unlined canals, and evapotranspiration by 
vegetation in and near canals. 

20. Developed Water Supply — The total developed 

water supply, including surface water supplies, ground water 
pumped, imports from the Colorado River, and planned and 
incidental waste water reclamation. 

21. Ground Water — A summary of the sources of 
ground water as part of the developed water supply. 



22. Agricultural Return Flows to Developed 

Water Supply — Represents surface return flows from irri- 
gated agriculture to stream channels that ore available for 
use outside the local service area. 

23. From Conveyance Losses — That portion of 

conveyance losses that seeps into ground water supplies. 

24. Reclaimed Waste Water — The planned renova- 
tion of waste water for specific beneficial purposes and the 
incidental reuse of treated woste water flows that return to 
streomflows and ground water basins. 

25. To Ground Water — That portion of the convey- 
ance losses attributable to seepage from canals that becomes 
avoiloble as ground water. (This is the same water as that 
shown in 23 above.) 

26. Urban Waste Water Produced — Represents 

the flow from urban waste water treatment plants. 

27. Evapotranspiration of Applied Water — The 

applied water consumptively used through evaporation and 
transpiration by agricultural crops, urban areas, wildfowl 
management areas, parks and other recreation oreos, and 
energy production. 

28. Water Use (Applied) — Represents the applied 
water for irrigated agriculture, urban areas, wildfowl man- 
agement areas, nonurbon parks and recreation areas, and 
energy production. 

29. Evaporation and Evapotranspiration of Ap- 
plied Water, Precipitation, and Conveyance 

Losses — The total of all evaporation and evapotranspira- 
tion under overage natural conditions and 1980 level of ap- 
plied water. 

30. Deep Percolation of Applied Water — Repre- 
sents that portion of applied water for agriculture and urban 
purposes that percolates to the ground woter, including the 
water used for leaching accumulated salts from the root zone. 

31. To Evaporation and Evapotranspiration — 

That portion of the urbon waste water produced that evapo- 
rotes from evaporation and percolation ponds. 

32. Reuse Within Service Area — Represents reuse 
of irrigation systems toilwoter and return flows to local distri- 
bution systems and streams within o unit geographic study 
area; in this case, does not include reuse of excess applied 
water that percolates to ground water. 

33. Incidental Evapotranspiration of Agricul- 
tural Return Flows — Represents the evapotranspiration 
by weeds and other vegetation in fringes of fields and in and 
near the agricultural drains and sump areas. 

34. Agricultural Surface Return Flows — Repre- 
sents the flows from applied irrigation water and some returns 
of conveyance losses that return to the developed surface 
water supply, are discharged to salt sinks, or are consumed 
by riparian plants. 

35. From Urban Waste Water Produced — The 

portion of urban waste water that is lost to evaporation. 



89 



36. Reserve Supply — Developed but presently unused 
surface water supply available to certoin portions of a Hy- 
droiogic Study Area to meet planned future water needs; 
usually the supply is not available to other areas needing 
additional woter because of a lack of physical facilities 
ond/or institutional arrangements. 

The reserves include the sum of the reserves in each Plan- 
ning Subarea (PSA) from: 

• Local development and imports 
. SWP 

. CVP 

• Other federol development. 

Not all the total of these reserves is usable because some 
of it is reduced by conveyance losses and some of it consists 
of return flows that become port of the downstream reserve 
supply for a PSA. In addition, some of the reserve supply 
identified for a PSA may also be included in the amount 
identified for one or more other PSAs. 



37. Agricultural Flows to Salt Sinks — Agricul- 
tural return flows that go to evaporation ponds, saline water 
bodies such as the Salton Sea or the ocean, or to saline 
ground water. 

38. Discharged to Saline Water — Represents that 

portion of treated urban waste water discharged to saline 
surface and ground water bodies. 

39. Salinity Repulsion — Fresh water outflow from the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the beneficial uses 
within the Delta from the incursion of saline water. 

40. Wild and Scenic Rivers — Average annual natu- 
ral flows from the designated North Coast State and Federal 
Wild and Scenic Rivers systems. 

41. Remaining Runoff — Represents the remaining 
natural runoff under average annual hydrologic conditions. 

42. Outflows to Nevada — The average annual natu- 
ral outflow to the State of Nevada. 



90 



SUMMARIES OF HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS 

This section summarizes water-related information for the 12 Hydrologic 
Study Areas. Tables in this section present data on net water use and water 
supply. Irrigated and urban areas are depicted on the HSA maps, which also 
include tabulations of average precipitation, average natural runoff, irrigated 
land area, and population. Discussion sections include comments and high- 
lights pertaining to population, water supply, and irrigated agriculture (signifi- 
cant changes in crops, irrigated land, and irrigation methods). Tabulations 
showing detailed hydrologic balances are included for the Los Angeles, Santa 
Ana, and San Diego HSAs (the South Coastal region) and the Sacramento, San 
Joaquin, and Tulare Lake HSAs (the Central Valley). 



91 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 51,940.000 acre-feet 




Figure 28. 
NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

The Russian River portion of this area — the Santa 
Rosa area of Sonoma County, in particular — is under- 
going the rapid growth that is characteristic of the 
San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. To preserve its 
agricultural industry, Sonoma County has passed an 
ordinance that bans the subdivision of farmlands into 
parcels of less than 20 acres. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Irrigated lands m the North Coast HSA increased 
by 24,000 acres from 1972 to 1980. Changes included 
18,000 acres of irrigated vineyards, both new and es- 
tablished, to which dual systems were added for frost 
protection (overhead spray) and irrigation (drip de- 
vices). Orchards, which have been replaced with 
vineyards, showed a decrease of 6,000 acres, while 
most other categories of crops showed a slight in- 
crease. Most of the newly irrigated land is supplied 
by ground water. 

Russian River 

The Russian River drainage basin in Mendocino 
and Sonoma Counties is noted for its orchards and 
varietal wine grape vineyards, a significant portion of 
which have been historically dry-farmed. The crop- 
ping pattern in this region has changed greatly since 
1972, with urban encroachment and the replacement 
of many prune orchards by grape vineyards. In 1972, 
about 24,000 acres were planted to orchards; by 1980, 
orchards had declined to about 15,500 acres. In con- 



trast, vineyards increased from about 33,000 acres in 
1972 to about 36,700 acres in 1980. Also, irrigated 
vineyards, including those equipped with sprinklers 
primarily for frost protection, increased from 21,800 
acres in 1972 to 27,400 acres in 1980. About 60 percent 
of the sprinkler-equipped acreages are actually irri- 
gated during the summer; the remainder receive 
frost-control watering only. Most of the new vine- 
yards planted in recent years are equipped with per- 
manently set sprinkler systems, and some also have 
drip irrigation. 

It is not uncommon in this region to see orchards 
under stress conditions because of insufficient soil 
moisture. Moisture stress severely reduces crop 
yield in some cases. 

Remaining Areas 

Irrigated acreage in the major agricultural areas 
draining into the Klamath River increased from 26,000 
to 41,600 acres between 1969 and 1979. All the in- 
crease can be attributed to the development of 
ground water for irrigation, principally within Red 
Rock Valley and Butte Valley ground water basins. 
Red Rock Valley, an area with no irrigation m 1959, 
had 5,340 acres under irrigation in 1979. Irrigated 
agriculture within the Butte Valley ground water ba- 
sin increased about 10,300 acres between 1969 and 
1979. Alfalfa and grain are the irrigated crops that 
have shown the most substantial increases. 

The long-standing method of wild flooding is still 
practiced in many counties of the Sierra Nevada and 



TABLE 21 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

NORTH COAST HYDftCLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urban 


151 
714 

216 
1.081 


Local surface water 


368 


Irrigated agriculture 


Major local imports 

Ground water 


2 
243 




Central Valley Project 




Energy production 


Other federal projects 

State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 

Use of dependable water supply..... 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 


458 


Wildlife and recreation 


9 


Conveyance losses 


1080 


TOTAL 


9 

1089 













WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Shortage 


1.081 


1.080 


- 


1 



93 



the Cascade Range, including Siskiyou County. Typi- 
cally, the system functions by diverting a stream into 
a ditch constructed to a slight grade that conveys 
water on a sloping contour along a hillside, eventual- 
ly running above irrigable fields. Water is diverted 
from the ditch by flash boards, sand sacks, or other 
devices at intervals and allowed to flow onto and 
cover most of the field below. Although the system 
is a somewhat inefficient means of applying water, it 



IS popular because it is inexpensive to establish and 
operate: also, it operates entirely by gravity. After the 
field IS irrigated, excess water re-enters the local 
stream system and is again available for use on low- 
er-lying fields. This results, however, in a greater re- 
duction in streamflow between the point of diversion 
and the point of return to the stream than would 
occur in a more efficient system. Irrigated pasture is 
generally the only crop in this HSA irrigated in this 
manner. 



SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

San Francisco County, the only county in Califor- 
nia to lose population between 1970 and 1980, and 
San Jose, the fastest growing major city in the na- 
tion, are both in the San Francisco Bay HSA. Most of 
the growth that took place in the South Bay area was 
due to natural increase, rather than migration. 
However, growth in the South Bay is now being 
slowed by a scarcity of affordable housing. A survey 
by the Association of Bay Area Governments shows 
a decrease in housing densities in the suburbs since 
the change in property tax law in 1978 because coun- 
ties have adopted fiscal zoning to require larger lots 
with higher values and thus increase their tax base. 
Completion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit in the early 
1970s stimulated growth in the eastern counties of 
Solano and Contra Costa where more affordable 
housing existed. San Francisco Bay HSA's employ- 
ment IS heavily directed toward the aerospace and 
electronics industries. Santa Clara County ranks sec- 
ond in the State in numbers of people employed in 
the aerospace industry. The county is also the home 
of the electronics industry, which originated at Stan- 
ford University m the 1920s. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

The San Francisco Bay HSA, even with the pres- 
sure of urbanization, underwent a 1,000-acre net in- 
crease in irrigated area between 1972 and 1980. 
Irrigated vineyards increased by 16,000 acres. Among 
these were established, traditionally dry-farmed vine- 
yards where irrigation had been added. Some of the 
new vineyards (as well as urban expansion) dis- 
placed irrigated orchards, which declined by 14,000 
acres. Pasture declined by 8,000 acres and vegeta- 
bles, by 1,000 acres. All other crops showed a slight 
increase. Most of the new irrigation relies on ground 
water. 



South Bay Area 

About 9,000 acres of irrigated crops remain in 
Santa Clara County. Water supplies are obtained by 
pumping ground water, which is recharged with 
about 35,000 acre-feet of State Water Project (SWP) 
water. About 3,000 acre-feet of recharged ground 
water is used for agricultural crop production. Inten- 
sive cultural practices maintain high irrigation effici- 
encies in the county — about 80 percent. 

About 8,000 acres of irrigated crops are grown in 
the Livermore Valley (Zone 7 of the Alameda County 
Flood Control and Water Conservation District) . Cur- 
rently, the average irrigation efficiency is about 70 
percent, and it is likely to increase further because of 
higher costs of energy for pumping ground water. 
The excess irrigation water enters the ground water 
basin underlying the Livermore Valley. About 2,000 
acre-feet of irrigation water is obtained from the 
SWP and the remainder is ground water. 

In the Alameda County Water District near Fre- 
mont and Newark, ground water is the source of all 
irrigation water. Major crops are cauliflower, lettuce, 
nursery stock, and flowers. The present irrigation ef- 
ficiency (80 percent or greater in many cases) 
should continue about the same m the future. 

The climate of the coastal area of San Mateo 
County is suitable for such specialty crops as Brus- 
sels sprouts, artichokes, and flowers. An inadequate 
supply of irrigation water is one of the main factors 
that restrains farming in this area. Underground wa- 
ter storage is limited; therefore, most of the water is 
obtained by pumping directly from creeks or by col- 
lecting winter runoff in small reservoirs for later use. 
Frequent coastal fogs help reduce the irrigation re- 
quirements m the area. Current irrigation efficiency 
is high, about 80 percent. 



94 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 5,830,000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 1,290,000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND - 64.000 acres 



POPULATION - 4,790,000 




i 




SAN FRANCISQO 



MlLtS 



Legend 



W 



iv, ■ IRRIGATED LAND 



URBAN LAND 



Figure 29. 
SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



95 



TABLE 22 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 



Dependable Water Supply 



Urban 

Irrigated agriculture 
Energy production.... 



Wildlife and recreation.. 
Conveyance losses 



TOTAL 



967 

121 

6 

96 

1.204 



Local surface water 

f^ajor local imports 

Ground water 

Central Valley Project 

Other federal projects 

State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 

Use of dependable water supply. 
Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 



228 

454 

211 

81 

56 

157' 

10 

1.197 

138 

1.335 



WATER BALANCE 



Net Water Use 



Use of Deper)dable 
Water Supply 



Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 



Urban Shortage 



1,204 



1.197 



' Includes SWP surplus water deliveries. 



North Bay Area 

Vineyards are expanding into previously uncul- 
tivated hilly areas on the western and eastern fringes 
of the Napa Valley. They are irrigated mostly with 
drip systems, interspersed with sprinklers. Some 
growers use sprinklers for frost control only. Because 
water is in short supply in the Napa Valley, many 
growers maintain reservoirs to provide enough water 
to combat frost. The Napa River has been under a 
trial distribution program of the State Water Re- 
sources Control Board since 1973 to allocate river 
flows during the frost-risk season (March 15 to May 
15). 



In Napa County, about 95 percent of the irrigated 
crop acreage is vineyards. Irrigation efficiency is cur- 
rently about 80 percent, with widespread use of 
sprinklers and drip systems. Sources of water are 
equally divided between surface and ground water. 

In the North Bay portion of Solano County, about 
68 percent of the irrigated crops consist of apricot, 
pear, prune, almond, and walnut orchards. Many or- 
chards are now irrigated by the basin method. Pas- 
ture is irrigated by the border method. About 92 
percent of the total crop acreage is irrigated with 
surface water, most of which is supplied by the So- 
lano Project from water stored at Lake Berryessa. 



96 



CENTRAL COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

County growth from either migration or natural 
increase varied considerably within the Central 
Coast HSA. San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz Coun- 
ties' growth came from migration, 85 and 80 percent 
respectively, while 75 percent of the growth in Mon- 
terey County was due to natural increase. Govern- 
ment, trade, and services are the main employment 
industries. 

Significant urban development occurred in San 
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties during the 
mid-1970s. The Santa Marganta-Paso Robles and San 
Luis Obispo-Pismo Beach areas and the Santa Maria 
and Lompoc Valleys experienced very noticeable ur- 
ban growth. Increased aerospace research at Van- 
denberg Air Force Base was partially responsible for 
the urban expansion in the Santa Maria and Lompoc 
areas. Urban growth was severely limited m southern 
Santa Barbara County during much of the 1970s, due 
in large measure to the desires of the local citizens. 
Shortages of sufface and ground water supplies and 
land limitations caused certain water agencies to re- 
strict new housing construction. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Irrigated land in the Central Coast HSA increased 
by 50,000 acres between 1972 and 1980. Expansion of 
vineyards accounted for 34,000 acres of this growth. 
Sprinklers are used for frost protection, irrigation. 



and high-temperature control, where needed. Or- 
chards declined by 10,000 acres and were mostly re- 
placed by vineyards. Irrigated gram increased by 
5.000 acres; alfalfa, by 13,000 acres; and vegetables, 
by 50,000 acres. Pasture declined by 6,000 acres, and 
field crops declined by 4.000 acres. 

San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties 

Irrigated area has expanded in San Luis Obispo 
and Santa Barbara Counties. Much of the pasture has 
been converted to alfalfa. The area is supporting 
more irrigated small grains and truck crops. Field 
crop acreage in Santa Barbara County has been re- 
placed by higher cash value truck crops, and citrus 
crops, or vineyards. Much of the truck crop acreage 
in Santa Barbara County is in nursery crops. Drip 
irrigation and low-pressure sprinklers have enabled 
farmers to plant citrus and avocado trees on steep 
lands. Large increases in vineyards have been the 
most recent noticeable change, along with more cit- 
rus fruit (mostly lemons) and avocados. 

Urban encroachment has forced agriculture to 
move into marginal lands. Multiple cropping (more 
than one crop on the same parcel of land during the 
year) has become more prevalent in the Santa Maria 
and Lompoc Valleys. 

The increased use of sprinkler and drip systems for 
irrigation in the southern part of the Central Coast 



TABLE 23 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

CENTRAL COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urban 


188 

902 

7 

2 

1.099 


Local surface water 

Major local imports 

Ground water 


39 


Irrigated agriculture 


768 


Energy production 


Central Valley Project 

Otfier federal projects 

State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 


54 


Wildlife and recreation 


9 


Conveyance losses 


Use of dependable water supply 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER , 


870 


TOTAL 


17 
887 













WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Shortage 


1.099 


870 


224 


5 



97 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 12,090.000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 2.450.000 acre feet 



IRRIGATED LAND -459.000 acres 



POPULATION - 1,005,000 



J 




IRRIGATED LAND 



URBAN LAND 



Santa Barboro 



Figure 30. 
CENTRAL COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



98 



HSA represents attempts by farmers to increase on- 
farm efficiency and reduce water demand. 

Salinas Valley 

Nearly 20,000 acres of grapes have been planted in 
the Salinas Valley, where about half the plantings 
replace other irrigated crops and half occurred on 
new lands. Total truck crop planting in the Salinas 
Valley increased by 35,000 acres. This reflects an in- 
crease in multiple cropping, as well as an increase in 
irrigated lands. Broccoli, cauliflower, and lettuce 
were among the crops that gained. Sugar beet plant- 
ing has decreased, and it will drop even more with 
the closing of the processing plant near Salinas. 

San Benito County 

Irrigated crop areas have increased by just over 
10,000 acres, almost entirely in row crops. Among 
truck crops, tomatoes, broccoli, and onions showed 
substantial increases. Sugar beets was the field crop 
that increased the most, but acreages will probably 



decrease m the future with the closing of the proc- 
essing plant near Salinas. Vineyards remained con- 
stant, and deciduous orchards continued to 
decrease. 

Santa Clara Valley 

About half the irrigated land in the Santa Clara 
Valley area is planted in truck crops, including 
cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, tomatoes, and other 
vegetables. Orchard crops include apricots, prunes, 
and walnuts. Ground water provides the primary irri- 
gation water source. Irrigation efficiency is high, 
about 80 percent, with much of the irrigation done 
with sprinklers. 

Santa Cruz County 

Irrigated acreage did not exhibit much change. De- 
ciduous orchards and field crops declined, but this 
was compensated for by an increase in vegetable 
crops. 



99 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 4,440,000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 580.000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND - 118,000 acres 



POPULATION - 7,927,000 




i 




Legend 



IRRIGATED LAND 



URBAN LAND 



MILES 



Figure 31. 
LOS ANGELES HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



100 



1980 



LOS ANGELES HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

The Los Angeles HSA contains the Los Angeles- 
Long Beach standard nnetropolitan statistical area, 
the largest such area in California, and in the nation, 
both in ternns of area and population. 

The Los Angeles HSA has a strong economic base, 
with aerospace and service industries the dominant 
industrial activities. The area contains 40 percent of 
the State's aerospace industries, receives 70 percent 
of its foreign travelers, and houses Universal Studios, 
one of the ten leading visitor attractions in the United 
States. In recent years. 58 percent of the residential 
construction in this HSA was multiple-family units. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Overall, the Los Angeles HSA shows a net loss of 
2,000 acres of irrigated land since 1972 due to urban 
encroachment. In addition, double-cropped area de- 
clined by 3,000 acres. 

Most of the irrigated land in this HSA is located in 
Ventura County, where both urban areas and agricul- 
tural irrigated acreage are expanding. Many farmers 
are planting avocado and citrus trees in foothills that 
were previously not irrigated. Other farmers are prac- 



ticing more double-cropping, and some are even tri- 
ple-cropping. Deciduous fruits and nuts and alfalfa 
are declining. 

Higher energy and water costs, ground water qual- 
ity problems, and possible water supply shortages 
are forcing farmers to improve their irrigation effici- 
encies. The use of sprinkler, drip, and low-flow sprin- 
klers for seed germination and normal irrigation; the 
leveling of land to reduce irrigation runoff: and closer 
control of amounts of water applied are all examples 
of improved irrigation practices occurring in the 
area. New plantings of citrus and avocado trees are 
being irrigated with drip emitters and low-flow sprin- 
klers, and older orchards are being converted to 
these newer systems. 

Ground water overdraft in Ventura County has 
continued at about 70.000 acre-feet per year since 
1970. This has caused identification of the Ventura 
County Ground Water Basin as subject to critical 
conditions of overdraft. 

The dairy industry in the Chino-Ontario area of San 
Bernardino County has started to relocate into the 
San Jacinto Valley of Riverside County because of 
urban encroachment and environmental controls. 



TABLE 24 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

LOS ANGELES HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 



Dependable Water Supply 



Urban 

Irrigated agriculture 
Energy production.... 



Wildlife and recreation.. 
Conveyance losses 



TOTAL . 



1.534 

276 

7 

8 
81 

1.906 



Local surface water 

Major local imports 

Ground water 

Central Valley Project 

Other federal projects 

State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 

Use of dependable water supply.. 
Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 



29 
752 
483 

20 

481 

59 

1.824 
164 

1.988 







WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urbar) Shortage 


1.906 


1.824 


82 


— 



101 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES 

The purpose of the following four tabulations is to provide a detailed analysis 
of the sources of water used (applied and net) in this HSA and to describe what 
happens to the water in the process of its use. The tabulations show the type 
of infornnation displayed schematically for the entire State in Figure 27. Applied 
water totals in these tabulations do not necessarily agree with totals in Table 
16 because such items as artificial recharge are counted as applied water to 
show in more detail the complex interrelationship between supply and use. 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES— LOS ANGELES HSA 

(in 1,000s of acre-feet) 



SOURCES OF APPLIED WATER 


Surface Water 
Local 




29 


Federal 




20 



APPLIED WATER DISBURSEMENT 



Imports: Los Angeles Aqueduct 

Mono Basin 

Owens Valley 

Colorado River 

SWF 

Waste Water Reclamation 



_ _ 98 

369 

242 

443 

_M 

Subtotal 1.260 

Ground Water 
Prime Supply: 

Natural Recharge 

Artificial Recharge of Local Surface Supplies 

Artificial Recharge: 

Planned Reclamation 

Imported Surface Supplies _ 

Sea-water Intrusion Barrier 

Deep Percolation from: 

Urban Use 

Agricultural Use 

Incidental Reclamation 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 

Subtotal „ _ 



TOTAL . 



263 
220 

22 
150 

43 

103 
72 
17 
82 

972 

2.232 



Urban Use 

ETAW _ „. 472 

Incidental Reclamation _ _ 17 

Planned Reclamation ..._ 59 

Flows to Salt Sinks _._ _ 1.001 

Deep Percolation _ __ 103 

Subtotal __ 1.652 



Agricultural Use 

ETAW „ 

Flows to Salt Sinks 

Deep Percolation 

Subtotal _ _. 

Other Use 
Wildlife: 

ETAW 

Rows to Salt Sinks . 

Recreation 

Energy Production: 

ETAW _. 

Rows to Salt Sinks ., 

Subtotal 



Artificial Recfiarge 

Reclaimed Water 

Imported Surface Supplies.. 
Sea-water Intrusion Barrier.. 
Salinity Repulsion 

Subtotal 

TOTAL 



217 
59 
72 

348 



4 
3 

1 

5 
_2 

15 



22 
150 
43 

2 

217 
Z232 



102 



Los Angeles HSA (Continued) 



NET WATER SUPPLY 

Local 29 

Federal (non-CVP) 20 

Mono Basin 100 

Owens Valley 382 

Colorado River 270 

SWP 481 

Waste Water Reclamation 59 

Ground Water Prime Supply 483 

TOTAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 1,824 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 82 

TOTAL NET SUPPLY 1.906 



NET WATER USE 

Urban Use 

ETAW 472 

Flows to Salt Sinks 1.001 

Planned Reclamation 59 

Artificial Recharge for Salinity Repulsion 2 

Subtotal 1.534 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 217 

Flows to Salt Sinks 59 

Subtotal 276 

Other Use 

Wildlife 7 

Recreation 1 

Energy Production: 

ETAW « 5 

Flows to Salt Sinks 2 

Subtotal 15 

Conveyance Loss 

Mono Basin 2 

Owens Valley 15 

Colorado River 28 

SWP _38 

Subtotal 82 

TOTAL 1,906 



103 





AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 2,550.000 acre-feet 



Legend 



IRRIGATED LAND 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 310.000 acre-feet 



URBAN LAND 



IRRIGATED LAND - 147.000 acres 



POPULATION - 2,974,000 



O 10 20 30 

I I 

MILES 



Figure 32. 
SANTA ANA HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



104 



1980 



SANTA ANA HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

The Santa Ana HSA incorporates portions of Or- 
ange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Popu- 
lation gams in Orange County result from suburban 
development due to rapid employment growth of the 
Los Angeles metropolitan area. Aerospace, electron- 
ics, and service (tourism) industries provide the eco- 
nomic base. Two of the ten leading visitor attractions 
in the United States — Disneyland and Knott's Berry 
Farm — are located in Orange County. 

As a result of rapid urbanization, and other eco- 
nomic forces, the price of the average home has 
soared, forcing many people to seek more affordable 
housing in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 
San Bernardino's favorable location for warehousing 
and distribution has led to a concentration of many 



freight carriers. From 1972 to 1980, migration ac- 
counted for approximately 75 percent of the growth 
in the Santa Ana HSA. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Irrigated agriculture in the Santa Ana HSA de- 
clined by 38,000 acres between 1972 and 1980. All 
crop categories show a loss, primarily due to urban 
expansion, especially in Orange County. Some of the 
reduction has been offset through the relocation of 
agriculture into hillside areas not previously irrigated. 
New plantings of avocado and citrus trees and vine- 
yards have occurred on these hillsides, although de- 
velopment costs have been high and special 
irrigation techniques are needed, such as low-flow 
sprinklers and drip systems. 



TABLE 25 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

SANTA ANA HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

{In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urban 


586 

320 

9 

2 
45 

962 


Local surface water 


93 


Irrigated agriculture 


Major local imports 

Ground water 

Central Valley Project 


290 
402 






Energy production 


Otfier federal projects 






State Water Project 


138 


Wildlife and recreation 


Waste water reclamation 


29 


Conveyance losses 


Use of dependable water supply 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 


952 


TOTAL 


203 
1,155 













WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Shortage 


962 


952 


10 


— 



105 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES 

The purpose of the following four tabulations is to provide a detailed analysis 
of the sources of water used (applied and net) in this HSA and to describe what 
happens to the water in the process of its use. The tabulations show the type 
of information displayed schematically for the entire State in Figure 27. Applied 
water totals in these tabulations do not necessarily agree with totals in Table 
16 because such items as artificial recharge are counted as applied water to 
show in more detail the complex interrelationship between supply and use. 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES— SANTA ANA HSA 
{In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



SOURCES OF APPLIED WATER 

Surface Water 

Local 93 

Imports; Colorado River 273 

SWP 110 

Waste Water Reclamation 29 

Subtotal 505 

Ground Water 

Prime Supply: 

Natural Recharge 278 

Artificial Recharge of Local Surface Supplies 124 

Artificial Recharge: 

Planned Reclamation 1 

Imported Surface Supplies 118 

Sea-water Intrusion Barrier 2 

Deep Percolation from: 

Urban Use 74 

Agricultural Use 92 

Incidental Reclamation 74 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 10 

Subtotal _773 

TOTAL 1.278 



APPLIED WATER DISBURSEMENT 

Urban Use 

ETAW 170 

Incidental Reclamation 74 

Planned Reclamation 29 

Flows to Salt Sinks 383 

Deep Percolation 74 

Subtotal 730 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 252 

Flows to Salt Sinks 92 

Deep Percolation 68 

Subtotal 412 

Other Use 

Recreation 2 

Energy Production: 

ETAW 8 

Flows to Salt Sinks 1 

Subtotal 11 

Artificial Recharge 

Reclaimed Water 1 

Imported Surface Supplies 118 

Sea-water Intrusion Barrier 2 

Salinity Repulsion 4 

Subtotal 125 

TOTAL 1.278 



106 



Santa Ana HSA (Continued) 



NET WATER SUPPLY 

Local 93 

Colorado River 290 

SWP 138 

Waste Water Reclamation 29 

Ground Water Prime Supply 402 

TOTAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 952 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 10 

TOTAL NET SUPPLY 962 



NET WATER USE 

Urban Use 

ETAW 170 

Flows to Salt Sinks 383 

Planned Reclamation 29 

Artificial Recharge for Salinity Repulsion 4 

Subtotal 586 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 252 

Flows to Salt Sinks 68 

Subtotal 320 

Other Use 

Recreation 2 

Energy Production: 

ETAW 8 

Flows to Salt Sinks 1^ 

Subtotal 11 

Conveyance Loss 

Colorado River 17 

SWP _J8 

Subtotal 45 

TOTAL 962 



107 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 3.770,000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 330,000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND -100,000 acres 



POPULATION - 2,068.000 




; 



SAN CLEMENTE 




San Oiego 



■mTTTco 



20 30 



Legend 



IRRIGATED LAND 
URBAN LAND 



Figure 33. 
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



108 



SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

Growth m the San Diego HSA has been occurring 
in the suburbs. Migration has accounted for about 
three-fourths of this growth, and about 75 percent of 
the new residents came from outside the State. Em- 
ployment in the city of San Diego is concentrated in 
the aerospace, electronics, government (military), 
and service (tourism) industries. The San Diego Zoo 
IS the fourth most popular of the ten leading visitor 
attractions in the United States. Half the residential 
construction in this HSA was multiple-family units. 
This was the second highest such proportion in the 
State. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Irrigated area in the San Diego HSA experienced 
a net increase of 12,000 acres between 1972 and 1980, 



despite the pressure of urban spread. Avocado, cit- 
rus, and grain acreages all increased, with avocado 
and citrus together showing a 20,000-acre increase 
and irrigated gram, a 6,000-acre increase. Pasture and 
truck crop acreages each declined by about 10,000 
acres. All other crops remained stable. 

Urban growth has been extensive in this area, 
while new orchards have been established on rough 
and steep hillsides, irrigated with drip systems. 

In recent years, irrigation of most of its older citrus 
and avocado trees has been converted to drip and 
low-flow sprinkler systems because of the high price 
of imported water. These systems have also been 
used to irrigate some truck and field crops. Furrow 
irrigation systems are also still in use, although closer 
attention is being given to management. 



TABLE 26 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urban 


389 

198 

7 
40 

634 


Local surface water 

Major local imports 

Ground water 


37 


Irriaated aarJculture 


290 
77 




Central Vallev Proiect . ... 






Other federal projects 







State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 


221 
9 


Convevance losses 


Use of dependable water supply 


634 


TOTAL 


Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 


46 
680 













WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 




Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Shortage 


634 


634 


- 


— 



109 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES 

The purpose of the following four tabulations is to provide a detailed analysis 
of the sources of water used (applied and net) in this HSA and to describe what 
happens to the water in the process of its use. The tabulations show the type 
of infornnation displayed schematically for the entire State in Figure 27. Applied 
water totals in these tabulations do not necessarily agree with totals in Table 
16 because such items as artificial recharge are counted as applied water to 
show in more detail the complex interrelationship between supply and use. 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES— SAN DIEGO HSA 
(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



SOURCES OF APPLIED WATER 

Surface Water 

Local 37 

Imports: Colorado River 273 

SWP 198 

Waste Water Reclamation 9 

Subtotal 517 

Ground Water 

Prime Supply 77 

Artificial Recharge: 

Planned Reclamation 1 

Imported Surface Supplies 50 

Deep Percolation from: 
Agricultural Use 30 

Subtotal _!58 

TOTAL 675 



APPLIED WATER DISBURSEMENT 

Urban Use 

ETAW 105 

Planned Reclamation 9 

Flows to Salt Sinks 275 

Subtotal 389 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 146 

Flows to Salt Sinks 52 

Deep Percolation ^ 

Subtotal 228 

Other Use 

Recreation 2 

Wildlife 5 

Subtotal 7 

Artificial Recfiarge 

Reclaimed Water 1 

Imported Surface Supplies 50 

Subtotal 51 

TOTAL 675 



NET WATER SUPPLY 

Colorado River 290 

SWP 221 

Waste Water Reclamation 9 

Ground Water Natural Recharge 77 

TOTAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 634 



NET WATER USE 

Urban Use 

ETAW 105 

Flows to Salt Sinks 275 

Planned Reclamation 9 

Subtotal 389 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 146 

Flows to Salt Sinks 52 

Subtotal 198 

Other Use 

Recreation 2 

Wildlife 5 

Subtotal ^ 

Conveyance Loss 

Colorado River 17 

SWP _23 

Subtotal _40 

TOTAL 634 



110 



SACRAMENTO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

Most of the people migrating into the Sacramento 
HSA come from the metropolitan areas of Los Ange- 
les, San Diego, and San Francisco. For many, their 
reasons for relocating include lower home prices, 
less congestion, better air quality, and closeness to 
rural and mountain areas. El Dorado County, for in- 
stance, owes 90 percent of its growth to immigration. 
The Sacramento HSA also has an abundant supply of 
reasonably priced industrial and commercial proper- 
ty which IS attracting new industry and business. 
Government employment opportunities are also im- 
portant. Currently. 30 percent of the jobs in State 
government exist in Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo 
Counties. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

The Sacramento HSA underwent an increase of 
354.000 acres of irrigated land between 1972 and 
1980. In addition, double-cropping increased by 
73,000 acres. Two crops are primarily responsible for 
this large change. Irrigated gram (320,000 acres), pri- 
marily wheat, replaced dry-farmed gram, primarily 
barley. The second crop, rice, increased by 178,000 



acres. This was brought about by the increased world 
demand, coupled with new varieties that produced 
greater yields, which has meant greater dollar returns 
per acre (see the sidebar, "The Sacramento Valley 
Rice Bonanza" earlier in this chapter). Alfalfa and 
pasture declined by 44,000 and 76,000 acres, respec- 
tively, while orchard acreage remained stable. Vege- 
table production increased by 31.000 acres, mostly in 
melons and tomatoes. The double-cropping pattern 
practiced m the area is small grams, followed by field 
corn (for silage), milo, dry beans, melons, or squash. 

Sacramento Valley Floor Area 

The water for increased irrigation was supplied by 
the Tehama-Colusa Canal, increased use of other sur- 
face supplies, and ground water. Irrigated agriculture 
in the Sacramento Valley has developed mainly by 
the appropriation of gravity-flow water supplies for 
large irrigation districts and, to a lesser extent, by 
individual diverters who exercise riparian water 
rights. Surface water costs in the Sacramento Valley 
are very low, generally averaging $5 to $7 per acre- 
foot or even less. Approximately 30 percent of the 



TABLE 27 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

SACRAMENTO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 



Dependable Water Supply 



Urban 

Irrigated agriculture 
Energy production.... 



Wildlife and recreation.. 
Conveyance losses 



TOTAL . 



493 
6.682 



160 
129 

7.464 



Local surface water 

Major local imports 

Ground water 

Central Valley Project 

Other federal projects 

State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 

Use of dependable water supply.. 
Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 



2,866 

9 

1.798 

2,422 

259 

17 

7.371 

535 

7.906 







WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Shortage 


7.464 


7.371 




85 


8 



111 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 51,590,000 acre-feet 
AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 22,390,000 acre-feet 
IRRIGATED LAND - 2,084,000 acres 
POPULATION - 1.674,000 

SISKIYOU 



GoosaK 

L 



Al turns J 



^^t 



SHASTA 



Pjl- 



.^* 



MODOC 



LASSEN 



V^ 



^ 



Shasta 

fLoke 




Legend 

IRRIGATED LAND 
URBAN LAND 



C OLUS A 

'yolo' 



JO 30 



/— \ Clear 

V\ I Woodland \v 4-^jd 

'\\u7iire Berryessa -igp^n!- 

'\ Wf-^-iSTA^^ ^ ,,. 

SAC, 



Figure 34. 
SACRAMENTO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



water used today is derived from ground water. Esca- 
lation of costs for well drilling and energy for pump- 
ing has increased the cost of ground water to over 
$10 per acre-foot in many areas. Most ground water 
is currently applied to orchard lands where on-farm 
irrigation efficiencies are high, approaching 70 per- 
cent. 

Growers in western Yolo County are beginning to 
replace dry-farmed gram with irrigated gram and 
bean crops, using large wheel-line and center-pivot 
sprinkler systems. 

Butte County growers are using both drip and 
sprinkler systems to grow kiwi fruit. Drip is used prin- 
cipally for irrigation, while most sprinkler systems are 
employed for frost protection. 

In 1980, small grams and corn accounted for about 
half the irrigated acreage in the Sacramento HSA 
portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Other 
important crops, in numbers of acres, are tomatoes, 
safflower, sugar beets, and pasture. This part of the 
Delta is one of the few areas in the State that grows 
Bartlett pears, and, in recent years, the culture of 
quality wine grapes has come into prominence. 

Precision land leveling, now commonly used, has 
greatly aided in maintaining desired water levels in 
rice culture. Traditionally, nee farmers have irrigated 
rice by turning on the headgate in early May, allow- 
ing the water to flow continuously through the rice 
paddy and spill into drains at the end of the field. 
Applied water of 9 to 10 acre-feet per acre or even 
higher were common. It has been demonstrated that 
rice can be grown with 6 or fewer acre-feet per acre 
of applied water where soils are sufficiently impervi- 
ous and the paddies can be leveled accurately 
enough to enable close control of water. Rice proba- 
bly will always be flood-irrigated, but application 
rates should continue to decline as varieties with 
shorter growing seasons are developed and some of 



the recently developed irrigation practices become 
more common. 

Mountains and Valleys of the Northeast Area 

Agriculture in the Pit River drainage area under- 
went some significant changes between 1972 and 
1980, with the greatest change taking place within 
the most recent years. After a long period of un- 
changing agricultural activity, irrigated acreage in- 
creased from 48,100 to 53,000 acres. Most of the 
increase was due to the planting of alfalfa and grain. 
The cropping pattern also changed on the older irri- 
gated land. Alfalfa and gram replaced pasture on 
some of the deeper, well-drained soils. Sprinkler irri- 
gation was used only to a limited extent in 1972, pri- 
marily to irrigate some alfalfa and grain; this has in- 
creased greatly m recent years. The trend of 
conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation is con- 
tinuing. Sprinklers are being used on all areas recent- 
ly developed for irrigation using ground water. The 
center pivot's labor-saving features are important to 
the farmer in this labor-short area. Wheel-line sprin- 
kler irrigation systems have also become common. 

The Dorris Lake area southeast of Alturas and the 
area north of Alturas along State Highway 395 as far 
as the shore of Goose Lake produce high yields of 
good quality ground water. Most of the wells have 
been drilled m known alluvial basins. There is a great 
uncertainty involved m drilling wells in volcanic rock. 
Success or failure depends entirely on encountering 
fractures or interconnected spaces in the rock that 
contain a sufficient quantity of water to supply a well 
continuously. 

Reserve Water Supply 

The 535,000 acre-feet of "reserve supply" in this 
HSA is principally Central Valley Project yield for 
which neither conveyance systems have been com- 
pleted nor contracts been signed with water users. 



113 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES 

The purpose of the following four tabulations is to prov.oe a detailed analysis 
of the sources of water used (applied and net) in this HSA and to describe what 
happens to the water in the process of its use. The tabulations show the type 
of information displayed schematically for the entire State in Figure 27. Applied 
water totals in these tabulations do not necessarily agree with totals in Table 
16 because such items as artificial recharge are counted as applied water to 
show in more detail the complex interrelationship between supply and use. 

The net water supply and net water use tabulations are based on information 
developed for each subarea of the HSA. Therefore, in some cases, the values 
given for return flows sometimes include outflows from one subarea that 
become part of the water supply to downstream subareas within the HSA. A 
balance is obtained by including these quantities in the value given for local 
surface water supply. The sum of these return flows is shown as "Return Flow 
to Downstream Area in HSA." 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES— SACRAMENTO HSA 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



SOURCES OF APPLIED WATER 



Surace Water 

Local 

Imports by Locals 

CVP 

Other Federal (norvCVP) ... 
Waste Water Reclamation . 



Z8^ 

9 

1324 

259 

17 



Subtotal - - 5.444 



Local Conveyance Loss to Ground Water . 

Surface Reuse: 

Urban - 

Agnculture .._ 

Wildlife 

Subtotal 



Ground Water 

Prime Supply _ 

Local Conveyance Loss 

Deep Percolation from Agricultural Use.... 
Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage .. 

Subtotal _ 



TOTAL 



-45 

77 
Z074 
10 

7.560 



1.798 

45 

467 

85 

2.395 

9.955 



APPLIED WATER DISBURSEMENT 


Urban Use 
ETAW 


195 


Waste Water Reclamation 

Return flow to Delta _ 

Return flow to Downstream Areas in HSA 

Other 1 oss<*s ._ _ 


17 

161 

54 

66 


f^eijs^a — Surface Water 


77 


Subtotal _ ._ 


570 


Agricultural Use 

ETAW _ _ 

Return Flow to Delta - 

Return Flow to Downstream Areas in HSA _ 

Riparian and Distribution System ET 


. 4.921 
530 
680 
551 


Reuse — Surface Water _ _ 

Reuse — Ground Water... 


. Z074 
467 


Subtotal _ — - 


. 9.223 



Other Use 
Wildlife ETAW; 

from Applied Water 

from Conveyance Loss 

Reuse — Surface Watef_. 

Recreation _ __ 

Subtotal - 



Total Need for Applied Water- 
Reduction in Use Due to Shortage _.. 



TOTAL . 



112 

45 

10 

3 

170 
9.963 



9.955 



114 



Sacramento HSA (Continued) 



NET WATER SUPPLY 

Local Surface 2,866 

Imports by Locals 9 

CVP 2,422 

Other Federal (non-CVP) 259 

Waste Water Reclamation 17 

Ground Water Prime Supply 1,798 

TOTAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 7^ 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 85 

TOTAL NET SUPPLY 7,456 

Spillage to Downstream Areas in HSA (Local Conveyance 

Loss) -77 

Return Flow to Downstream Areas In HSA -734 

Return Flow to Delta -691 

TOTAL SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR DEPLETIONS 5,954 



NET WATER USE 

Urban Use 

ETAW 195 

Waste Water Reclamation 17 

Return Flow to Downstream Areas in HSA 54 

Return Flow to Delta 161 

Other Losses 66 

Subtotal 493 

Agricultural Use 

E\mi 4,921 

Return Flow to Downstream Areas in HSA 680 

Return Flow to Delta 630 

Riparian and Distribution System ET 551 

Subtotal 6.682 

Other Use 

Wildlife ETAW: 

from Applied Water 112 

from Conveyance Losses 45 

Recreation 3 

Other Conveyance Losses 

Spillage to Downstream Areas in HSA 77 

Evaporation and ET 52 

Subtotal 289 

TOTAL NET USE 7^464 

Reduction in Use Due to Shortage -8 

Spillage and Return Flow to Downstream Areas in HSA -811 

Return Flow to Delta -691 

TOTAL DEPLETIONS 5^954 



115 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 22,950 000 acre-feet 



Legend 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 7.930,000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND - 2,062.000 acres 



POPULATION - 1,014,000 



IRRIGATED LAND 



URBAN LAND 




MiLLi 



Figure 35. 
SAN JOAQUIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



116 



SAN JOAQUIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

Population growth in the various parts of the San 
Joaquin HSA has either equalled or exceeded sub- 
stantially the State's overall growth rate of 15 per- 
cent. The city of Stockton, for example, grew 36 
percent from 1970 to 1980. The increase is attributa- 
ble to reasonably priced land, labor, and housing. 
Housing construction remains predominantly single- 
family dwellings. Agriculture and government are the 
principal employers. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Gross value of agricultural production in the San 
Joaquin HSA was about S2.9 billion in 1980, nearly 
triple the 1972 value, and more than one-fifth of the 
State's total. Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus 
Counties ranked fourth, fifth, and eighth in gross val- 
ue of agricultural production among the counties of 
the State in 1980. 

A large amount of new irrigated land has been put 
into production since 1972: however, the net increase 
was only 33,000 acres, because of considerable urban 
growth that occurred on formerly irrigated crop land. 
The cities of Stockton and Modesto were the most 
notable examples of urban encroachment. 



Areas of increase in agricultural irrigation are 
located principally along the San Joaquin River, 
where alkali lands were reclaimed and planted to 
field crops, and along the east side of the valley on 
hardpan terraces and in rolling foothills. The hardpan 
was broken up with special heavy equipment (rip- 
pers) and, along with the foothill areas, was planted 
to almonds, wine grapes, and, in eastern Madera 
County, additional pistachio nut trees. Both the recla- 
mation of alkali land and the movement of irrigation 
into the eastern foothills continues trends that were 
evident in 1972. 

In addition to development of new land, changes 
took place in the relative proportion of crops on 
previously developed land. The largest increases oc- 
curred in almonds, wine grapes, small grains, and 
cotton. There was a rather large decrease in irrigated 
pasture and alfalfa. 

The Delta 

In the 1950s, asparagus was the major crop in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, with about 80,000 
acres harvested annually. But, with the loss of the 
European market to Taiwan and labor problems in 



TABLE 28 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

SAN JOAQUIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 



Dependable Water Supply 



Urban 

Irrigated agriculture 
Energy production.... 



Wildlife and recreation.. 
Conveyance losses 



TOTAL . 



249 

5.892 

15 

74 
111 

6,341 



Local surface water 

Major local imports 

Ground water 

Central Valley Project 

Other federal projects 

State Water Project 

Waste water reclamation , 

Use of dependable water supply.. 
Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 



3,055 

972 

1,838 

65 

8 

21 

5,949 
191 

6.140 







WATER BALANCE 






Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Stiortage 


6.341 


5,949 


391 


1 



117 



the early 1960s, asparagus declined until, in 1980, few- 
er than 20,000 acres of asparagus were harvested. 
Field corn is the predominant crop in the Delta today. 

Amador County 

In Amador County, small family-size vineyards (10 
to 300 acres) are being established. This activity is 
centered m the Shenandoah Valley. Currently, the 
county has 13 wineries, and more are in the planning 
stage. About 1,500 acres are planted to vineyards; 
about half are irrigated. An additional 2,000 acres of 
land at the 1,000-to-2, 000-foot elevation have avail- 
able water and suitable climate and soil characteris- 
tics for grapes. 

Folsom South Canal Service Area 

About 60 percent of the agricultural land in the 
Folsom South Canal service area is irrigated. About 
25 percent of this irrigated area is planted in pasture; 
25 percent, in field crops; 25 percent, in fruit and nuts 
and vineyard; 10 percent, in grain; and 15 percent, in 
rice, alfalfa, and truck crops. The remainder is dry- 
farmed grain or used for dry-land pasture which is 
gradually being developed for irrigated agriculture. 



Much of the dry-land pasture, however, is expected 
to remain in its present use as open grasslands. 

Generally speaking, soils of the Folsom South Ca- 
nal service area are either older terrace hardpan or 
recent alluvial floodplain soils. The hardpan soils, 
which occupy most of the area, are limited to grow- 
ing shallow-rooted crops such as pasture and grain. 
The floodplain soils are relatively deep and suitable 
for a wide range of crops, including orchard, vine- 
yard, and row crops. Considerable urban encroach- 
ment has occurred on lands suitable for agriculture 
near Sacramento, Stockton, and Lodi. 

Eastern Stanislaus and Merced Counties 

In the Montpelier area in eastern Stanislaus and 
Merced Counties, between the Merced and Tuol- 
umne Rivers, about 10,000 acres were developed for 
irrigation between 1972 and 1980, all with ground wa- 
ter. The soils in this area are predominantly gently 
rolling high terrace or upland soils with hardpan or 
substrata that restricts rooting depths. Growers have 
altered these into highly productive soils by ripping 
them. Almonds are the predominant crop. There are 
also large plantings of wine grapes. 







The highest field corn yield in the nation often occurs in the Deltc. 



118 



Water Supply 

Surface Water Supply 

The amount of surface storage for regulation of 
local streannflow has increased significantly in recent 
years, as indicated in the following table. 





Gross Storage Capacity 
(In acre-feet) 


Va^r 


Dam 


Origmal 
Construction 


Enlargement 


Enlargement 
Completed 


Exchequer 


289 000 


1.026.000 
2.030,000 
2.400.000 

5.456.000 


1967 


Don Pedro 

Melones 

TOTAL 


289.000 

112.500 

690.500 


1971 
1979 



In addition, new dams have been constructed on 
the Chowchilla River (Buchanan) and Fresno River 
(Hidden) with gross capacities of 150,000 and 90,000 
acre-feet, respectively. This additional storage has 
increased operational flexibility and provided long- 
term carryover storage (as well as seasonal 
carryover), thereby firming up water supplies and 
increasing production of energy. Operations studies 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicate that the 
Hidden and Buchanan projects each provide a 
24,000-acre-foot annual new water supply. 

Ground Water Overdraft 

Ground water overdraft (currently about 390,000 
acre-feet) has developed in the San Joaquin HSA, 
principally in the area east of the San Joaquin River 
and north of the Chowchilla River outside the bound- 
aries of organized water agencies. A smaller over- 
drafted area has also developed in an area between 
the Tuolumne and Merced Rivers outside the bound- 
aries of organized water agencies. 



Land use surveys made by the Department of Wa- 
ter Resources in Stanislaus, Merced, and Madera 
Counties indicate that, between 1958 and 1975, irri- 
gated lands on the valley floor increased by 210,000 
acres and 80 percent of this increase occurred on 
lands in which surface deliveries accounted for only 
about 15 percent of the applied water. The remaining 
85 percent of applied water was derived from ground 
water pumping. 

Ground Water Pumping Lifts and Costs 

Ground water pumping lifts range from a minimum 
of 15 feet near the confluence of the Merced and San 
Joaquin Rivers to over 200 feet in the uplands area 
east of the city of Madera. The average pumping lift 
was 98 feet, based on pumping plant performance 
tests by Pacific Gas and Electric Company from 1972 
through 1977. Shallow lifts are generally encountered 
within areas having adequate surface water supplies. 
The greatest lifts are encountered in developed 
areas where the surface water supply is inadequate 
and where ground water extraction has exceeded 
recharge. Examples of such areas are western Ma- 
dera County and the uplands in Madera, Merced, and 
Stanislaus Counties. 

Ground water pumping costs in 1982 ranged from 
about 20 to 30 cents per acre-foot per foot of lift in 
most of the San Joaquin HSA. Costs per acre-foot 
range from an average of about $12, with a 50-foot 
lift, to $40 in the eastern Madera County valley floor, 
with a lift of about 160 feet. 

Reserve Supply 

The 191,000 acre-feet of reserve water supply takes 
in Central Valley Project supplies for which contracts 
have not been signed, including that from New Me- 
lones Reservoir (see Chapter V for projected build- 
up in use of total CVP supplies) . New Melones Reser- 
voir has been the focus of controversy for several 
years. 



119 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES 

The purpose of the following four tabulations is to provide a detailed analysis 
of the sources of water used (applied and net) in this HSA and to describe what 
happens to the water in the process of its use. The tabulations show the type 
of information displayed schematically for the entire State in Figure 27. Applied 
water totals in these tabulations do not necessarily agree with totals in Table 
16 because such items as artificial recharge are counted as applied water to 
show in more detail the complex interrelationship between supply and use. 

The net water supply and net water use tabulations are based on information 
developed for each subarea of the HSA. Therefore, in some cases, the values 
given for return flows sometimes include outflows from one subarea that 
become part of the water supply to downstream subareas within the HSA. A 
balance is obtained by including these quantities in the value given^ for local 
surface water supply. The sum of these return flows is shown as "Return Flow 
to Downstream Area in HSA." 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES- 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



-SAN JOAQUIN HSA 



SOURCES OF APPLIED WATER 



APPLIED WATER DISBURSEMENT 



5^ -see ^V^.V' 

loca 

CVP 



Other Federal (non-CVP) . 
SWP 



Waste Water Reclamation . 

Subtotal 



Local Conveyance Loss to Groundwater . 

Spillage to Downstream Areas in HSA 

Surface Reuse: 

Urban 

Agricultural 

Wildlife 

Subtotal 

Groundwater 
Prime Supply . 



Artificial Recharge 

Local Conveyance Loss. 



Deep Percolation From: 

Urter Use 

Agncuitural Use 

Wildlife 



Withdrawal frtjm Ground Water Storage . 
Subtotal 



TOTAL. 



3.065 

1.727 

55 

8 

21 

4.866 

-527 
-203 

79 
506 

19 

'S.74C 



972 

76 

527 

75 

1.279 

3 

391 

3.323 

a063 



Urvar Use 
ETAW 



Waste Water Reclamation 

Return Flow to Downstream Areas in HSA . 
Other Losses 



Reuse — Surface Wa:er_ 
Reuse — Ground Water- 

Subtotal 



cTAyV 

Return Flow to Delta . 



Return Flow to Downstream Areas in HSA. 

Riparian and Distributian System ET 

Other Losses 



Reuse— Surface Water- 
Reuse— Ground Water - 

Subtotal 



Other Use 

Wildlife: 

ETAW 

Reuse — Surface Water- 
Reuse— Ground Water - 

Recreation 



Energy Production— ETAW . 
Subtotal 



AfiJfKial Recharge of Ground Water — 

Total Need for Applied Water- 
Reduction in Use Due to Shortage 

TOTAL 



139 
21 
62 
27 
79 
75 

403 

4.474 
382 
358 
298 
177 
506 

1.279 

7.474 



64 
19 
3 
10 
15 

111 

76 

a064 
-1 

6t063 



120 



San Joaquin HSA (Continued) 



NET WATER SUPPLY 

Local 3,055 

CVP 1.838 

Other Federal (non-CVP) 55 

SWP 8 

Waste Water Reclamation 21 

Ground Water Prime Supply 972 

TOTAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 5.949 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 391 

TOTAL NET SUPPLY 6,340 

Spillage to Downstream Areas in HSA -203 

Return Flow to Downstream Areas m HSA -420 

Return Flow to Delta -382 

TOTAL SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR DEPLETIONS 5.335 



NET WATER USE 

Urban Use 

ETAW 139 

Waste Water Reclamation 21 

Return Flow and Spillage to Downstream Area in HSA 62 

Other Losses 27 

Subtotal 249 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 4,474 

Return Flow and Spillage to Downstream Areas in HSA 561 

Return Flow to Delta 382 

Riparian and Distribution System ET 298 

Other Losses 177 

Subtotal 5.892 

Other Use 

Wildlife 64 

Recreation 10 

Energy 15 

Subtotal 89 

Conveyance Losses (CVP) Ill 

TOTAL NET USE 0340 

Reduction in Use Due to Shortage —1 

Spillage and Return Flows to Downstream Areas in HSA -623 

Return Flow to Delta -382 

TOTAL DEPLETIONS M35 



121 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 13,960.000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 3,310.000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND - 3,312,000 acres 




POPULATION - 1,178,000 




Legend 

IRRIGATED LAND 
URBAN LAND 



MILES 



Figure 36. 
TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



122 



TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

Growth in the Tulare Lake HSA between 1972 and 
1980 was caused by expansion of existing industries, 
diversification of industries, and availability of afford- 
able housing. The area's major employers are agricul- 
ture and government. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Tulare Lake HSA encompasses one of the richest 
and most diverse agricultural areas in the world. In 
1980, the gross value of agricultural production for 
this area was approximately $5 billion, more than 
one-third of the State's total for that year and more 
than three times its 1972 level of production. 

Fresno, Kern, and Tulare Counties ranked first, sec- 
ond, and third, respectively, in gross value of agricul- 
tural production in California in 1980. Fresno County 
led all counties m the nation in 1980 with just over $2 
billion. Moreover, 47 of the top 50 crops in the State, 
ranked according to value, were produced in Fresno 
County in 1980. 

This large increase in gross value of farm produc- 
tion in the Tulare Lake HSA occurred because of 
sharply increased prices for many commodities, an 
increase in total irrigated acreage, and a larger pro- 
portion of total acreage devoted to production of 
higher value crops. 

Growth of irrigated land in the Tulare Lake HSA 
between 1972 and 1980 amounted to more than 
296,000 acres. About 100,000 acres of this land is situ- 
ated in western and southern Kern County and is 
irrigated solely with water from the California Aque- 
duct (State Water Project), About 20,000 of 85,000 
acres of newly irrigated land in central Kern County 
can be irrigated with either SWP water or ground 
water. 

Cotton acreage soared during this period, increas- 
ing from about 715,000 acres in 1972 to a record high 
of nearly 1,300,000 acres in 1978, and then dropped to 
about 1,250,000 acres in 1980. Field corn, sugar beets, 
milo, pasture, and small grains were among the crops 
displaced by the growth in cotton acreage. Some of 
these crops also gave way to permanent crop plant- 
ings, which increased by over 100,000 acres. Almonds 
were the most prominent of these; almond plantings 
in Kern County doubled from 33,000 acres to 66,000 
acres during this period. Wine grapes and soft fruits, 
primarily nectarines and plums, also figured promi- 



nently in the increase in permanent crops in eastern 
Fresno and Tulare Counties. Citrus acreage declined, 
most often being replaced by deciduous trees. Fig 
acreage continued to lose out to urban spread 
around the city of Fresno. More than 2,000 acres 
were displaced during the 1972-1980 period. 

Reclamation of alkali lands in the Tulare Lake HSA 
continues. These lands adjacent to the basin trough 
are generally planted to field crops. Along the east 
side of the valley, rolling lands near the foothills are 
still being developed for orchard and grapes. 

Drip irrigation has become prevalent in young or- 
chards and many young vineyards. As energy costs 
increase and costs of pumping ground water nse, 
irrigation systems are being improved and new types 
of systems developed. The most significant improve- 
ment in irrigation has been the advent of laser-con- 
trolled land leveling. Laser technology, which is now 
in general use, allows for more precise land grading 
and thus more precise control of water. Most promi- 
nent among the newly developed systems is the lin- 
ear-move sprinkler system, which provides extremely 
uniform and efficient water application. 

Water Supply 
Surface Water Supply 

No new surface water storage projects have been 
constructed on local streams since Terminus Dam on 
the Kaweah River was completed in 1962. The aggre- 
gate active storage capacity on the San Joaquin, 
Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers is only about 60 
percent of the aggregate average annual runoff of 
these streams. Furthermore, dams along the foothill 
line on these streams were built by the U. S. Army 
Corps of Engineers with flood control as a primary 
purpose; therefore, much of the storage is reserved 
to control flood flows. The remaining conservation 
storage is used primarily for seasonal regulation of 
flows: long-term carryover storage is provided by the 
ground water basin. 

Before deliveries from the Friant-Kern Canal began 
in 1950, local surface water development was the 
sole source of surface water deliveries to farmers. 
With the advent of the State Water Project (SWP) 
and the Central Valley Project (CVP), local streams 
accounted for only about 40 percent of the 7.3-mil- 
lion-acre-foot dependable water supply to the Tulare 
Lake HSA. 



123 



Ground Water Overdraft 

Development of irrigated agriculture in the Tulare 
Lake HSA resulted in water demands that out- 
stripped local water supplies as early as the 1930s. 
Historically, this HSA has led all other California 
HSAs in terms of the magnitude of overdraft. Annual 
average overdraft from 1958 to 1967 was 1.5 million 
acre-feet. In 1967, overdraft amounted to 1.8 million 
acre-feet, and in 1972. it had dropped to 1.3 million 
acre-feet. By 1980. estimated annual overdraft was 
reduced to almost 900.000 acre-feet by supplies from 
the CVP and SWP that totaled more than 4.2 million 
acre-feet. 

The buildup of SWP deliveries in Kern County has 
greatly reduced the former severe overdraft that ex- 
isted there. Since the critical drought year of 1977. 
large quantities of surplus SWP water have been 
made available to SWP Kern County water contrac- 
tors, as well as to contractors in Kings County. In 
Westlands Water District west of Fresno, import of 
CVP surface water supplies has reduced (except for 
1977) the former 1.0-million-acre-foot annual ground 
water pumping to about 100.000 acre-feet, and land 
subsidence has virtually ceased. 

On the east side of the valley in Fresno, Kings, and 
Tulare Counties, ground water overdraft continues 
to increase, mostly where lands lying outside the 
boundaries of organized water agencies have been 
developed to irrigated agriculture without surface 
water supplies. 



Ground Water Pumping Lifts and Costs 

Based upon pumping plant performance tests 
made by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PGandE) from 1972 through 1977, ground water 
pumping lifts ranged from a minimum of 20 feet in 
the Centerville Bottoms area on the Kings River fan 
east of Fresno to more than 900 feet in western Kings 
County. At present, virtually all ground water extrac- 
tions occur with lifts between 40 and 600 feet. The 
average pumping lift in the Tulare Lake HSA, weight- 
ed according to amount of pumping, is about 175 
feet. The greatest pumping lifts are encountered on 
the west side of the valley in Fresno and Kings Coun- 
ties, on the southern and eastern Kern County valley 
floor, and on the southeastern Tulare County valley 
floor. 

Ground water pumping costs in 1982 ranged from 
about 20 to 30 cents per acre-foot per foot of lift in 
most of the Tulare Lake HSA. Southern California 
Edison Company (SCE) serves nearly all of Tulare 
County, about one-third of Kings County, and a small 
portion of Kern County. Historically, SCE's energy 
rates have been slightly higher than PGandE's. 

Other than the extremely shallow and extremely 
deep lifts, ground water pumping costs range from 
about $15 per acre-foot (for a lift of 50 feet) to about 
3100 per acre-foot (for a lift of 500 feet) . The average 
cost is about $40 for a lift of 175 feet. 



TABLE 29 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Depenaabie Water Supply 




Urban 


236 

7.781 

10 

38 

123 

8.188 


Local surface water 


2.199 




Major local imports 

Ground water 


551 




Central Valley Project 


2.736 




Other federal projects 


243 






1.536' 


WilHIifp ;)nri rprrp;)tinn 


Waste water reclamation 


67 


Conveyance losses 


Use of dependable water supply 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 


7.332 


TOTAL 


56 

7,388 













WATER BALANCE 






Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met Dy 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Stiortage 


8.188 


7.332 


856 


- 





' Includes SWP surplus water delivenes. 



124 




One of the largest increases in crop acreage has been cotton 
in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 



125 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES 

The purpose of the following four tabulations is to provide a detailed analysis 
of the sources of water used (applied and net) in this HSA and to describe what 
happens to the water in the process of its use. The tabulations show the type 
of information displayed schematically for the entire State in Figure 27. Applied 
water totals in these tabulations do not necessarily agree with totals in Table 
16 because such items as artificial recharge are counted as applied water to 
show in more detail the complex interrelationship between supply and use. 



DETAILED 1980 HYDROLOGIC BALANCES— TULARE LAKE HSA 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



SOURCES OF APPLIED WATER 
Surface Waie; 

Local Reuse of Return Flows 

Other Federal (norvCVP) 

SWP 

Waste Water Reclamation - 

Subtotal _ 

Ground Water 

Pnme Supply 

Artificial Recharge 

Deep Percolation from: 

Urban Use 

Agricultural Use 

Wildlife _ 

Incidental Reclamation 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 

Subtotal 



APPLIED WATER DISBURSEMENT 



Z199 

82 

Z6« 

243 

1.506 

67 

6.740 



551 
409 

148 

3.561 

14 

41 

856 

5.580 

12.320 



ETAW.. 



Reclamation 
-eclamation 



Flows to Salt Sinks 

Reuse — Ground Water.. 

Subtotal .._ 



Agricultural Use 

ETAW 

Reuse — Surface Water . 
Reuse — Ground Water- 
Flows to Salt Sinks — 



Loss to Moisture-Deficient Soils 

Evaporation from Local Conveyances 

Evaporation of Return Flows _._ 

Evapotranspiration from Riparian Vegetation . 

Subtotal 



Other Use 
Wildlife: 

ETAW.._ 

Reuse — Ground Water.. 
Recreation.. 
Energy Production: 

ETAW 



Flows to Salt Sinks .. 
Subtotal 



Artificial Recharge . 
TOTAL 



151 

41 

67 

10 

8 

148 

425 



7.326 

82 

3561 

276 

74 

64 

10 

31 

11.424 



31 

14 

7 

3 
7 

62 

409 

12.320 



126 



Tulare Lake HSA (Continued) 



NET WATER SUPPLY 

Local 2,199 

CVP 2.736 

Other Federal (non-CVP) 243 

SWP 1,536 

Waste Water Reclamation 67 

Ground Water Prime Supply 551 

TOTAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 7,332 

Withdrawal from Ground Water Storage 856 

TOTAL NET SUPPLY 8,188 



NET WATER USE 

Urban Use 

ETAW 151 

Planned Reclamation 67 

Evaporation 10 

Flows to Salt Sinks 8 

Subtotal 236 

Agricultural Use 

ETAW 7,326 

Flows to Salt Sinks 276 

Evaporation from Local Conveyances 64 

Loss to Moisture-Deficienl Soils 74 

Evaporation of Return Flows 10 

Evapotranspiration from Riparian Vegetation 31 

Subtotal 7,781 

Other Use 

Recreation 7 

Wildlife 31 

Energy Production: 

ETAW 3 

Flows to Salt Sinks 7 

Subtotal 48 

Conveyance Losses 

CVP 93 

SWP _J0 

Subtotal _123 

TOTAL 8.188 



127 



ORE 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 6.960.000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 1. 840.000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND - 148,000 acres 



POPULATION - 61.000 



Legend 



IRRIGATED LAND 



URBAN LAND 



C <0 K 3C 




fu 



rC£=' 



^t>on 




\ 






Figure 37. 
NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 






128 



1980 



NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

The population in the North Lahontan HSA, with 
the exception of the Lake Tahoe area, is characteris- 
tically sparse and widely scattered, and urban com- 
munities are relatively small. The largest, South Lake 
Tahoe, has a population of 21,000. 

Between 1972 and 1980, this area experienced both 
the lowest numerical population increase and the 
highest rate of growth in California. The area has the 
highest ratio of single-to-multiple residences in the 
State, 84 percent single-family units and 16 percent 
multi-family units. Agriculture is the major economic 
activity in the North Lahontan HSA, and the raising 
of livestock predominates. Recreation and tourism 
are important economic activities in the Lake Tahoe 
area. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Total irrigated acreage in the North Lahontan HSA 
has changed very little since 1972, but some notable 



changes have taken place in crop patterns, with irri- 
gated grain and alfalfa replacing pasture land, princi- 
pally in Surprise Valley. Major increases in the use of 
sprinkler irrigation for alfalfa have occurred there. 
Water formerly used to produce meadow hay is now 
more efficiently spread by wheel-line or center-pivot 
sprinkler systems to grow high-quality, high-dollar- 
return alfalfa. 

Little change has taken place in total irrigated acre- 
age south of Lake Tahoe. Irrigated pasture, 37,500 
acres, and alfalfa, 3,600 acres, were the principal 
crops in this area in 1980. The limited amount of de- 
veloped dependable water supplies has restricted 
the expansion of irrigated agriculture in this area. 
Topaz Lake near Coleville and Bridgeport Reservoir 
at Bridgeport are used largely to develop and regu- 
late irrigation water supply. 



TABLE 30 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(!n 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urban 


23 
387 

11 
421 


Local surface water 


312 


Irrigated agriculture 


Major local imports 

Ground water 


11 
B8 


Energy production 


Central Valley Project 

Otfier federal projects 

Stale Water Project 

Waste water reclamation 

Use of dependable water supply 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 




Wildlife and recreation 


5 


Conveyance losses 


416 


TOTAL 


17 
433 













WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Shortage 


421 


416 


5 


— 



129 






Figure 38. 
SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



\ 



.\ 



UON O 






AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION - 11.420.000 acre-feet 
AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF - 1,330,000 acre-feet 
IRRIGATED LAND - 78.000 acres 
POPULATION - 303,000 



8B«^, 



\. 



\ 



^v-*- 



* A 






♦ ifxJeDefKjence 



^ 



Legend 



IRRIGATED LAND 



URBAN LAND 



:o 50 



I 4 , 



■^ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



rNYO 



SAN BERNARDINO 



\ 




\ 



k 

\ 



k 

\ 



\ 



k 

\ 



<e 



% 



W"^^^ 



f^LOS ANGELES 




SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

Government employment in the South Lahontan 
HSA has been growing m recent years because of 
increased activity at Edwards Air Force Base, the 
U.S. Naval Weapons Center, and the new federal 
prison at Boron. Mining activity has also increased in 
Kern County. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Irrigation in the South Lahontan HSA has remained 
somewhat stable, with irrigated area and length of 
irrigation period increasing in wet years and decreas- 
ing in dry years. 

Irrigation in the Mono-Owens area is regulated by 
the amount of water the city of Los Angeles releases 
locally. 



Farmers in Benton Valley, northeast of the town of 
Bishop, have begun using center-pivot sprinklers for 
their alfalfa. Native pasture land irrigation continues 
with the wild flooding technique. In the areas of In- 
dian Wells, Fremont, and Antelope Valley, irrigation 
of alfalfa continues with hand-move sprinkler sys- 
tems, although center-pivot systems are also begin- 
ning to be used in Antelope Valley. 

Agricultural production in Antelope Valley is likely 
to decline in the future because of falling ground 
water levels. Increasing prices for fossil fuel and elec- 
tricity for pumping and greater competition with 
new urban developments for existing water supplies 
have caused some farmers to give more attention to 
improving irrigation efficiency in order to continue 
farming profitably. 



TABLE 31 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urban 


60 

338 

2 

12 
7 

419 


Local surface water 


44 




Major local imports 

Ground water 


178 


Fnprav nrnriurtinn 


Central Valley Project 

Other federal projects 






State Water Proiect 


85 


Wildlife and rprreation 


Waste water reclamation 


9 




Use of dependable water supply 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 


316 


TOTAL 


33 
349 













WATER BALANCE 






Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use Met by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Stiortage 


419 


316 


103 


- 





131 



AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION- 5.690.000 acre-feet 



AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF- 180,000 acre-feet 



IRRIGATED LAND ~ 604.000 acres 



POPULATION - 320,000 




Legend 

IRRIGATED LAND 



J 



URBAN LAND 



Figure 39. 
COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



132 



COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Population 

Most of the population in the Colorado River HSA 
lives in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys. The major 
source of employment continues to be agriculture in 
the Imperial Valley. The city of Palm Springs in the 
upper Coachella Valley also provides substantial em- 
ployment through the services and tourism sectors. 

Imperial Valley has the second largest potential for 
geothermal power generation of any area in the na- 
tion. Development of this resource essentially began 
in 1980. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Since 1972, irrigated acreage has increased slightly 
in Imperial, Palo Verde, and Chuckwalla Valleys. In 
Palo Verde Valley, irrigation has expanded on the 
mesa area with new plantings of alfalfa, cotton, jojo- 
ba, and wheat. These crops have been irrigated by 
sprinklers. The amount of double-cropping has var- 
ied from year to year. Irrigated land in Coachella 
Valley has declined because of urban encroachment. 

A switch from furrow to drip irrigation systems in 
Coachella Valley for all varieties of grapes has im- 
proved the irrigation efficiency of this crop. Approxi- 
mately 50 percent of the 10,000 acres of grapes in the 
area are irrigated with drip systems. 



Water Conservation in Imperial Valley 

Recent legal problems regarding disposal of agri- 
cultural drain water to the Salton Sea have resulted 
in increased efforts to more efficiently manage irriga- 
tion water. Steps being taken by the Imperial Valley 
Irrigation District to improve irrigation and convey- 
ance efficiencies include lining the major lateral ca- 
nals in the valley with concrete to reduce seepage 
losses, installing pumps next to the main unlined ca- 
nals to pump seepage water back into the canal, and 
exaf'ting assessments to penalize farms that produce 
excess irrigation runoff. A program designed to as- 
sist farmers in lining their own canals and ditches is 
being subsidized by the district. 

A recent study by the Department of Water Re- 
sources, reported in Investigation Under California 
Water Code Section 275 of Use of Water by Imperial 
Irrigation District, identified opportunities and poten- 
tial means for water savings. This study is discussed 
in Chapter V. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with 
the cooperation of this Department and other agen- 
cies, is currently conducting an intensive study of the 
total water management system to further aid the 
District. 



TABLE 32 

NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA— 1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Net Water Use 




Dependable Water Supply 




Urbsn 


102 

3,434 

3 

20 
543 

4,102 


Local surface water 


4 




tvlajor local imports 

Ground water 


68 




Central Valley Project 






Other federal projects 


3,970 




State Water Project 


30 


Wildlife and recreation 


Waste water reclamation 

Use of dependable water supply 

Reserve supply 

TOTAL DEVELOPED WATER 


3 


Conveyance losses 


4,075 


TOTAL 


4 

4,079 













WATER BALANCE 




Net Water Use 


Use of Dependable 
Water Supply 


Use /i4et by 
Ground Water Overdraft 


Urban Sfiortage 


4,102 


4,075 


71 


— 



133 




Lining ditches and canals is a major element in the continuing 
effort by the Imperial Irrigation District to reduce waste of 
water. 



134 



CHAPTER IV 
FUTURE WATER USE— 1980 TO 2010 



This chapter basically is concerned with the devel- 
opment of estimates of future uses of water in Cali- 
fornia to 2010. Trends in population growth, 
market-place competition for agricultural produce, 
patterns in land use. water costs and prices, the im- 
pact of water conservation — these are the major fac- 
tors having influence on future use of water in the 
State. These and other significant factors are dis- 
cussed in this chapter. The projections include the 
following key findings. 

• Total net water use is projected to increase about 
10 percent over the next 30 years, compared to a 
9-percent increase over the previous 8 years. 

• The increase in urban net water use will exceed the 
increase in agricultural net water use. 

• Population will continue to increase but at a slower 
rate. 

• Statewide, irrigated cropland will continue to ex- 
pand, although at a slower rate. Irrigated acreage 
is expected to increase significantly in the two ma- 
jor agricultural areas, the Central Valley and the 
Imperial Valley. The percentage increase in pro- 
jected total State acreage between 1980 and 2010 
is the same as the percentage increase that oc- 
curred between 1972 and 1980. 

• Water conservation will significantly reduce the 
unit amount of water applied for both urban and 
agricultural purposes. 

• The impact of water conservation on net water use 
will vary greatly, depending on the hydrologic 
characteristics of each area that influence the 
amount of reuse of excess applied water. 

These and other projections reported in this chap- 
ter are based upon a series of key assumptions re- 
garding water supply availability and costs. These 
assumptions, which are summarized in the next sec- 
tion of this chapter, were selected to represent the 
future circumstances and trends that seemed most 
probable at the time the studies were made. A basic 
premise was that, for any anticipated increase in net 
water use, an affordable water supply must be identi- 

' For agriculture, "affordable supply of water" means that the cost of water 
to farmers does not exceed their ability to pay it. 



fied. This premise was particularly significant to the 
studies of future agricultural water use.' 

The projection process consisted of several 
phases. Projections of agricultural water use re- 
quired estimates of future irrigated crop acreages, 
irrigation efficiencies, and other water conservation- 
related considerations. Projections of urban water 
use required estimates of future population levels, 
including geographical distribution, and per capita 
applied water, including probable impacts of water 
conservation. In addition, estimates were made of 
future water use by wildlife management areas, by 
public parks (other than those included in the urban 
use estimate), for power plant cooling, and for en- 
hanced oil recovery. 

Computation of net water use required estimates 
of three elements: evapotranspiration of applied wa- 
ter, irrecoverable losses connected with water sup- 
ply delivery, and outflow from the area of analysis. 
Estimated savings in water supply due to water con- 
servation were based primarily on the reduction of 
return flow to the ocean, to saline ground water, and 
to other salt sinks. 

Results of the Department's analyses of water use 
and water supply are summarized in this report by 
Hydrologic Study Areas (HSAs) for the entire State. 
The actual studies, however, were conducted by 
smaller analysis areas termed Planning Subareas 
(PSAs) and Detailed Analysis Units (DAUs). Plan- 
ning Subareas are made up of Detailed Analysis 
Units, just as Hydrologic Study Areas are made up of 
Planning Subareas. The boundaries of all three areas 
are determined principally by hydrologic features, 
specifically the boundaries of stream drainage basins 
and ground water basins. However, except in the 
case of Hydrologic Study Areas, boundaries for large 
valley floor areas are commonly delineated to in- 
clude the service areas of one or more water agen- 
cies, such as irrigation districts. In the major 
agricultural areas, a DAU typically covers 100,000 to 
300,000 acres. 

One of the purposes of periodically updating the 
California Water Plan is to identify water supply 
shortages and other water management problems. 



135 




Northeastern California produces premium quality alfalfa hoy. 



136 



Fundamental to the process is the examination of the 
current relationship between net water use and wa- 
ter supply (including the ways in which both may 
affect future water management needs), and the es- 
timation of future net water use-water supply rela- 
tionships. From these, future study needs are 
determined and the probable impacts of alternative 
water management decisions can be inferred. Future 
water use projections are presented by type of use 
in this chapter, while the relationship of water supply 
to those projections is addressed in Chapter V. 

Assumptions of Water Supply 
Availability and Prices 

To develop the projections of water use described 
in this chapter, certain assumptions were made re- 
garding the amount — and, in the case of agriculture, 
the price — of the supplemental water supplies that 
would be available during the period of analysis, 
1980-2010. These assumptions are summarized here, 
and some of them are discussed more fully in Chap- 
ter V. They were based on what were foreseen, at the 
time these studies were begun, as the most likely 
conditions to exist between 1980 and 2010. 

Key Assumptions 

. New Surface Water Facilities Will Be Devel- 
oped As Scheduled. Preparation of this report 
began in 1979. The initial assumption was that the 
proposed SWP facilities (shown on Plate 1), as 
subsequently embodied in Senate Bill 200 (enact- 
ed by the Legislature in 1980), would be authorized 
and built as scheduled. In the June 1982 elections, 
however, the vote on Proposition 9 rejected SB 
200. Accordingly, only those projects and pro- 
grams not affected by Prop. 9 were included in 
projecting dependable water supplies for the 
SWP.2 

Federal project supplies assumed to be available 
during the analysis period were: New Melones 
Reservoir (CVP), San Felipe Division (CVP), and 
the Warm Springs Project (Corps of Engineers). 
Central Valley Project facilities that are not defi- 
nitely scheduled but that could (if authorized and 
funded) become available before 2010 to meet 
supplemental water needs include Auburn Reser- 
voir, the Mid-Valley Canal, and enlarged Shasta 
Lake. In addition, local agencies might complete 



' An analysis was made to determine the impact of not developing the yield 
of SB 200 or equivalent facilities on schedule. The analysis indicated 
that most of the shortages in future deliveries to the SWP agricultural 
service areas in the San Joaquin Valley could be made up by increased 
ground water overdraft. However, no specific alternative supplies were 
identified to compensate for the potential shortages that would occur 
in the SWP urban service areas of Southern California. 

' Present rights of the Indians are 55.000 acre-feet per year. An additional 
82.000 acre-feet has been recommended by the special master, but this 
amount has not yet been adopted by the Supreme Court. For this 
report, it was assumed that the Indian tribes will not be granted the 
additional amount. 



several other water supply projects by 2010. These 
include the South Fork American River Project, the 
Cosumnes River Water and Power Project, and 
the North Fork Stanislaus River Project. Water sup- 
plies from these projects were not included in de- 
veloping projections. If available, they would 
reduce identified shortages or ground water over- 
draft, depending on the particular area served. 

• A vailability of Colorado River Supplies Will Be 
Reduced. The Central Arizona Project will be 
completed on schedule, reducing California's firm 
right to Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre- 
feet annually by 1990. Of this amount, 55,000 acre- 
feet will satisfy water rights granted to the Indian 
tribes along the Colorado River,^ and 3,000 acre- 
feet will satisfy present perfected rights of other 
local users. 

. Diversion of Mono Lake Inflow Will Continue 
at Present Levels. The issue over preservation 
of Mono Lake, which involves possible reductions 
of existing water rights of the city of Los Angeles, 
will remain unresolved, and full diversions from the 
basin will continue. 

• Instream Flow Requirements Will Remain Un- 
changed. No major change in instream require- 
ments will occur for streams in which essentially all 
water is already appropriated (true of most of the 
Central Valley and Southern California). Further- 
more, all existing instream requirements for wild 
and scenic river systems, flow maintenance agree- 
ments, water rights decisions, and basin water 
quality control plans not mentioned elsewhere in 
these assumptions will be unchanged. Relicensing 
of many hydropower plants will increase down- 
stream release requirements, but these changes 
will not significantly affect water supplies for off- 
stream uses, which, in most cases, are diverted 
farther downstream. The Trinity River fish flow re- 
lease has been increased to 287,000 acre-feet per 
year and may later be increased to 340,000 acre- 
feet per year, as ordered in January 1981 by Secre- 
tary of the Interior Cecil Andrus. 

• Useof Reclaimed Water Will Increase. Use of 
reclaimed water will be increased to the maximum 
extent feasible. Projected reclamation will be 
based on studies of local projects judged to have 
potential for implementation during the period of 
analysis. Limitations on use are based on public 
health standards that either exist or are assumed to 
exist at the time the project is added. 

• Ground Water Use Will Remain Largely Unre- 
stricted. Current trends in ground water use will 
not be significantly altered by changes m water 
rights laws. Ground water pumping will be essen- 
tially unrestricted, except for adjudicated basins 
and as reduced by availability of alternative sup- 
plies, economic constraints, and existing local 
management practices. 



137 



Electrical Rates for Ground Water Pumping 
Will Increase. Electrical energy costs for 
ground water pumping were assumed to increase 
2 percent per year in real terms: that is. m addition 
to the increase due to inflation. 

Ground Water Supplies Will Be Adequate. 

Additional ground water supplies will be obtained 
m the San Joaquin Valley through extraction of 
ground water in storage (overdrafting). Outside 
the San Joaquin Valley, new or greatly expanded 
ground water development is occurring in several 
areas of the State, especially in Northern Califor- 
nia. Presently available information is insufficient 
to determine the potential for long-term sustained 
pumping from these basins. For this report, availa- 
bility and cost of water m these areas were as- 
sumed to place no limits on the projections. 



» Surface Water Price Increases Will Vary 
Widely. The price of water provided through 
currently authorized facilities by the U. S. Bureau 
of Reclamation will be increased as present con- 
tracts are renewed in the 1990s. State Water 
Project prices reflect the increase in energy costs 
with the expiration of initial contracts m 1983. The 
relative price of presently developed local surface 
water supplies will not change appreciably. The 
following examples of the approximate price of 
water per acre-foot (unescalated) from the State 
and federal systems do not include the cost of 
local distribution and treatment. 

Further discussion of the effect of water prices on 
farm operations is presented in the sidebar. "Poten- 
tial Impacts of Future Water Prices on Irrigated 
Agriculture." 



1980 

rGCl6r3 1 (currently authorized facilities) 

Sacramento Valley S3.50 

San Joaquin Valley (east side of the valley and Delta-Mendota Canal) 3.50 

San Joaquin Valley (San Luis Service Area) 10.00 

State 

Soutfi Bay Aqueduct 44.00 

San Joaquin Valley (Kern County Water Agency) 29,00 

Southern California (The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) 123.00 



1990 

$3.50 
3.50 
10.00 



120.00 

80.00 
275,00 



2000 

S9.00 
12.00 
17.00 



120.00 

80,00 

275,00 



20W 

S12,00 
16.00 
24.00 



120.00 

80.00 

245.00 



Agricultural Water Use 

California's agricultural producers not only com- 
pete actively in national and foreign markets but also 
with one another within the State. Moreover, they 
are in competition with importers who bring into Cal- 
ifornia substantial quantities of food products from 
other regions of the United States and from foreign 
nations. An affordable supply of water for irrigated 
agriculture has allowed the State's producers to 
maintain a favorable competitive position. An identi- 
fied source of affordable water was considered by 
the Department of Water Resources to be a prereq- 
uisite for projecting any additional development of 
irrigated land. 

Projections of future net water use by irrigated 
agriculture are based on projections of crops. Cali- 
fornia was growing at least 200 commercial crops on 
9.5 million acres of irrigated land in 1980. 

Steps in the process of estimating future net water 
use by irrigated agriculture by decade to 2010 in- 
clude: 

• Determination of present crop acreages (see 
Chapter III). 

• Determination of sources of affordable water sup- 
plies. 



• Projection of crop acreages. 

• Selection of unit evapotranspiration of applied wa- 
ter (ETAW) for each crop for each area. 

• Estimation of increased irrigation efficiencies. 

• Calculations of agricultural applied water and 
ETAW. 

• Calculation of net water use, considering water 
reuse, total ETAW, distribution system irrecovera- 
ble losses, and outflow (see Chapter III for discus- 
sion of net water use). 

The process employed to project crop acreages, 
depicted on Figure 40, involved analysis of potential 
markets, costs of water and other production factors, 
available land and water supplies, and outputs of 
several computer models. An economic model was 
employed to evaluate the impact of several factors 
on agriculture in the Central Valley, another model 
was used to analyze factors affecting feed and for- 
age production, and other models were used to ana- 
lyze markets and transportation costs. Information 
was obtained on historical specialization in specific 
crops: regional crop growing preferences: typical 



138 



crop rotation patterns: potential market outlook by 
crop; regional marketing structures; and acreage lim- 
its based on soil, water supply, and climate con- 
straints. Information from all tfiese sources and 



findings of various studies were integrated witfi in- 
formation on current land use and land and water 
availability to provide crop projections for the entire 
State. 



POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FUTURE WATER PRICES 
ON IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 



Large variation exists in water prices around the State. 
Currently, districts that use CVP water charge farmers 
between $5 and $25 per acre-foot, while those using SV/P 
water charge from about $ 1 to more than $40 per acre-foot. 
Variations in pumping lifts cause ground water costs to range 
from about $10 to more than $100 per acre-foot. Prices of 
water diverted from streams and local storage projects are 
generally lower. 

Although significant increases are expected in some cases 
at some time in the future, changes will not be uniform, and 
the impact on agriculture will be variable. California's agricul- 
ture has a large share of the market for many of its products 
and the potential for a wide diversity of crop production due 
to the nature of its climate and soils. Farmers have demon- 
strated, at least partially, the ability to offset increases in the 
price of water by better irrigation management, by changing 
to higher value or lower water-use crops to the extent that 



market conditions allow, and by reducing other production 
costs. 

The price of water today is a relatively small portion of 
total farm production costs. Water prices as a percentage of 
total production costs of 20 crops are given in Table 33. The 
effect of the price of water on net form income is not as 
significant as the effect of some other factors. For a typical 
cotton grower, for instance, a 10-percent increase in the price 
of water will lower net income per acre by 7 percent, at most. 
A 10-percent decrease in the price of cotton or a 10-percent 
decrease in yield, on the other hand, can reduce a farmer's 
net income by as much as 40 percent. To state it another way, 
only a 1.5-percent increase in the yield or the price received 
for cotton would be needed to compensate for a 10-percent 
increase in the price of water. However, in some areas, the 
future percentage change in water prices will likely be much 
greater than the increase in prices received for crops or the 
increase in yield. 



TABLE 33 
1975 WATER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CROP PRODUCTION COSTS 

FOR SELECTED REGIONS 



Crop 



Kern and Kings Counties 



Average 



Low 



High 



Tulare, Fresno, and Madera Counties 



A verage 



Low 



High 



Cotton 

Barley 

Alfalfa 

Wheat 

Grapes 

Sorghum 

Sugar beets 

Irrigated pasture.... 

Oranges 

Tomatoes 

Rice 

Carrots 

Field corn 

Onions 

Almonds 

Melons 

Walnuts 

Plums and prunes.. 

Peaches 

Lettuce 



19 
19 
17 
21 
11 
11 
22 
31 
20 

8 
20 

6 
24 
15 



9 
6 
7 
9 
5 
5 
9 

21 

11 
5 

12 
2 

17 
5 



26 
26 
21 
26 
15 
15 
27 
36 
31 
12 
22 
7 
32 
17 



10 

11 

16 

10 

4 

9 

16 

34 

6 

8 

12 

12 

4 
7 
7 
3 
2 
4 



4 
4 
6 
5 
2 
5 
5 
15 
3 



29 
24 
22 
22 
8 
10 
27 
39 
11 
13 
16 

13 



2 


7 


9 


15 


3 


12 


1 


5 


1 


3 


6 


15 



Source, University of California. Davis. Agricultural Water Use and Costs in California. 
Bulletin 1896. July 1980 



139 



Figure 40. STUDIES AND INFORMATION USED IN 
PROJECTING IRRIGATED CROPS 




140 



Studies and Considerations for Projecting 
Irrigated Crop Acreages 

Several studies of the trends and influences of fac- 
tors thiat affect irrigated agriculture in California 
were significant in guiding the projection of future 
irrigated crop acreage. 

National Inter-Regional Agricultural Produc- 
tion Model. Information on future foreign and do- 
nnestic markets for crops produced m California was 
obtained from analyses of the U. S. Department of 
Agriculture's National Inter-Regional Agricultural 
Production (NIRAP) model, which provided esti- 
mates of a growth rate for total crop production in 
the United States. The NIRAP model, developed by 
the U. S. Economic Research Service, is a computer- 
ized simulation of the food and agricultural system in 
the nation. The model consists of a series of equa- 
tions, with variables for real prices, real income, and 
export demand, and several policy variables. Curves 
were plotted to display the model's results and then 
shifted in accordance with population increases or 
changes in relationships between variables in the 
economy. The NIRAP study indicated that; 

• U. S. food exports will increase. 

• California will maintain its present share of food 
exports. 

• Per capita consumption of most foods and other 
farm products will remain at the present level until 
2010. 

Factors Affecting Competition from Other 
Producing Areas of the U. S. California accounts 
for more than 90 percent of the production of more 
than a dozen crops, mostly fruits and nuts. For many 
more crops, primarily vegetables, it is virtually the 
sole producer during certain times of the year. No 
change in competition is expected for such crops. 

Future transportation costs and future availability 
of water for irrigation are two factors that will proba- 
bly influence market competition between key pro- 
ductive regions m the nation for other crops. 
Transportation costs are likely to rise with increasing 
energy costs, and California's ability to compete with 
other areas in shipping specialty crops to eastern and 
midwestern regions of the United States may be af- 
fected. To help predict the impact, a study was un- 
dertaken for these important crops: cantaloupes, 
carrots, celery, table grapes, lettuce, nectarines, 
oranges, strawberries, and fresh tonnatoes. 

A cost-minimizing mathematical model was devel- 
oped in which California. Arizona, Florida, and Texas 
were the principal competitors for these crops. New 
York City and Chicago represented eastern and 
midwestern markets. The purpose of the model was 
to determine how widely transportation costs could 
vary before a competing region could supply these 
foods less expensively than could California. Con- 



sumer demand was assumed to be at recent levels. 
The study indicated that, for many crops that com- 
pete with those in other states. California's produc- 
ers and wholesalers will be able to accommodate 
large increases in real (inflation-adjusted) fuel costs 
before the marketing advantages of this State are 
lost. 

To further assess California's ability to maintain its 
share of the market, the water supply situation in 
competing regions was considered. In two such 
areas, Arizona and the High Plains-Ogallala aquifer 
region, diminishing water supplies probably pose a 
more serious threat to agriculture than is the case in 
California. Arizona has taken strong measures to 
manage its precarious water demand-supply balance 
by enacting laws to control both agricultural and ur- 
ban water use. In some parts of Arizona, no expan- 
sion of agriculture will be permitted, and, over time, 
some phasing out of existing irrigated acreage is ex- 
pected. 

The Ogallala is a ground water aquifer underlying 
a vast area m six of the High Plains states: Nebraska, 
Colorado. Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tex- 
as. The aquifer is the principal source of water for 
irrigation in this region. Since World War II. irrigated 
acreage has expanded tremendously, with the result 
that ground water overdraft is widespread — 14 mil- 
lion acre-feet annually — in the Texas-Oklahoma High 
Plains area, and ground water levels have dropped 
significantly. Greater pumping lifts, coupled with 
high energy costs, have adversely affected crop pro- 
duction and cropping patterns. Without augmenta- 
tion with surface water, irrigated land in parts of the 




California leads the U.S. in the production of nectarines and 
other fresh fruit. 



141 




Cattle graze in an irrigated pasture in northeastern California. 

region will likely revert to dry farming or rangeland 
over the next 30 years. 

In Florida, there is concern that its major ground 
water aquifers cannot supply future needs, as was 
once thought. One-time recharge areas used to re- 
plenish the State's basins are now occupied by com- 
mercial and residential development, and large 
portions are underlain by salt-water deposits. 

Thus, in several important instances, other areas of 
the United States that might otherwise compete with 
California in production of certain crops are facing 
severe water shortages. Therefore, over the long 
term, California is expected to retain or even improve 
its comoetitive marketing oosition for those crops. 

Study of the Livestock Industry and Its Need 
for Feed and Forage. A :"ough California is better 
known for its specialT\ '' ^ :s, nuts, and vegetables, its 
production of feed ana 'cage crops presently ac- 
counts for about 40 percent of total applied irrigation 
water in the State. In recent years, beef production 
elsewhere has risen in relation to that in California. 
With the likelihood of increased water costs in some 
areas, questions have been raised regarding the abili- 
ty of the State's livestock industry to maintain its 
competitive position in relation to other regions of 
the United States. To obtain a basis for projecting 
the State's future feed and forage production, the 
Department analyzed the livestock and poultry indus- 
tries. 



First, a study was conducted to assess changes in 
production methods, feed and forage consumption 
by animal type, and associated changes in feed and 
forage production from 1961 to 1978. Then, Califor- 
nia's probable ability to continue in competition with 
other states in producing, transporting, and market- 
ing livestock and poultry was analyzed. Finally, using 
the results of these studies, the opinions of an advi- 
sory committee composed of industry experts, and 
the results from an economic model, a most likely set 
of projections was developed of California's animal 
numbers and related acreages of feed and forage 
crops.* The study indicated; 

• The rate of increase in beef consumption per per- 
son in California will gradually taper off to a level 
only 10 percent higher in 2010 than in 1976-1978. 

• Poultry production in California will increase sig- 
nificantly, doubling the 1976-1978 level by 2010. 

• Cattle marketing from California's feedlots is likely 
to continue its downward trend, although the 
trend will level off. Feedlot marketing m 2010 is 
expected to be the same as in 1976-1978. An in- 
creasing proportion of beef consumed in Califor- 
nia will come from other states. 

• Milk production per cow will continue to increase 
but not at the high levels of recent years. The num- 
ber of milk cows in 2010 is expected to be 95 per- 
cent of the 1976-1978 level. 

Based on these findings regarding livestock and 
poultry production trends, the study concluded that 
the potential demand for California-produced alfalfa 
hay, irrigated pasture, and feed grains in 2010 will be 





* Details of these studies, including model descriptions, are given in the 
Departments report Outlook for Water Consumption by California's 
Feed and Forage Industry tfirough 2010. Bulletin 212. February 1982. 



Corn silage production is expected to continue as a significant 

agricultural activity. 



142 




Almonds being harvested with a tree-shaker. Almost the sole 
producer of almonds in the U.S., California exports about half 
its crop. Almond acreage increased from 270,000 acres in 
1972 to 370,000 in 1980 and is projected to continue expand- 
ing. 



about the same as in 1976-1978. The study did not 
consider the impact of competition for land and wa- 
ter to produce other crops; however, this factor did 
enter into the final crop projection process. In the 
final analysis, because production of other crops will 
continue to increase, the proportion of total water 
used by feed and forage crops will continue to de- 
cline. The evapotranspiration of applied water 
(ETAW) by projected feed and forage crops will 
drop from about 40 percent in 1980 to about 33 per- 
cent of total agricultural ETAW in 2010. 

Central Valley Agricultural Model. The De- 
partment also developed a linear programming mod- 
el of Central Valley agriculture. The model 
considered 41 crops and incorporated data on crop 
yields, production costs, commodity demands, water 
costs, and land availability. It allocated acreages of 
crops among 54 Detailed Analysis Units (DAUs) in a 
pattern that would reflect maximum net farm income 
for the entire valley. Although the output did not 
necessarily represent what is likely to occur, crop by 
crop and DAU by DAU, it did indicate the overall 
impact on irrigated crop acreages of changes in wa- 
ter costs and expanded markets for agricultural 
products. The findings indicated: 

• The crops that could be grown and where, given 
the assumed increases in energy and water costs 
and the availability of water and suitable land. 

• The tendency toward increases or decreases in 
crop acreage with changing market conditions. 



• The economic feasibility of additional irrigated 
acreage in the Central Valley. 

With on-going modifications and additional experi- 
ence in its use, the model can become a primary tool 
for projecting agricultural crops. 

Other Information and Considerations. In ad- 
dition to the models and related studies just dis- 
cussed, a wide variety of other information, data, and 
expert judgment was called upon to provide the ba- 
sis for the projection of irrigated crops. These includ- 
ed, for each area: 

• Identified sources and prices of water supply. 

• Historic pattern of land use.' 

• Availability and suitability of land for potential de- 
velopment and changes in crop production.' 

• Determination of the historic rate of development 
of irrigation.' 

• Local factors that may influence cropping patterns 
(including apparent crop specialization or prefer- 
ences).' 

• Characteristics of undeveloped land, compared 
with those of adjacent irrigated land and other 
relevant site-specific information.' 

• Market outlook information for specific crops, in- 
cluding the effect of general population growth 
and other recent or anticipated trends. 

*The Department's land use maps, described in Chapter III. and its land 
classification maps, prepared to show the suitability of the land for 
specific irrigated crops, were the basis for this analysis. 



143 



Projections of Acreages of Irrigated Crops 

The impact of the foregoing factors, including the 
model results, was translated into acres of specific 
irrigated crops in specific geographic areas. This 
work was carried out by Department staff members 
who have gained extensive knowledge of California's 
irrigated agriculture from their experience and re- 



sponsibilities for land use and land classification 
mapping and agricultural economic studies. The ad- 
vice and opinions of other knowledgeable people 
also were used. The results were projections of spe- 
cific crop acreages in each study area (by DAUs. m 
some cases; by PSAs, in others). These are summa- 
rized by Hydrologic Study Area in Table 34 for 1980 
and 2010. 



TABLE 34 

COMPARISON OF IRRIGATED CROP ACREAGE AND LAND AREA 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 and 2010 

(In 1,OOOs of acres) 



Crop 



S'' 



cc 



S3 



Grair' 
Kce- 



Conoii- 



?W w ^rt r DGCtS — 



Coni_ 



Other fieU' 



AtfdIlS . 



Pssture — 
Tomatoes - 



Other mick' 



Other dedduois* 



CmusOive' 



Grapes 



TOTAL CROP ACHES- 
D0U81ECB0P 



TOTAL LAND AREA. 



j" 


5 


; 


— 


;•: 


5 


420 


1*J 


li) 


|i| 


Ui 


liSf 


,13) 


(3S9) 

580 
(491) 


— 




5 
(10) 


- 


— 


— 


180 
(140) 


5 


S 


55 





IS 


— 


240 


(3) 


(4) 


(51) 


(8) 


(15) 


(5) 


(ISO) 


65 





45 





5 





160 


(51) 


(1) 


(51) 


(2) 


(11) 


(1) 


(105) 


IX 


5 


20 





10 





360 


(125) 


(4) 


(26) 


(3) 


(13) 


(4) 


(369) 





_ 


20 











130 


— 


— 


(IS) 


— 


— 


— 


(MB) 


S 


n 


310 


SO 


20 


20 


55 


(W) 


(15) 


(2^) 


(51) 


(21) 


(18) 


(32) 
IW 

m 


w 


5 


25 





5 





2K 


(9) 


(W) 


(32) 


(2) 


U) 


(1) 


(178) 








15 


60 


35 


60 


15 


— 


— 


(12) 


(64) 


(52) 


(60) 


(14) 


35 


30 


m 





W 


5 


25 


(») 


(27) 


(54) 


(2) 


(13) 


(3) 


(7) 


3G0 


60 


570 


in 


120 


90 


2550 


(314) 


(66) 


(531) 


(134) 


(153) 


(H6) 


(2.176) 








85 


25 


H) 


10 


MO 


— 


(2) 


(72) 


(W) 


(6) 


(5) 


(32) 


360 


60 


485 


85 


in 


80 


Z380 


(314) 


(54' 


/jCOl 


JIIOI 


f1j-7t 


"00> 


'ice«> 



li*D; 


liX, 


SO 
(41) 


(13) 


2B0 
(197) 


1.420 
(1239) 


70 
(66) 


5 
(39) 


270 
(207) 


100 
(96) 


no 

(211) 


140 
(151) 


180 
(181) 


270 
(319) 


2« 
(301) 


55 
(67) 


no 

(GO) 


80 
(38) 


120 
(86) 


WO 
(115) 


ZN 
(WT) 


MO 
(12B) 


190 
(146) 


190 
(153) 


20 
(8) 


MO 
(166) 


230 
(176) 


480 
(363) 


Z410 
(Z142) 


(3t3BI) 


ISO 
(80) 


IX 
(72) 


22B0 

'2062' 


31510 

'J3'2> 



5 
(1) 

55 
(34) 

90 
(101) 



im 

(148) 



MO 



(2) 

X 
(45) 

15 
(20) 



(2) 



(2) 



50 
(78) 



SO 



IX 
(109) 

40 
(X) 



X 
(25) 

220 
(186) 

X 
(18) 



150 
(119) 



(1) 

40 
(33) 

W 
(W) 

8X 
(683) 

MO 
(89) 

670 

'6W1 



630 
(SiSI 

1S30 
(15«l 

195 
(210) 

(442) 



(686) 

lim 

(9861 

336 
(1JH1) 

330 
(221) 

920 

(7«l 

(407) 

636 
(5») 

425 

(4091 

3% 

(683) 

ML950 
(9.924) 

7X 
(434) 

10220 

'9-1901 



Note: 1980 nalues are stmnm in parecnheses. 

* Pncnanty befley. wfiaat. oat gram, and grairviiay. 
' Oy beans. saffloiMer. mia sunflovrer. etc 

* PuumeSL melons, leitucCL etc 
'Wdkiuts. peaches, pnaies. phsns, etc 
'Also inckides avocados. 



144 



Some of the highlights of the projected changes in 
statewide irrigated acreage between 1980 and 2010 
(Figure 41) are: 

• Small Grains. Double cropping (grain plus an- 
other crop on the same land in one year) is expect- 
ed to become more common; however, with the 
pressure of competition from other crops for land 
and water, total acreage of grain is expected to 
decrease slightly. 

• Field Crops. Cotton and rice are projected to 

continue to dominate the San Joaquin Valley (cot- 
ton) and Sacramento Valley (rice). Corn is pro- 
jected to increase about 25 percent. Although 
some changes are expected in the proportional 
mix, the total of all other field crops is expected to 
remain about level. These include dry beans, milo, 
safflower, and sunflower. 



Alfalfa and Pasture. The combined acreage of 
hay and forage crops is expected to remain about 
level, with irrigated pasture land giving way to 
higher income crops in some areas. 

Truck Crops. The total production of vegeta- 
bles, berries, and nursery stock, which make up this 
category, is projected to increase about 30 per- 
cent, principally in keeping with growth of U. S. 
population. 

Tree Fruits and Nuts. Shifts in the ratios of spe- 
cific fruits and nuts are expected; the total acreage 
should increase about 10 percent by 2010. 

Grapes. Wine grape production is projected to 
continue increasing. Total grape acreage will rise 
30 percent by 2010. 



Figure 41. CHANGE IN STATE TOTAL IRRIGATED ACREAGE, BY CROPS 

1980 TO 2010 



CROP 



GRAIN 


RICE 


COTTON 


SUGAR BEETS 


CORN 


OTHER FIELD 


ALFALFA 


PASTURE 


TOMATOES 




OTHER TRUCK 

ALMONDS 
PISTACHIOS 

OTHER DECIDUOUS 



CITRUS-OLIVES 
GRAPES 





D 



J_ 



100 



100 

Thousands of Acres 



200 



300 



145 




Wine grape acreage continues to grow markedly, with an- 
other 15,000 acres planted in 1980. 



146 







California produces more than half the nation's nine major 
processed vegetables, including green lima beans, here being 
harvested for freezing. Production of these and other proc- 
essed vegetables in the State is expected to increase. 



Total irrigated land in California (Table 35) is pro- 
jected to increase from the 1980 level of 9,490,000 
acres to 10,220,000 acres by 2010, an 8-percent in- 
crease over the 30-year period. This percentage in- 
crease is the sanne as that which occurred in the 
eight years between 1972 and 1980. The intensity of 
land use is expected to increase, reflected in in- 
creased double cropping. With double cropping, to- 
tal irrigated crops are expected to increase by 10 



percent to 10,950,000 acres. 

The greatest expansion in irrigation is projected to 
occur in the Sacramento HSA, with irrigated land 
growing by 300,000 acres and double cropping in- 
creasing by 70,000 acres. The San Joaquin and Tulare 
Lake HSAs are each projected to increase total irri- 
gated crops by about 250,000 acres. These projec- 
tions for the Central Valley were given limited testing 
to determine how they would be affected by major 



TABLE 35 
IRRIGATED CROP ACREAGE AND LAND AREA BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 
(In 1,000s of acres) 



Year 



NC 



SF 



CC 



LA 



SA 



SO 



SB 



SJ 



TL 



NL 



SL 



CR 



TOTAL 



IRRIGATED CROP ACREAGE 

1980 

1990 

2000 

2010 

1960 to 2010 change 

IRRIGATED LAND AREA 

1980 

1990 

2000 

2010 

1980 to 2010 ctiange 

' Includes double crop. 



314 
340 
350 
360 
+ 46 



314 
340 
350 
360 
+46 



531 
560 
570 
570 
+ 39 



469 
480 
480 
486 
+ 26 



134 
130 
120 
110 
-24 



118 
110 
100 
85 
-33 



153 
140 
130 
120 
-33 



147 
130 
120 
110 
-37 



105 
100 
100 
90 
-15 



100 
100 
90 
80 
-20 



2,176 
2.420 
2,480 
2.550 
+ 374 



2,084 
2.290 
2,340 
2,390 
+ 306 



2,142 
2.210 
2.300 
2,410 
+ 268 



2,062 
2.110 
2,180 
2,260 
+ 198 



3.384 
3,470 
3.640 
3.640 
+ 256 



3,312 
3,370 
3.430 
3.510 
+ 198 



148 
160 
160 

160 
+ 12 



148 
160 
160 
160 
+ 12 



693 
750 
810 
830 
+ 137 



604 
630 
660 
670 
+ 66 



9,924 
10.410 
10.680 
10,960 
+ 1.026 



9.490 
9.850 
10,030 
10,220 
+ 730 



147 



changes in the assumptions regarding water availa- 
bility and energy costs. These results a^e reported in 
the sidebar. "Effects of Alternative Assjmptions for 
Water Supply and Energy Costs." 

A projected irrigation water saving througn con- 
servation in the Colorado River HSA nnade it possible 
to project an increase in irrigated crop acreage of 
about 140.000 acres, half from newly developed land 
and half from increased double cropping. Some 
lesser increases are projected for the North Coast 
Central Coas:. and North Lahontan HSAs. Urban en- 
croachment on presently irrigated lands will reduce 
such land in the San Francisco Bay. Los Angeles. 
Santa Ana. and San Diego HSAs by a total of nearly 
100.000 acres. Irrigated land in the South Lahontan 



HSA is projected to decrease by about 30.000 acres 

because declining ground water levels and increased 
costs of energy will make ground water too costiy for 
some farming operations. Further importation is no 
solution in the South Lahonta HSA because SWP 
prices exceed the ability of agriculture in •rat a^ea to 
pay for water. 

The complexity of factors that influence Califor- 
nia's agriculture is such that projecting iong-range 
agricultural activity with accuracy is unlikely. Howev- 
er, barring such events as major economic problems 
at the national or international level, devastating pest 
invasions, or similar situations that cannot be fore- 
seen, irrigation can be expected to continue increas- 
ing as long as suitable land and affordable wa:e' a-e 
available. 



EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS 
FOR WATER SUPPLY AND ENERGY COSTS 



Projections of irrigated crops to 2010 we-e zziez c- ;1) 
certain assumptions regarding the liming of c- : :: '-of 
oddHional surfoce water supplies and (2) the p.-e~.s« rnot 
real energy prices would incieose steocfily at the rate of 2 
percent per year. It now appears that new SWP water sup- 
pGes wS not be made avoSable as soon as had been as- 
sumed. Moreover, some experts believe that real energy 
prices wil not increase beyond 1982 levek for at least the 
next 10 years. 

The possible effects of these alternative ossumptions on 
irrigated agriculture were estimated by using the Central 
Valey agricultural model referred to in this chapter. 

K ertergy prices increase only at the rote of inflation, the 
farmer's costs for fertSzer. equipment, operotion, artd water 
would be less, co mpared to costs with o 2-percent increose 
per year in real energy prices. The lower water costs would 
be particularly significtvit in those areas requirirtg energy to 
pump water from ttte Delta artd in those areas that rely 
extensively on grour>d water. Acconfing to the model analy- 
sis, ttte net effect of cortstont ertergy prices, compared to the 
projected 2-percent increase in reat energy costs, would be: 

• An averoge artnual increase in irrigated crop acreage of 
50,000 ocres in tfte Central Voley, compered to 30,000 
ocres with a 2-percent ittcreose. 

• A different crop ocreoge (fistribution within the volley. 

• Some chartges m cioppirtg patterns. 

The effect on the protected acreage by 2010 among areos 
in the Centrd VoBey is shown graphicaly in the uccompuny- 
ing figure. 



PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN 
PROJECTED 2010 ACREAGE FROM 
CONSTANT REAL ENERGY PRICES 



DECREASE 


INCREASE 




CENTRAL VALLEY -Total 






SACRAMENTO 

HSA 










! 
SAN JOAQUIN HSA 








TULARE LAKE HSA 








; C 2 .i f 8 
Ac teage change in pet cent 



148 



The more optimistic energy price forecasts hove the great- 
est impact in the Tulare Lake HSA because of its reliance on 
ground water supplies and use of SWP surface supplies, both 
of which are energy-intensive. Increases there in irrigated 
acreage would be offset, in part, by reductions in the Sacra- 
mento HSA, reflecting the greater competitive advantage in 
the Tulare Lake HSA. 

A delay in providing additional SWP facilities to meet 
projected requirements would not cause the change in total 
projected acreage that the energy price scenario would 
cause. With no additional SWP facilities, upstream depletions 
resulting from further development in the Sacramento Valley 
would reduce present yield from 2.3 million to 1.7 million 
acre-feet. The model analysis indicates that, under this supply 
reduction scenario, the following changes would take place. 

• Ground water pumping would increase in the Tulare Lake 
HSA to moke up for much of the SWP supply deficiency 
in that area. 

• With the increased overdraft and resultant greater pump- 
ing lifts, ground water would become more expensive than 
would SWP supplies, but farming would still be profitable. 

• Crop acreage would be distributed differently among Cen- 
tral Valley HSAs. 

• Acreage would be slightly lower in the Tulare Lake HSA, 
higher in the San Joaquin HSA, and lower in the Sacra- 
mento HSA, compared to projections based on no delay in 
providing additional SWP facilities. The net change in the 
Central Valley would be almost negligible, however, as 
illustrated in the accompanying figure. 

The primary shift predicted by the model would be o small 
movement from relatively water-intensive cotton to less wa- 
ter-intensive grains. This is the reverse of the trend indicated 
under the constant energy price scenario. Moreover, shifts in 
competitive advantage cause more of a chain reaction under 
the reduced water supply scenario than with the constant 
energy price scenario. As farmers in the Tulare Lake HSA 
move from cotton to grain acreage, the Son Joaquin HSA 
would shift from grain production to increased acreage of 
other crops at the expense of smaller increases in Sacramento 
HSA production. 

In summary, from the indicated changes in crop distribution 
and changing rate of annual increase in crop acreages, it is 
obvious that the assumption of reduced SWP deliveries has 
a lesser impact on crop production than do changes in energy 
price. 



PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN 
PROJECTED 2010 ACREAGE 
RESULTING FROM REDUCED 
SWP SUPPLY 



DECREASE 



CENTRAL VALLEY 
Total 



INCREASE 



SACRAMENTO HSA 



rl 

TULARE LAKE HSA 

u 



_l I L. 



1 

SAN JOAQUIN HSA 

J 



J 



4 2 2 4 

Acreage change In percent 



MAJOR CROP PATTERN CHANGES BY 
2010 AS A RESULT OF ALTERNATIVE 
ASSUMPTIONS 



AREA 


CONSTANT ENERGY 
PRICES 


NO ADDITIONAL 
SWP FACILITIES 


Gain 


Loss 


Gain 


Loss 


CENTRAL VALLEY- 
TOTAL 


COTTON 
GRAPES 


GRAIN 

SUGAR BEETS 
TOMATOES 


GRAIN 


COTTON 


SACRAMENTO 
HSA 


GRAIN 


SUGAR BEETS 

CORN 

GRAPES 




PASTURE 
GRAPES 


SAN JOAQUIN 
HSA 


PASTURE 
GRAPES 


FIELD CROPS 
TOMATOES 


PASTURE 
GRAPES 




TULARE LAKE 
HSA 


COTTON 
GRAPES 


GRAIN 


GRAIN 


COTTON 



149 







k-^^m 



Rice harvester. Average irrigatian efficiency for rice is project- 
ed to rise from the present 45 percent to about 55 percent 
by 2010. 



Future Changes in Irrigation Efficiency 

California's irrigation, historically, has continuous- 
ly become more efficient.' Talcing the State as a 
whole, the weighted average irrigation efficiency has 
been steadily rising, as new systems with higher ef- 
ficiencies are brought into use and the management 
of existing systems is improved. System changes 
have continued to take place because of the: 

• Need to replace worn-out irrigation systems, often 
resulting in installation of better-designed systems. 

• Desire to convert to systems requiring less labor, 
some of which are easier to operate efficiently. 

• Interest in new types of equipment for specialized 
applications that prove to be more advantageous 
and are usually more efficient than their predeces- 
sors. 

The new types of equipment include drip systems, 
linear-move and center-pivot systems, electronically 
controlled systems, and laser-leveled surface flood 
systems. An apparent trend toward greater skill in 



* Irrigation efficiency, the percentage of ttie irrigation water used by the 
plant and evaporated from ttie soil, is the efficiency with wtiich a farmer 
applies water: it should not be confused with the efficiency of opera- 
tion of an irrigation district, or tlie efficiency of a total hydrologic 
system, the values for each of which are derived from a different basis. 



overall farm management has meant more care given 

to irrigation scheduling. These improvements have 
been observed even where water price is only a very 
small part of total operation cost. 

Despite this trend toward greater efficiency, 
however, some notable exceptions do occur. Low 
efficiencies are still found in some mountain valleys 
where low-value pasture land is irrigated by stream 
diversions that usually provide less than a full sea- 
son's water supply. The low economic return from 
pasture and the uncertainty of the water supply have 
not been conducive to investment in improved irriga- 
tion systems. An example is part of Honey Lake Val- 
ley in Lassen County. Low efficiencies also occur 
where systems of unlined canals built many years 
ago deliver low-priced water on a fixed schedule, as 
in the rice-growing areas of Sacramento Valley. At 
the other extreme, high efficiencies have long been 
common where irrigation water is relatively scarce 
and costly. These conditions prevail in San Diego 
County and parts of San Joaquin Valley, where max- 
imum practical efficiency has been reached in many 
cases. 

Overall, irrigation efficiency is- expected to contin- 
ue to increase and, with increasing costs of energy, 
labor, water, and other production factors, is likely to 



150 



accelerate in some areas. However, in other cases, 
even where water price is low, nneasurements of wa- 
ter application rates indicate that under-irrigation is 
occurring, and improved irrigation management may 
actually increase water application, with concomi- 
tant increases in production.- 

For this study, future levels of irrigation efficiency 
were estimated for each crop or group of crops by 
each DAU. These estimates were based on evalua- 
tion of: 

• Historic and current irrigation efficiencies. 

. Range of soil characteristics and normal climate 
patterns. 

• Current irrigation systems and irrigation practices. 

• Current and expected future water prices (includ- 
ing energy cost impacts). 

• Characteristics and operation of surface water dis- 
tribution systems. 

Although efficiencies of 80 percent or more can be 
achieved under ideal conditions, such rates rarely 
occur because of variations in soil characteristics, 
water quality, water prices, water delivery systems, 
and farming practices. Thus, in most cases, the 
weighted average irrigation efficiency estimated for 
2010 for any crop over a relatively large area does not 
exceed 70 to 75 percent. 

The variation in values is demonstrated by informa- 
tion shown in Table 36, which compares the weight- 
ed average irrigation efficiency for a number of crops 
in the; 

• Maricopa-Wheeler Ridge DAU (composed of 
most of the Maricopa-Wheeler Ridge Water Stor- 
age District, a portion of the Arvin-Edison Water 
Storage District, and some unorganized areas). 



• Kern Valley Floor PSA (composed of the Mari- 
copa-Wheeler Ridge DAU and seven other DAUs) . 

• Tulare Lake HSA (composed of the Kern Valley 
Floor PSA and two other PSAs). 

The table demonstrates the influence of the many 
variables on the weighted average irrigation effi- 
ciency as increasingly larger areas are considered. 

Agricultural Applied Water and Net Water 
Use — 1980 and Projected 

Agricultural applied water and ETAW were com- 
puted by DAUs, aggregated by PSAs for the hy- 
drologic analysis, and summarized by HSAs. Applied 
water and ETAW were computed from the projected 
crop acreages, unit applied water, and unit ETAW. A 
hydrologic analysis considering reuse, ETAW, ir- 
recoverable distribution system losses, and outflow 
from each PSA provided the estimate of net water 
use. 

Total agricultural applied water and related net 
water use by Hydrologic Study Area for 1980, 1990, 
2000, and 2010, and changes in agricultural net use 
between 1980and 2010are presented in Table 37. The 
total change in agricultural net water use from 1980 
to 2010 is depicted in Figure 42. The largest increase 
in net water use is projected to occur in the Tulare 
Lake HSA, followed closely by the San Joaquin and 
Sacramento HSAs. In total, net water use by agricul- 
ture in the Central Valley is projected to increase by 
more than 1.6 million acre-feet between 1980 and 
2010. Conversely, the San Francisco Bay, Los Ange- 
les, Santa Ana, and San Diego HSAs are expected to 
reduce their agricultural net water use by a total of 
nearly 250,000 acre-feet per year. Net water use in the 
South Lahontan HSA is expected to decline about 
100,000 acre-feet from 1980 to 2010. 



TABLE 36 

EXAMPLES OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCIES 

BY CROP 

1980 and 2010 

(In percent) 





Maricopa-Wheeler Ridge 
DAU 


Kern {/alley Floor 
PSA 


Tulare Lake 
HSA 


Crop 


1980 


2010 


1980 


2010 


1980 


2010 


Grain . 


71 
69 
69 
70 
70 
69 
70 
70 
69 
71 
69 
80 


75 
76 
70 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
80 


65 
68 
65 
63 
59 
49 
70 
70 
65 
67 
70 
70 


73 
74 
69 
74 
64 
52 
72 
74 
74 
73 
78 
75 


70 
67 
58 
64 
62 
61 
70 
69 
66 
66 
67 
56 


74 


Cotton 


72 


Corn 


65 


Other field crops 


69 


Alfalfa 


67 


Pasture 


57 




73 


Otfier truck crops 


73 




73 


Otfier deciduous 


71 




70 


Grapes 


59 







151 



TABLE 37 

AGRICULTURAL APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Year 



NC 



SF 



CC 



LA 



SA 



SD 



SB 



SJ 



TL 



NL 



SL 



CR 



TOTAL 



1960.... 




APPLIED WATER 


1990 


2000- 


2010-. 


1980.... 




NET WATER USE 


1990 


2000 






2010 




CHANGE IN NET WATER USE 

1980 to 2010 



821 
900 
910 
930 



714 
780 

790 
810 



+ 95 



121 
110 
100 
90 



121 
110 
lOO 
90 



1.189 
1.240 
1.230 
1,200 



902 
940 
940 
930 



+ 30 



348 
310 
270 
230 



276 
250 
220 
190 



-86 



412 
360 
310 
260 



320 
290 
250 
220 



-100 



228 
220 
200 
190 



198 
190 



9.223 
9.350 
9.000 
9.070 



6.682 
7.030 
7,010 
7,140 



+460 



7,474 
7,470 
7,510 
7,680 



5,892 
6,050 
6,160 
6,370 



+ 480 



11,424 
11,390 
11,390 
11,540 



7,781 
7,955 
8,185 
8,475 



+ 690 



442 
470 
470 
480 



387 
410 
410 
420 



+ 35 



493 
410 
350 
280 



338 
300 
270 
230 



-110 



3.460 
3,590 
3,730 
3,700 



3,434 
3,560 
3,700 
3.680 



+ 245 



35,636 
35,820 
36.470 
36,650 



27,045 
27,865 
28,215 
28.725 



+ 1,680 



Figure 42. CHANGE IN AGRICULTURAL NET WATER USE 

BY HSA 1980 TO 2010 



HYDROLOGIC 
STUDY AREA 

NORTH COAST 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY 

CENTRAL COAST 

LOS ANGELES 

SANTA ANA 

SAN DIEGO 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN JOAQUIN 

TULARE LAKE 

NORTH LAHONTAN 

SOUTH LAHONTAN 

COLORADO RIVER 




-100 



200 300 400 

Thousands of Acre-Feet 



500 



600 



152 



Urban Water Use 

Projections of urban applied water are based on 

estimates of future population and future per capita 
applied water. Estimates of urban net water use are 
obtained from a hydrologic balance analysis, includ- 
ing consideration of applied water, water reuse, total 
evapotranspiration of applied water, irrecoverable 
losses, and outflow. California's population is expect- 
ed to continue growing substantially; because of wa- 
ter conservation and other factors, however, per 
capita applied water is not expected to increase as 
rapidly as it has in the past. Rather, it will tend to level 
off m many areas, and in some will be decreasing by 
2010. Present projections indicate that, by 2010, total 
statewide urban net water use will increase by nearly 
40 percent, from the current level of 5.0 million acre- 
feet to 6.8 million acre-feet per year. 

Population Projections 

According to a policy adopted by the Governor m 
1978 ^ State funding of capital projects must be 
based on the regional population projections devel- 
oped by Councils of Governments (COGs) that have 
been approved by the State Office of Planning and 
Research. Further, to be approved, these regional 
projections cannot exceed the regional projections 
prepared by the State Department of Finance 
(DOF) . For the counties not covered by COG projec- 
tions, the DOF projections are to be used. Later in 
1978, the Governor extended his policy by ordering 
that all policies, actions, and programs conform to 
these requirements. 

When the 1980 census figures for the State 
became available, they showed that the existing 
population projections for 1980 were lower than ac- 
tual population in many parts of California. In some 
counties, even the projections for 1985 and 1990 fell 
below the actual 1980 census results. The DOF subse- 
quently issued a set of interim population projec- 
tions for counties, extending them to 1990, based on 
the 1980 census. The Department of Water Re- 
sources further extended these projections to 2010, 
using the same procedures DOF used for 1990. Re- 
vised COG projections were not available in time for 
the analyses used in this report. 

The rates of both natural increase (births minus 
deaths) and migration have changed, but the effect 
of both on population growth is upward. In the case 
of natural increase, the decline in fertility rates during 
the 1960s and into the 1970s was one of the most 
striking recent demographic trends. Earlier reports in 
the Bulletin 160 series had assumed fertility rates of 
2.5 to 3.1 children per woman of childbearing age. For 



this report, the current low rate of 2.1 was assumed 
to continue to 2010. Even so. natural increase ac- 
counts for more than half, or 5.8 million, the project- 
ed population growth of 10.6 million by 2010. 

Net migration — the difference between in-migra- 
tion and out-migration — has probably fluctuated 
more than has any other component of population 
change. Since World War II. the increase caused by 
net migration has ranged from slightly more than 
100.000 to 350.000 per year. The trend since 1970 has 
been upward and. in the last few years, has averaged 
about 250.000 per year. Part of this increase reflects 
changes m migration policies. Since 1979, half the 
migration has originated in the United States and half 
has been of foreign origin. Projections of net migra- 
tion for this report have been placed at 150,000 annu- 
ally, toward the lower end of the historical range. Net 
migration accounts for nearly 5 million of the total 
population increase of 10.6 million expected over the 
next 30 years. 

California's total projected population for 2010 is 
34.4 million, which amounts to 12.5 percent of the 
projected national total. National and State projec- 
tions by decade are tabulated below. 

U. S. and California Population 

1980 and Projected 

(In millions) 





Year 


a S 


California 


California 

as a Percent 

of U. S. 


1980 




227.7 


23.8 
27.9 
31.3 
34.4 


10.5 


1990 

2000 

2010 




243.5 

260.4 

275.3 


11.5 
12.0 
12.5 




'The guidelines for this policy are outlined m a report. An Urban Strategy 
for California, issued by the State Office of Planning and Research in 
1978. 



About half the future increase in population in California is 
expected to be derived from births and half from in-migrofion. 



153 



California's share of U. S. population is projected 
to increase nearly 20 percent over the 1980 level. The 
increases by decades are shown by Figure 43. 

Population Distribution. The 1980 census 
population statistics by census tracts and enumera- 
tion districts were used to determine population in 
each Detailed Analysis Unit. Projections for DAUs 
were based on the projections by county prepared 
by the Department of Finance (to 1990) and the De- 
partment of Water Resources (1990 to 2010) and on 
information gained from local planning agencies and 
the regional Councils of Governments regarding the 
directions that future growth is most likely to take. 
Present and projected population figures by HSAs 
are summarized m Table 38. 

Taken as a whole, the urban areas m Southern 
California dominate the outlook, accounting for 
about 50 percent of total State growth. The popula- 
tion increase in the Santa Ana HSA, which encom- 
passes most of Orange County and the western 
sections of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, 
is expected to surpass that in any other region. Other 
major areas of growth, outside the South Coastal 
region, in decreasing order, are the Sacramento, San 
Francisco Bay, San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake HSAs. 

Per Capita Applied Water Projections 

The process for projecting per capita applied wa- 
ter involved two steps. 

• First, the trends from about 1960 through 1975 (the 
year before the drought) were extrapolated to 
2010, considering apparent and expected changes 
in some of the major influencing factors, excluding 
water conservation. 



Figure 43. PROJECTED POPULATION 
INCREASE BY DECADES 1980-2010 



1960 


TO 


1990 




4.1 


Million 




1900 


TO 


2000 






3.4 


Million 




^^^^^000 


TO 


201^^^ 






3.1 


Million 


1 















• Then, the impact of specific water conservation 
actions from 1976 to 2010 were estimated and the 
extrapolated values adjusted downward accord- 
ingly. These two sets of values provided a basis for 
calculating future urban applied water, both with 
and without conservation. 

Projection of Trends (Without Conserva- 
tion). In nearly all urban areas of the State, per 
capita applied water through 1975 trended upward. 
In recent years, changes appear to have been occur- 
ring which, even without the specific water conser- 
vation actions that have either been implemented or 
been planned, would tend to slow the rate of in- 
crease. In some communities, this will actually cause 
per capita applied water to level off in the near fu- 
ture. Although climatic fluctuations commonly cause 



TABLE 38 

CALIFORNIA POPULATION 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In thousands) 



HSA 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


Increase 
1980-2010 


Percent 
of State 
Increase. 
1980-2010 


NC 


459 

4,790 

1,005 

7.927 

2.974 

2,068 

1.674 

1.014 

1.178 

61 

303 

320 

23.773 


570 

5.250 

1,190 

8.650 

3,790 

2.580 

2,200 

1.330 

1.440 

80 

400 

430 

27.910 


660 

5,600 

1.340 

9,140 

4,430 

3,040 

2.590 

1,630 

1,670 

100 

510 

540 

31.250 


760 

5.900 

1.490 

9,650 

5,060 

3.440 

2,930 

1,910 

1,920 

120 

570 

630 

34,380 


300 

1,110 

480 

1,720 

2,090 

1.370 

1.230 

900 

740 

60 

270 

310 

10,610' 


3 


SF 


10 


cc . . 


5 


LA 


16 


SA 


20 


SD 


13 


SB 


12 


SJ 


8 


TL 


7 


NL 




SL 


3 


CR 


3 


STATE TOTAL 


100 







' Statewide increase is 44 percent 



154 



per capita use to vary significantly from year to year, 
an important aspect of urban applied water is that 
fundamental long-term changes in average per capi- 
ta values for a large metropolitan area usually occur 
slowly. This is because of the large established base 
of water use in the area. Except where water conser- 
vation measures are at work, or where water prices 
have risen markedly, long-term trends are not normal- 
ly altered by changes in practice by individual water 
users. Rather, changes in average per capita applied 
water occur as a result of the increase in proportion 
of the population having higher (or lower) per capita 
rates. As an example, after World War II, suburban 
living became popular. Much of the housing develop- 
ment since then has typically had higher rates of use 
than the older-city type of development, primarily 
because of more extensive landscaping. Since about 
half of residential water use is for landscape irriga- 
tion, the increasing proportion of total population 
living in the suburbs compared to that living in the 
older city areas has contributed to the increasingly 
upward trend in average annual per capita applied 
water seen in the larger metropolitan areas. 

Climate is another factor which has strongly in- 
fluenced the change in the overall average per capita 
applied water value in the State's coastal metropoli- 
tan areas. Water use for landscapes is considerably 
greater in inland regions than along the coast. In both 
the San Francisco Bay area and the South Coastal 
region, most of the land near the ocean (typically 
cooler than inland areas) has already been devel- 
oped. As the inland proportion of the total metropoli- 
tan area increases in comparison to the area 
influenced by the cooler ocean climate, the weighted 
average per capita applied water value increases. 



The foregoing factors were considered in evaluat- 
ing the impact of expected changes in other specific 
characteristics of water use, most of which should 
gradually slow the rate of increase in per capita ap- 
plied water in most urban areas. In some cases, they 
may cause a leveling off and, eventually, a decrease. 
Some of them are: 

• Housing Density. The relative proportion of 
people living in multi-unit housing and mobile 
homes is expected to increase. In addition, the 
average size of new single-family home lots is ex- 
pected to continue to decrease. Both of these fac- 
tors should reduce the average landscape area per 
capita for new development. This, in turn, would 
tend to reduce per capita applied water. 

• Household Size. The average number of per- 
sons per household is expected to continue to de- 
cline slightly. This should tend to increase per 
capita applied water because certain residential 
water uses are relatively independent of 
household size. Among these uses are house 
cleaning, food preparation, clothes and dish wash- 
ing (to some extent), landscape irrigation, swim- 
ming pool maintenance, and car washing. 

• Increased Energy Conservation. Real energy 
costs are expected to continue rising. This will like- 
ly reduce the use of hot water, lowering per capita 
applied water. 

• Water Prices. In recent years, water prices to 
consumers in many urban areas have risen faster 
than prices for other commodities. The prospect is 
for further increases, particularly in Southern Cali- 
fornia, where higher energy costs for pumping 
State Water Project water will have their greatest 





In Son Francisco, close-set homes, little irrigatecJ landscaping, 
and a cool climate result in much lower residential per capita 
applied water than is typical of heavily landscaped suburbs 
in warm interior valleys, such as in Contra Costa County. 



155 



impact. As this occurs, it will tend to reduce per 

capita applied water. 

The trend in per capita applied water through 1975 
for each Detailed Analysis Unit was developed on 
the basis of historical annual delivery data provided 
by water service agencies and estimates of the popu- 
lation served. The trend for each area was extrapolat- 
ed to 2010, considering the likely impacts in each 
area of the foregoing (and other) factors. The im- 
pact of water conservation actions was excluded. 
The result, generally, was a continuing decline in the 
rate of increase. 

Results of Per Capita Applied Water Projec- 
tions (Without Conservation). The 1980 and 
2010 per capita applied water values (without con- 
servation) for each Hydrologic Study Area are pre- 
sented in Table 39. Values shown are weighted 
averages derived from the values and population of 
each of the many DAUs that make up each HSA. 
Average values for such large areas as HSAs are 
sometimes difficult to interpret because of the wide 
variation occurring within them. Some of the factors 
involved in the changes in per capita values project- 
ed without conservation are: 

• North Coast HSA. The large amount of water 
used by the pulp and paper mills situated at Hum- 
boldt Bay, as a proportion of total urban water use, 
IS responsible for the relatively high 1980 value for 
per capita applied water. This value is expected to 
drop 14 percent by 2010. Population is expected to 
grow, but water use by the pulp and paper mills is 
not expected to change. 

• San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, 
and San Diego HSAs. By 2010, an even larger 

TABLE 39 

PROJECTED CHANGE IN WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE PER CAPITA APPLIED WATER 

WITHOUT CONSERVATION 

STATEWIDE AND 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 to 2010 

(In acre-feet per person) 



HSA 


1980 


2010 


Percent 
Change 


NC 


0.336 
0.201 
0.236 
0.208 
0.247 
0.188 
0.340 
0.398 
0.361 
0.377 
0.314 
0.372 

0.242 


0.289 
0.229 
0.240 
0.239 
0.280 
0.235 
0.331 
0.389 
0.376 
0,375 
0.398 
0.435 

0.274 


-14 


SF 


14 


CC 


2 


LA 


15 


SA 


13 


SD 


25 


SB 


-3 


SJ 


2 


TL 


4 


NL 


-1 


SL 


26 


CR 


17 


STATEWIDE 


13 







proportion of the population is expected to be liv- 
ing in warm inland areas than in the cooler coastal 
areas. The increase of 13 to 25 percent is due large- 
ly to this projected trend. 

• Sacramento, San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, and 
North Lahontan HSAs. In contrast to the 
coastal metropolitan areas, climate-related factors 
will not be responsible for a change in average per 
capita values. Instead, these values will be in- 
fluenced by some of the other factors, discussed 
earlier, that are expected to cause per capita ap- 
plied water to level off and then, in most areas, to 
decrease. 

. Central Coast HSA. Unlike the other coastal 
metropolitan areas, land is still available near the 
coast, where a large part of the population growth 
IS expected to occur. Further, this area generally 
has a limited water supply, a condition that will 
tend to counteract the impact of any increases in 
population locating in the warmer inland areas. 

• South Lahontan and Colorado River HSAs. 

The principal reason for projecting increases in 
these areas is the continued growth in tourism and 
similar part-time visitation that is expected. A large 
transient population tends to increase the values 
for per capita applied water because per capita 
values are derived by dividing total applied water 
by permanent population. 

Impacts of Expected Water Conservation on 
Per Capita Applied Water. For this report, urban 
water conservation is defined as any action deliber- 
ately undertaken to reduce the amount of water ap- 
plied. This distinguishes water conservation impacts 
from the impacts of such factors as housing trends 
and family size. The extent to which water conserva- 
tion is expected to be practiced in various parts of 
the State was estimated m several ways, depending 
on the characteristics of urban water use and its sig- 
nificance in an area compared to other water uses. 

Where urban water use is a relatively small portion 
of an area's total applied water, projections of ap- 
plied water "without conservation" were simply ad- 
justed downward by 15 percent to obtain an estimate 
of applied water "with conservation." This level of 
conservation, which is about the same as that deter- 
mined by detailed analysis for the major metropoli- 
tan areas, was assumed to be achieved by 2000 or 
2010, depending on the area. In areas in which per 
capita water use is already low, a smaller percentage 
reduction was used. 

Projections for the San Francisco Bay, Santa Ana, 
Los Angeles, and San Diego HSAs; and for San Luis 
Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties were made by 
first separating the quantity of urban applied water 
into the categories of use: interior residential, exte- 
rior residential, commercial and governmental, and 
industrial. The amount of conservation expected in 



156 



each category was calculated for the proportion of 
the population that would be affected at a particular 
point in time. These reductions were then added to 
obtain total water conservation on a per capita basis. 
The result was subtracted from the projection of per 
capita applied water "without conservation." The es- 
timate of future per capita applied water, so derived, 
has been used to calculate the projections of future 
urban applied water presented in this report. In areas 
with exemplary conservation programs of one kind 
or another, applied water reductions were assumed 
to be achieved sooner than indicated in the list of 
assumed water conservation actions that follows. 
For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, where 
East Bay Municipal Utility District has pioneered in 
the detection and repair of leaks in water supply 
systems, the applied water reductions of 4 percent 
from this program were assumed to be achieved in 
1982 rather than by 2000. 

The conservation measures and actions consid- 
ered in projecting water use reductions and the as- 
sumptions made on the rate of implementation were; 

• Interior Residential Water Conservation. 

Toilet flushing is by far the largest component of 
interior water use, averaging about 35 gallons per 
person daily when a conventional toilet requiring 5 
to 7 gallons per flush is used. State law now re- 
quires that all new dwellings have toilets using no 
more than 3.5 gallons. Accordingly, the Depart- 
ment's projections of applied water reflect a re- 
duction to account for ttie installation of 
low-water-using toilets in all new development. 

Water use in existing toilets can be reduced by 
installing a displacement bag or bottle in the tank. 
More than three million bags and bottles have 
been distributed by water utilities and the Depart- 
ment of Water Resources since 1973. Surveys 
made after the devices were distributed indicate 
that about 25 percent of households install and 
retain them. These programs are a very cost-effec- 
tive way of reducing applied water, and they will 
probably continue. By 1990, all households with 
conventional toilets will have had an opportunity 
to install a displacement device, and it was as- 
sumed that 25 percent of the households will actu- 
ally install and retain them. 

In accordance with State plumbing regulations, 
the Department's projections of applied water re- 
flect a reduction resulting from the installation of 
low-flow faucets and showerheads in new devel- 
opment. 

Shower flow restrictors for existing showerheads 
usually accompany toilet displacement bags in 
conservation device distribution programs. The in- 
stallation rate of shower flow restrictors is general- 
ly lower than that for displacement bags — 13 
percent, rather than 25 percent. By 1990, flow res- 



trictors will have been distributed to all households 
in the State, and it was assumed that 13 percent of 
households will install and retain them. 

Unlike toilets, which rarely require replacement, 
showerheads and faucets are replaced from time 
to time. It was assumed that, by 2000, all shower- 
heads and lavatory faucets used in the State will be 
the low-water-using kind. 

Newer models of clothes washers and dishwash- 
ers use less water than those manufactured in the 
past. A study by the Department indicates that 
clothes washers manufactured in 1980 use about 
15 percent less water than 1975 models; 1980 
dishwashers use 25 percent less water than 1975 
models. Consequently, appliances installed in new 
homes will use less water than do old appliances; 
also, as older appliances wear out, they will be 
replaced with models using less water. Although 
the average life of these appliances is ten years, it 
was conservatively assumed that all pre- 1975 
clothes washers and dishwashers will be replaced 
by models using less water by 2000. 

In most domestic water-heating systems, the pipes 
delivering hot water are not insulated. Conse- 
quently, the heated water cools while it is standing 
in the pipes, and householders must allow it to flow 
for a time until hot water is delivered from the 
faucet. State regulations that took effect in 1982 
require the insulation of hot water pipes in new 
residences. The projections of applied water re- 
flect this. 

Personal water use will also be affected by the 
many public education programs that have been 
introduced by the Department and public water 
utilities. In-school education programs have intro- 
duced water conservation to hundreds of thou- 
sands of school children. These and other 
programs have heightened the public's awareness 
of water conservation and the State's water prob- 
lems. This IS expected to lead to changes in water 
use habits, which should reduce interior water use 
over and above the reductions achieved as a result 
of water-saving plumbing fixtures and other meas- 
ures. Based on experience m recent years, it was 
assumed that, by 2000, interior use will be reduced 
by an additional 5 percent as a result of increased 
awareness of water conservation. 

Exterior Residential Water Conservation. 

Nearly half of all residential water supplied in the 
State is used outdoors for watering lawns and gar- 
dens. Landscapes can easily be designed to re- 
quire much less water than does traditional 
landscaping. Current trends suggest that an in- 
creased proportion of new landscapes will be low- 
water-using. Accordingly, it was assumed that, by 
2010, landscapes requiring 40 percent less applied 



157 




On the average, about half the total residential water is used 
to irrigate londscaping. More care in watering could signifi- 
cantly reduce urban applied water in some communities. 



water than do traditional landscapes will be in- 
stalled on 50 percent of the new home lots. 

The watering of traditional landscapes can also be 
improved. By avoiding excessive percolation, run- 
off, and evaporation, there may be about a 20-per- 
cent reduction of the water so applied. It was 
assumed that, by 2000, water applied to existing 
landscapes will be reduced by W percent. 

Commercial and Governmental Water Con- 
servation. Water use by the commercial and 
governmental categories is much more diverse 
than residential water use and accounts for a much 
smaller proportion of total urban applied water. 
Consequently, the analyses of future water conser- 
vation and applied water by business and govern- 
ment were much less detailed than those for 
residential use. Nevertheless, reductions in applied 
water will probably also be achieved in these sec- 
tors. Parks, golf courses, and street and highway 
landscaping are being irrigated with greater effi- 
ciency than before; many new parks and highways 



are landscaped with low-water-using plants. Low- 
water-using showerheads and faucets will be in- 
stalled in new commercial and public buildings. 
Low-flush toilets are required in all new hotels and 
motels, and legislation now under consideration 
would require low-flush toilets in all new commer- 
cial and public buildings. Clothes washing and 
dishwashing account for much commercial use, 
and commercial appliances are also becoming 
more efficient. Many businesses and government 
agencies began strong conservation programs dur- 
ing the drought. Some of these continue today. 
More opportunities for conservation will occur as 
older equipment is replaced and as new facilities 
are built. Accordingly, it was assumed that, by 
2000. commercial and governmental unit applied 
water will be 15 percent lower than would occur 
without conservation. 

Opportunities to reduce applied water also exist in 
the operation of municipal water systems, princi- 
pally in the repair of leaks in the distribution sys- 
tem. The Department and the State Water 



158 



Resources Control Board are currently beginning a 
$1.9 million research and assistance program to 
reduce municipal water system leakage. By imple- 
menting leak detection and repair programs, water 
utilities could reduce such losses from the present 
average of about 10 percent of total deliveries to 
about 6 percent. It was assumed that, by 2000. leak 
detection and repair would bring about a 4-percent 
reduction in applied water. 

• Industrial Water Conservation. Industrial wa- 
ter users began vigorous conservation efforts well 
before the 1976-1977 drought in an effort to reduce 
their waste water disposal fees and to respond to 
waste discharge regulations. The Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 re- 
quired that all firms discharging industrial waste to 
public waste water treatment plants repay all costs 
allocated to the treatment of their waste. In many 
cases, firms have reduced their use of water signifi- 
cantly by recycling and other means and have sub- 
stantially reduced their discharges of waste, thus 
lowering their waste water discharge bills. As older 
equipment is replaced, even greater savings will be 
possible. It was assumed that, by 2000. industrial 
applied water will be 15 percent lower than the 
historical unit rate of use. 

Reductions in 2010 Per Capita Use Due to Con- 
servation. The total impact of all these conserva- 
tion actions in terms of per capita applied water was 
estimated for each DAU and then, based upon the 



projected population in each DAU. the weighted av- 
erage value for each HSA was calculated. These are 
presented in Table 40, which compares the "without 
conservation" and "with conservation" values for 
2010. The impact of water conservation on the need 
for water supply is discussed in the last section of 
this chapter. 

TABLE 40 

EFFECTS OF WATER CONSERVATION ON 

WEIGHTED AVERAGE PER CAPITA APPLIED 

WATER IN 2010. STATEWIDE AND 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

(in acre-feet per person) 



HSA 


Without 
Conservation 


With 
Conservation 


Percent 

Reduction 

Due To 

Conservation 


NC 


0.289 
0.229 
0.240 
0.239 
0.280 
0.235 
0.331 
0.389 
0.376 
0.375 
0.398 
0.435 

0.274 


0.259 
0.197 
0.215 
0.202 
0,233 
0.195 
0.286 
0.343 
0.330 
0.325 
0.333 
0.367 

0.235 


-10 


SF 


-14 


CC 


-10 


LA 


-15 


SA 


-17 


SD 


-17 


SB 


-14 


SJ 


-12 


TL 


-12 


NL 


-13 


SL 


-16 


CR 


-16 


STATEWIDE 


-14 




Manufacturing industries are expected to continue taking 
measures to reduce their fresh water requirements. 



159 



Urban Applied Water and Net Water 
Use — 1980 and Projected 

Projections of urban applied water were calculat- 
ed by DAU from projected population and per capita 
applied water values. Estimates of quantities of ex- 
cess applied water not available for reuse (including 
waste and storm drain water discfiarged to thie 
ocean), togetfier with calculated ETAW, formed tfie 
basis for estimating net water use. 

Total urban applied water and related net water 
use by HSA for 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 are present- 
ed in Table 41. Urban net water use, statewide, is 
projected to increase by 1,860,000 acre-feet — from 
4,978,000 acre-feet in 1980 to 6,840,000 acre-feet in 
2010. Sixty percent of ttie projected increase is in tfie 
coastal metropolitan HSAs (San Francisco Bay, Cen- 
tral Coast, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego). 
About 30 percent is in tfie Central Valley in the Sacra- 
mento, San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake HSAs. 

According to these projections, the largest per 
decade increase in net use — 692,000 acre-feet — will 
occur between 1980 and 1990. The increase will slow 
to only 535,000 acre-feet between 1990 and 2000 and 
then rise by 635,000 acre-feet between 2000 and 2010. 
The reason for the lesser increase between 1990 and 
2000 IS the interaction between projections of popu- 
lation trends and the effect of water conservation 
measures. As shown in Figure 43, projected popula- 
tion increases are most rapid between 1980 and 1990 
and then tend to level off. Water conservation meas- 
ures are projected to have their greatest impact 
between 1990 and 2000. After 2000, the effect of wa- 
ter conservation on per capita urban use is projected 
to remain at substantially the same level. 

The distribution among HSAs of increases in urban 
net water use from 1980 to 2010 is shown in Figure 44. 



The largest increase in net water use is projected to 
take place in the Santa Ana HSA, where the greatest 
population growth is expected to occur. The three 
South Coast HSAs (Santa Ana, Los Angeles, and San 
Diego) are projected to account for 860,000 acre-feet 
out of a total increase for the State of 1,860,000 acre- 
feet. Also expected to show relatively large in- 
creases, in declining order, are the Sacramento, San 
Francisco Bay, and San Joaquin HSAs. The smallest 
increases, reflecting the small change in population 
that is projected, should take place in the North La- 
hontan HSA and the North Coast HSA. 

Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, and Related 
Water Management Needs 

The public's interest in fresh-water recreation, fish- 
eries, and wildlife has increased markedly in recent 
years and is expected to continue to grow. This 
growth will come not only from the increases in 
population, but also from greater per capita partici- 
pation in specific water-related leisure pursuits and 
greater concern for protection and enhancing fisher- 
ies and wildlife. 

In this chapter, data have been shown by decade 
to 2010 wherever possible. However, this section dif- 
fers somewhat because projections for the entire 
1980-2010 period were not always obtainable. Data 
and projections for fish and wildlife originated with 
the Department of Fish and Game, and, for water- 
related recreation, with the Department of Parks and 
Recreation. Projections for angler participation days 
were available only to 1990. No projections were 
available for sales of angling and hunting licenses, 
but some assumptions are presented in the text re- 
garding trends that might be expected to occur. Pro- 
jections for water-related recreation extend only to 
2000. 



TABLE 41 

URBAN APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Year 


NC 


SF 


CC 


lA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


C/? 


TOTAL 


1980.... 


APPLIED WATER 


153 
170 
180 
200 

151 
170 
180 
190 

+ 40 


967 
1.050 
1.090 
1.170 

967 
1.050 
1.090 
1,170 

+ 205 


231 
270 
290 
320 

188 
210 
230 
250 

+ 60 


1.654 
1.760 
1.830 
1.950 

1.534 
1.630 
1.680 
1.790 

+ 255 


734 

900 

1.030 

1,180 

586 
710 
800 

910 

+ 325 


389 
480 
580 
670 

389 
480 
580 
670 

+ 280 


570 
670 
750 
830 

493 
590 
660 
730 

+ 235 


403 
490 
570 
660 

249 
310 
360 
420 

+ 170 


425 
500 
550 
630 

236 
280 
310 
350 

+ 115 


23 
30 
35 
40 

23 
30 
35 
40 

+ 15 


95 
120 
160 
190 

60 
80 
110 
120 

+ 60 


118 
160 
200 
230 

102 
130 
170 
200 

+ 100 


5.762 


1990 


6,600 


2000 


7.265 


2010 


8,070 


1980.. 


NET WATER USE 


4.978 


1990 


6.670 


2000 „ 


6.205 


2010 


6.840 


CHANGE IN NET WATER USE 

1980 to '010 


+ 1,860 









160 



Figure 44. INCREASE IN URBAN NET WATER USE BY HSA 1980 TO 2010 



HYDROLOGIC 
STUDY AREA 

NORTH COAST 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CENTRAL COAST 

LOS ANGELES 

SANTA ANA 

SAN DIEGO 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN JOAQUIN 

TULARE LAKE 

NORTH LAHONTAN 
SOUTH LAHONTAN 

COLORADO RIVER 



X 



100 200 

Thousands of Acre-Feet 



300 



400 




Sport fishing will probably increase in popularity. 



161 



TABLE 42 

ANGLING LICENSE SALES IN CALIFORNIA 
1950 to 1980 



Year 


Sales 

per 

too persons 


Year 


Sales 

per 

too persons 


Year 


Sales 

per 

100 persons 


1950 


9.2 
9,1 
94 
98 
9.9 
10.0 
102 
10.1 
9.4 
9.6 


1960 

1961 


93 
91 
9.4 
97 
98 
10-0 
10.5 
10.4 
11.1 
11.0 


1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 : 


11.6 


1951 


11.2 


1952 


1962 


10.6 


1953 


1963 


11.2 


1954 


1964 


11.2 


1965 


1965 

1966 


10.6 


1956 


10.2 


1957 


1967 

1968 

1969 


9.7 


1958 


10.4 


1959 


10.2 




1980 


10.7 



Source; California Depaflment of Fisfi and Game. Draft Ftsh and Wildlife Plan. 1981 



Future Use of Fishery Resources 

Sport fishing m California is increasing, due not 
only to the growth in population but also to a greater 
per capita participation. Table 42 shows the nunnbers 
of angling licenses sold in California from 1950 
through 1980. The most significant feature of these 
data IS that angling licenses per 100 persons aver- 
aged about 9.7 during the 1950s and about 10.7 during 
the 1970s. Although this growth did not occur with- 
out ups and downs, it firmly establishes sport fishing 
as a progressively stronger activity in California. The 
need to support the fishery resources that sustain it 
is expected to continue. 

Sport fishing in California includes angling for 
trout, marine fish, warmwater fish, and anadromous 
(migratory) fish. Angler use estimates for 1980 and 
projections for 1990 are shown in Table 43, which 
also shows individual species and types of fishing 
access. The projections to 1990 are in proportion to 
the estimate of future statewide population growth, 
with the same per capita participation rates that 
were observed in 1980. 

Speculation is possible, based on experience, con- 
cerning negative influences on the future of fish 
populations and sport fishing. The pressure placed 
on the resource by increasing numbers of anglers will 
be intensified by conversion of land and water to 
other uses. The latter will tend to impair fishery habi- 
tat by degrading water quality. Public access to f isha- 
ble waters may also be impeded. However, several 
influences are at work to benefit the resource. The 
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has a body of 
law and the budgetary support necessary to make it 
a strong force in the protection of fishery resources. 
Many private organizations are also increasing their 
support for preservation of fish and fish habitat. 

Despite the growing use of water resources, both 
instream and reservoir fisheries will probably receive 



TABLE 43 

ESTIMATED ANGLER PARTICIPATION IN 

CALIFORNIA BY TYPE OF FISHING 

1980 and 1990 

(In millions of angler-days) 



Activity 



Trout Fishing 

Cultured trout 

Wild trout 

Privately stocked trout 

Total 



Marine Fishing 

Piers 

Shore 

Private boats . 

Party boats 

Other 

Total 



Warmwater Fishing 

Catfish 

Bass 

Sunfish 



Total.. 



Anadromous Fishing 
Striped bass (inland and marine) 

Ocean salmon 

Inland salmon 

Steelhead 

Sturgeon 

American Shad 

Total 

TOTAL. ALL TYPES 



tm) 



1990 



7.0 


8.2 


6.1 


7.2 


1.9 


2.3 


15.0 


17.7 


6.1 


7.2 


3.8 


4.5 


1.8 


2.1 


1.0 


1.1 


0.3 


0.4 


13.0 


15.3 


3.1 


3.6 


2.9 


3.4 


2.8 


3.3 


8.8 


10.3 


2.0 


2.4 


1.0 


1.2 


0.4 


0.5 


0.3 


0.3 


0.1 


0.1 


0.1 


0.1 


3.9 


4.6 


40.7 


47.9 



Source: California Department of Fisti and Game. Draft Fis/i and Wildlife Plan. 1981 

increasing protection in water rights permits and en- 
ergy development licenses. As these permits and li- 
censes are periodically revised or renewed, 
conditions for fisheries may be bettered over those 
of original projects. 



162 



Future Use of Wildlife Resources 

The principal habitat for many wildlife species is 
closely associated with streams, lakes, or marshes, 
and for some, their continuing existence depends 
entirely on the presence of wetlands or bodies of 
water. California's wildlife is diverse and widely dis- 



tributed. Many species are classified as game and 
are hunted under strictly regulated conditions. Many 
other birds and animals are classified as nongame 
species and are not hunted, although many of these 
(along with game species) are of intense interest to 
many people and provide significant enjoyment, edu- 
cation, and other values. 




Although hunting is not expected to increase much, bird- 
watching, wildlife photography, and similar nonappropriatlve 
uses of wildlife should grow substantially. 



163 



TABLE 44 

HUNTING LICENSE SALES IN CALIFORNIA 
1950 to 1980 



Year 


Sales per 
100 persons 


Year 


Sales per 
100 persons 


Year 


Sales per 
too persons 


1960 


4.6 
4.8 
5.1 

5.1 
5.0 
5.0 
4.9 
4.6 
4.1 
4.0 


1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 


4.0 
3.9 
3.8 
3.7 
3.8 
3.8 
3.8 
4.0 
3.9 
3.8 


1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 


3.8 


1951 


3.5 


1952 


3.1 


1953 


3.2 


1954 


3.1 


1955 


2.9 


1956 


2.6 


1957 


2.6 


1958 


2.3 


1959 


2.2 




2.3 



Source: California Department of Fish and Game. Draft Fish and Wildlife Plan. 1981. 



Unlike fishing, the sport of hunting is declining in 
relative popularity. As shown in Table 44. the sale of 
hunting licenses dropped between 1950 to 1980 from 
about 5.0 to nearly 2.0 per 100 persons. DFG expects 
this percentage participation rate to continue to de- 
cline slowly, although total number of hunter-days 
will increase due to population growth. 

The use and enjoyment of wildlife for purposes 
other than hunting (referred to by DFG as nonappro- 
priative use) is growing rapidly. Bird watching, wild- 
life photography, and similar activities are attracting 
numerous participants: and, although no statewide 
studies have been conducted to document the level 
of such use, other evidence indicates growing popu- 
larity. According to DFG estimates, nonappropriative 
uses of fish and wildlife in California in 1980 amount- 
ed to 48 million days of participation; such use is 
projected to reach over 70 million by 1990. These 
figures can be compared with their estimate of 7.4 
million hunter-days in 1980 and 9.5 million hunter- 
days projected by 1990. Maintenance of wildlife habi- 
tat will continue to be an important consideration in 
preparing and implementing water management 
plans. 

Future Water-Associated Recreation 

According to data developed by the Department 
of Parks and Recreation (DPR), participation m wa- 
ter-related recreation in California for some time has 
been nearly 90 days per person annually, with some 
activities becoming more popular and some less. 

A statewide analysis of recreation needs by DPR, 
which included data on 55 types of water-associated 
recreation, indicated that participation in most of 
these activities was on the rise. The study estimated 
the extent of use in these categories in terms of per 
capita participation-days and projected these figures 
to 2000. Table 45 presents the projections for the 
kinds of recreation activities that are clearly associat- 



TABLE 45 

SELECTED WATER-ASSOCIATED 

RECREATION ACTIVITIES IN CALIFORNIA 

1980 and 2000 

(In per capita participation-days) 



Activity 



Lake fishing 

Stream fishing 

Fresh-water swimnning 

Water sibling 

Power boating 

Sailing 

Other boating (including rafting). 
Waterfowl hunting 

TOTAL 



1980 



4.812 



2000 



0.907 


0.930 


0.706 


0.732 


1.137 


1.199 


0.727 


0.711 


0.522 


0.563 


0.401 


0.496 


0.340 


0.398 


0.072 


0.064 



5.093 



Source. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Division of Planning. Statewide 

Recreation Needs Analysis. December 1981. 
' Selected from a study of 55 activities by ttie Department of Parks and Recreation to 

include ifiose wfiicfi directly involve tfie use of fresfi-water streams and lakes or 

bodies of brackisn water. 

ed with fresh-water streams and lakes and fresh and 
brackish water marshes. Sailing (including salt-water 
sailing) is projected to increase 25 percent. If this 
occurs, total participation-days in 2000 will be 15.5 
million, compared to 12.5 million days with no in- 
crease in per capita participation. "Other boating" — 
primarily rafting — is expected to increase about 20 
percent; power boating should also increase. While 
the per capita rates for lake and stream fishing and 
fresh-water swimming are projected to rise slightly, 
water skiing and waterfowl hunting are expected to 
decline. Overall, the projections show a 5-percent 
increase m participation per person, which, coupled 
with the expected population growth in California, 
will result in an increase of about 65 million participa- 
tion-days for all water-associated recreation by 2010 
(Figure 45). 

Future Offstream Water Use for Fish, Wildlife, 
and Fresh-Water Recreation 

Offstream water use refers to uses supported by 



164 



Figure 45. PARTICIPATION-DAYS IN 
VARIOUS WATER-ASSOCIATED 
RECREATION ACTIVITIES 
1980 AND 2000 



: 80 



I 60 



140 



I 20 • 



Q 



I 00 




o o 


o o 


Oo 


OO 


oo 


o o 


CO o 


CO o 


CD O 


CO o 


00 o 


00 O 


(Tl O 


a> o 


05 o 


05 O 


a>o 


en o 


— OJ 


— CJ 


— CJ 


— CJ 


— CJ 


— CJ 



water diverted from a stream. The 1980 and project- 
ed estimates of offstream water use for wildlife man- 
agement areas and for parks lying outside urban 
areas are presented in Tables 46 and 47. (Water use 
by parks within urban areas is included in the urban 
water use figures.) 

For wildlife management areas, no significant in- 
creases between 1980 and 2010 are expected. The 
only increase — 15,000 acre-feet by 1990 — is projected 
in the North Coast HSA, where expansion of wildlife 
management areas is expected. No other such 
changes are projected in any part of the State by 
2010. 

For nonurban public parks, water use is expected 



to more than double between 1980 and 2010 — from 
43,000 acre-feet in 1980 to 100,000 acre-feet in 2010. Of 
the total increase of 57,000 acre-feet, 37,000 acre-feet 
is projected to occur in the first decade. The greatest 
increase in any HSA in any one decade — 1 1,000 acre- 
feet — is expected to take place between 1980 and 
1990 in the South Lahontan HSA. About half that 
increase is related to the State Water Project. While 
only a nominal increase should occur in most of the 
HSAs, three of them — Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and 
South Lahontan — account for 36,000 acre-feet of the 
total increase of 57,000 acre-feet by 2010. 

Future Protection and Enhancement of 
Instream Water Uses 

Determination of instream flows needed to sup- 
port the fish population and instream recreation re- 
quires a case-by-case assessment. This has not yet 
been performed on a statewide or regional basis. 
New techniques have been developed within the last 
10 years to better determine the amount of water 
needed in a stream or river to maintain fish and wild- 
life at suitable levels. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Serv- 
ice's "Instream Flow Incremental Methodology" and 
other techniques should allow more realistic determi- 
nation of instream flow needs and establishment of 
adequate flows below water diversions and hydro- 
power projects. 

A bill relating to streamflow protection standards 
was enacted by the Legislature in 1982. Assembly Bill 
3493 (Chapter 1478 of the Public Resources Code) 
requires the Director of the Department of Fish and 
Game to identify and list the streams and water- 
courses m the State for which minimum flow levels 
need to be established to ensure the continued viabil- 
ity of stream-related fish and wildlife resources. The 
bill authorizes the Director of DFG to submit the list 
to SWRCB for consideration on any application for 
permits and licenses to appropriate water. 

Water Use For Energy Production 

Comparatively small increases in water use are 
projected for power plant cooling and enhanced oil 
recovery. In some cases, however, such use occurs 
in water-deficient areas where it has local signifi- 
cance. Where this happens, fresh-water use is ex- 
pected to be minimized through the use of treated 
waste water, sea water, and/or water that may be 
produced by the oil recovery process. 

Water Use for Power Plant Cooling 

For almost a decade, the California Energy Com- 
mission (CEC) has periodically revised its forecasts 
of electricity demands, each time providing a lower 
estimate than before. Large price increases for elec- 
trical energy, coupled with private and public conser- 
vation actions, have contributed heavily to the 
downward direction of these forecasts. Moreover, a 



165 



TABLE 46 

WATER USE FOR WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Year 


NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SO 


SB 


SJ 


n 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER 

iggO - 


260 
270 

215 
230 


100 
100 

94 
94 


- 


7 
7 

7 

7 




5 
5 

5 
5 


167 
167 

157 
157 


86 
88 

64 
64 


45 
45 

31 
31 


10 
10 

10 
10 


3 
3 

3 
3 


17 
17 

17 
17 


700 


1990 3000 2010 


710 


NET WATER USE 

1980 - 


603 


1990 2000 2010 


618 







TABLE 47 

WATER USE IN NONURBAN PUBLIC PARKS 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(in 1,000s of acre-feet) 



year 


.\c 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SO 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


IVL 


SL 


Cff 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE' 

1980 

iggO 


1 

i 

+ 1 


2 
3 
3 
3 

+ 1 


2 
3 
5 
5 

+3 


1 
7 
11 
14 

+13 


2 
8 
9 
10 

+8 


2 

3 
3 
4 

+2 


3 
5 
5 

5 

+ 2 


10 
14 

14 
14 

+4 


7 
10 
10 

11 

+4 


1 
1 
1 
2 

+ 1 


9 
20 
21 
24 

+ 15 


3 
5 
6 

6 

+3 


43 
80 




89 


2010 


100 


CHANGE IN NET WATER USE 

1980 to 3010 


+57 







' Applied water was assumed to equal net water use 




This reservoir at Rancho Seco nuclear powerplant near Sacra- 
mento provides both recreation and water for powerplant 
cooling. 



166 



different mix among electrical power-producing 
facilities has resulted in more modest projections of 
water requirements for cooling. This is reflected in 
Table 48. which presents estimates of fresh-water 
needs for power plant cooling by HSA, based on the 
CEC's latest forecasts of electricity demand. 

The projections are in keeping with policies adopt- 
ed by both the Department of Water Resources and 
the State Water Resources Control Board. In effect, 
water for power plant cooling should be obtained in 
the following order of priority: ( 1 ) waste water being 
discharged into the ocean; (2) ocean water; (3) 
brackish water from irrigation return flow; (4) inland 
waste water having low amounts of total dissolved 
solids: and (5) other inland water. Where the State 
has jurisdiction, the use of fresh inland water for 
cooling will be approved only when other sources 
are insufficient in quantity and/or quality or 
economically unsound. 

The largest increase, amounting to more than half 
the additional statewide needs of 69,000 acre-feet, is 
the 40,000 acre-feet expected to occur in the Colo- 
rado River HSA, using reclaimed brackish drain wa- 
ter. Other significant increases should occur in the 



San Francisco Bay and South Lahontan HSAs. The 
current use of 8,000 acre-feet in the Santa Ana HSA 
will be eliminated by the retirement of existing oil/ 
gas-fired plants in an effort to improve air quality. 

Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Enhanced oil recovery, which includes water 
flooding, thermal stimulation, and chemical stimula- 
tion, is used to extend the life of old oil fields and 
facilitate extraction of heavy oils. While water flood- 
ing and thermal methods have been used on a com- 
mercial scale for some time in California, chemical 
methods are projected to be used commercially in 
the near future, especially in the coastal areas. The 
water requirements associated with these methods 
will continue to be met by production water (water 
produced along with the oil), sea water, treated 
waste water from both urban and agricultural 
sources, and fresh water. Projected water require- 
ments for enhanced oil recovery are summarized in 
Table 49. 

Water is used for enhanced oil recovery in only 
four HSAs — Tulare Lake, Los Angeles, Central Coast, 
and Santa Ana. Total water use is projected to in- 



TABLE 48 

WATER USE FOR POWER PLANT COOLING 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Year 


/VC 


SF 


cc 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


n 


/Vi 


SL 


CF 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE' 

1980 . . 




6 
2 

17 
17 

+ 11 


_ 
- 


6 
1 
2 
2 

-3 


8 

1 

-8 


- 


2 
2 

+ 2 


16 
20 
20 
20 

+ 5 


3 
-3 


1 
1 

+ 1 


2 
6 
16 
26 

+ 24 


3 
19 
31 
43 

+40 


42 


1990 


49 


2000 


89 


2010 


111 


CHANGE IN NET WATER USE 

1980 to 2010 


+ 69 







' Applied water was assumed to equal net water use 



TABLE 49 

WATER USE FOR ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY' 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


198010 

2010 
Change in 

Fresh 
Water Use 


HSA 


Total 


Fresh 


Total 


Fresh 


Total 


Fresh 


Total 


Fresh 


TL . 


63 
95 
15 
27 

200 


7 
2 
7 

1 

17 


191 

210 

65 

JO 

496 


25 
32 
15 

1 

73 


181 
122 
59 
J5 
387 


40 

24 

15 

1 

80 


180 

82 

47 

_25 

334 


40 

16 

12 

1 

69 


+33 


LA 


+ 14 


CC 


+ 5 


SA 




TOTAL 


+ 52 







' Applied water and net water use. 



167 




Water use for enhanced oil recovery is expectecJ to show 
consicJerable growth, particularly in southern San Joaquin 
Valley. 



crease from 200,000 acre-feet to 496.000 acre-feet per 
year by 1990, when maximum oil production will be 
attained, and then decline to 334,000 acre-feet by 
2010 as Oil production drops. For fresh-water use, the 
maximum amount of 80,000 acre-feet is projected to 
be reached by 2000 and then decline by 2010 to 69,000 
acre-feet. Total water use and the proportion of fresh 
to total water use from 1980 to 2010 vary for each of 
the four HSAs, but the Tulare Lake HSA is the only 
area projected to show a significant increase in use 
of fresh water during the entire 30-year period. In 
2010, 40,000 acre-feet of the statewide total of 69,000 
acre-feet of fresh water is projected to be used for 
enhanced oil recovery in the Tulare Lake HSA. 

Summary of Applied Water and Net 
Water Use 

Projections of annual water use in California — 
both applied and net — show a fairly constant in- 
crease to 2010 for most purposes. This trend is shown 
in Tables 50 through 53. Total change in net water use 
IS shown in Figure 46.^ As discussed earlier, net water 
use IS the measure of water use that determines the 
adequacy of water supplies. Some of the significant 
findings regarding net water use include; 

• Total net water use, statewide, is projected to in- 
crease between 1980 and 2010 by 3.5 million acre- 



■ Total State net water use for 1960. 1967, and 1972 (presented m Bulletins 
160-66. 160-70. and 160-74, respectively) and the 1980. 1990. 2000. and 
2010 values presented in this report are shown in Chapter II. Figure 3. 



feet from 33.8 million acre-feet to 37.3 million acre- 
feet. This is roughly a 10-percent increase over the 
30-year period. To put this m perspective, the in- 
crease from 1972 to 1980 was 2.8 million acre-feet, 
a 9-percent increase in only eight years. 

Agriculture continues to be, by far, the major water 
user. Total net water use by agriculture is expected 
to increase by 1.65 million acre-feet between 1980 
and 2010 — a 6-percent increase. Agricultural water 
use, including its pro rata share of conveyance 
losses, was 83 percent of total net use in 1980 and 
is projected to be 79 percent in 2010. 

Total urban net water use, although significantly 
less than net water use by agriculture, is projected 
to increase by 1.86 million acre-feet between 1980 
and 2010 — a 38-percent increase — which exceeds 
the projected increase in agricultural use, both in 
percentage and quantity. Urban use, with its pro 
rata share of conveyance losses, will increase from 
15 percent of total net use in 1980 to 19 percent in 
2010. 

The only area of the State in which total net water 
use IS projected to decline is the South Lahontan 
HSA. Although urban use will double, use by 
agriculture will drop to about two-thirds of the 1980 
level. 

Both agricultural and urban net water use in the 
three Central Valley HSAs — Sacramento, San Joa- 



168 



quin, and Tulare Lake — are projected to increase 
significantly (2.15 million acre-feet) over the 30- 
year period, with the total increase in net water use 
announting to 2.24 million acre-feet. These three 
areas account for almost two-thirds of the total 
statewide increase of about 3.51 million acre-feet 
by 2010. 

The largest increase in net water use in any HSA 
between 1980 and 2010 is projected to take place 
in the Tulare Lake HSA. Total net use will increase 
by 842.000 acre-feet, with 694.000 acre-feet of this 
amount for agricultural use. 



. The three South Coast HSAs— Los Angeles. Santa 
Ana. and San Diego — are expected to show an 
increase of 663,000 acre-feet of total net water use, 
or almost one-fifth of the statewide increase 
between 1980 and 2010. However, urban use is ex- 
pected to increase by 861.000 acre-feet, while agri- 
cultural use is projected to decline by 214,000 
acre-feet, reflecting the increasing urbanization of 
that region. 

The effects of increases in net water use on specif- 
ic water supplies and related water management 
needs for each HSA are discussed in Chapter V. 



TABLE 50 

TOTAL APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1980 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER 


821 

153 

260 

1 

1,235 

714 
161 
216 

1 

1,081 


121 

967 

100 

2 

6 

1,196 

121 

967 

94 

2 

6 

14 

1.204 


1,189 
231 

2 
7 

1,429 

902 
188 

2 
7 

1.099 


348 

1.664 

7 

1 

7 

2,017 

276 

1.634 

7 

1 

7 

81 

1.906 


412 
734 

2 
9 

1.157 

320 
686 

2 
9 
45 

962 


228 

389 

5 

2 

624 

198 

389 

5 

2 

40 
634 


9.223 

670 

167 

3 

9.963 

6.682 

493 

167 

3 

129 
7.464 


7.474 

403 

86 

10 

16 

7.988 

5.892 

249 

64 

10 

15 

111 

6.341 


11.424 

426 

45 

7 
10 

11.911 

7.781 

236 

31 

7 

10 
123 

8.188 


442 

23 

10 

1 

476 

387 
23 
10 

1 

421 


493 

95 

3 

9 

2 

602 

338 
60 
3 
9 
2 
7 

419 


3.460 

118 

17 

3 

3 

3,601 

3.434 

102 

17 

3 

3 

643 

4.102 


35.635 


Urban . . 


6.762 


Wildlife ' 


700 




43 


Energy Production ^ 


59 


TOTAL 


42,199 


NET WATER USE 


27,046 


Urban 


4,978 


Wildlife' 


603 


Recreation^ 


43 




59 




1,093 


TOTAL 


33,821 







' Water used on public wildlife management areas- 

^ Water used at nonurban public parks. 

'Water used tor power plant cooling and for enhanced oil recovery. 



TABLE 51 

TOTAL APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

1990 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER 


900 
170 
270 

1.340 

780 
170 
230 

1,180 


110 

1,050 

100 

5 

1.265 

110 

1,050 

95 

5 

16 
1,275 


1,240 
270 

5 
15 

1,530 

940 
210 

5 

16 
6 

1,176 


310 

1.760 

5 

6 

30 

2.110 

250 

1,630 

5 

5 

30 
76 

1,995 


360 
900 

10 
1,270 

290 
710 

10 

40 
1,060 


220 

480 

5 

5 

710 

190 

480 

5 

5 

35 
715 


9,350 

670 

170 

5 

10,195 

7,030 

590 

160 

5 

150 
7,935 


7,470 

490 

85 

16 

20 

8.080 

6.050 
310 
65 
15 
20 
120 

6,580 


11,390 

600 

45 

10 

25 

11,970 

7,955 
280 
30 
10 
25 
126 

8,425 


470 
30 
10 

510 

410 
30 
10 

460 


410 
120 

5 
20 

5 

560 

300 

80 

5 

20 
6 
6 

415 


3.590 

160 

16 

5 

20 

3,790 

3,560 

130 

15 

5 

20 
360 

4,090 


35.820 


Urban ., , , 


6,600 


Wildlife ' 


710 


Recreation ^ 


86 


Energy Production ^ 


115 


TOTAL 


43.330 


NET WATER USE 


27.865 


Urban 


5.670 


Wildlife ' 


620 


Recreation ' 


86 




116 


Conveyance Losses 


930 


TOTAL 


36,285 







' Water used on public wildlife management areas. 

'Water used at nonurban public parks 

'Water used tor power plant cooling and for enhanced oil recovery. 



169 



TABLE 52 

TOTAL APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

2000 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER 

Agriculture 


910 
180 
270 

1.360 

790 
180 
230 

1.200 


100 

1.090 

100 

5 

15 

1.310 

100 

1.090 

95 

5 

16 

20 

1.325 


1.230 
290 

6 
15 

1.640 

940 
230 

6 
16 
5 

1.196 


270 

1,830 

6 

10 

26 

2.140 

220 

1.680 

5 

10 

25 

75 

2.015 


310 
1,030 

10 
1.350 

260 
800 

10 

40 
1.100 


200 

580 

5 

6 

790 

180 

580 

6 

6 

36 
806 


9.000 

750 

170 

5 

9.925 

7.010 

660 

160 

6 

150 
7.965 


7.510 

570 

85 

15 

20 

8.200 

6160 

360 

66 

16 

20 

130 

6.760 


11,390 

660 

45 

10 

40 

12.036 

8.186 
310 
30 
10 
40 
125 

8.700 


470 
35 
10 

615 

410 
35 
10 

465 


360 

160 

6 

20 
16 

550 

270 

110 

5 

20 
16 
6 

426 


3.730 

200 

15 

5 

30 

3.980 

3.700 

170 

16 

6 

30 
280 

4,200 


36470 


Urban 


7.266 


Wildlife ' 


710 




90 


Energy Production ' 


160 


TOTAL 


43696 


NET WATER USE 


28.215 


Urban 


6,205 


Wildlife' 


620 


Recreation' _ 


90 
160 




866 


TOTAL 


36.156 







' Water used on public wildlife management areas. 

'Water used at nonurban public parks. 

* Water used for power plant cooling and for enhanced oil recovery 



TABLE S3 

TOTAL APPLIED WATER AND NET WATER USE 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 


APPLIED WATER 


930 
200 
270 

1.400 

810 
190 
2» 

1.2X 


90 

1.170 

100 

5 

16 

1.380 

90 
1.170 
95 
5 
15 
20 

1.396 


1.200 
320 

5 
10 

1.535 

930 
250 

5 
10 
5 

1.200 


230 

1.960 

6 

15 

20 

2.220 

190 
1.790 
5 
15 
20 
75 

2.096 


260 
1.180 

10 
1.450 

220 
910 

10 

40 
1.180 


190 

670 

5 

5 

870 

170 

670 

6 

6 

40 
890 


9.070 

830 

170 

5 

10.076 

7.140 

730 

160 

6 

150 
8.185 


7.680 

660 

86 

16 

20 

8.460 

6.370 
420 
65 
16 
20 
130 
7.020 


11.540 

630 

46 

10 

40 

12.266 

8.476 

350 

30 

10 

40 

125 

9.030 


480 
40 
10 

530 

420 
40 
10 

470 


280 

190 

5 

25 
26 

525 

230 

120 

5 

25 

25 

6 

410 


3.700 

230 

16 

6 

45 

3.996 

3.680 

200 

15 

6 

46 

280 

4.225 


36.660 


Urban 


8.070 


Wildlife' 

Recreation' „ 

Energy Production ' „ 

TOTAL 


710 
100 
176 

44.706 


NET WATER USE 


28.726 


Urban 


6840 


Wildlife' 


620 




100 


Energy Production' 


175 




870 


TOTAL 


37.330 







' Water used on public wildlife management areas. 

'Water used at nonurban public parks. 

' Water used for power plant cooling and for enhanced oil recovery. 



170 






Figure 46. CHANGE IN TOTAL NET WATER USE BY HSA 1980 TO 2010 



HYDROLOGIC 
STUDY AREA 

NORTH COAST 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY 
CENTRAL COAST 

LOS ANGELES 

SANTA ANA 

SAN DIEGO 

SACRAMENTO 

SAN JOAQUIN 

TULARE LAKE 

NORTH LAHONTAN 

SOUTH LAHONTAN [ 

COLORADO RIVER 




■ 




































































1 








































1 



100 



200 400 

Thousands of Acre-Feet 



600 



800 



Impacts of Water Conservation 
Assumptions 

Projections of applied water reflect likely water 
conservation measures and actions, including in- 
creases in irrigation efficiency. The extent to which 
these actions actually create a savings in water sup- 
ply depends upon how they influence net water use. 

Net water use for a given study area will be re- 
duced to the extent that water conservation meas- 
ures and actions reduce crop or urban landscape 
ETAW, irrecoverable losses from distribution sys- 
tems, or outflow from the area. In all cases, reduc- 
tions in ETAW and irrecoverable losses are savings 
in water supply. The question of whether a saving in 
water supply is attained by reducing outflow from 
the area, however, depends on whether the outflow 
normally goes into an unusable source such as a salt 
sink (the ocean or saline ground water), supplies a 



downstream user, or accomplishes some special 
beneficial purpose, such as satisfying Delta outflow 
needs. In the latter two cases, there would be no 
water supply savings because the outflow fulfills a 
need that otherwise would have to be met from an- 
other source. 

Although water conservation may not always 
achieve equivalent savings in water supply, signifi- 
cant energy savings may be achieved because re- 
pumping of excess applied irrigation water that 
percolates to ground water is reduced. Energy sav- 
ings may also result from reduced delivery system 
pumping and treatment of water supplies and waste 
water. 

Water Supply Savings from Water 
Conservation 

For both the urban and the agricultural sectors, 
each DAU was examined to evaluate the reduction 



171 



in ETAW, irrecoverable losses from distribution sys- 
tems, and outflow to a salt sink (or where otherwise 
unavailable for reuse) that would be achieved by the 
assumed water conservation actions, including in- 
creased irrigation efficiency. As discussed earlier, ur- 
ban conservation included the impact of measures 
and actions taken from 1975 to 2010, while agricul- 
tural conservation was assumed to be any projected 
increase in irrigation efficiency and related measures 
after 1980. 

In the urban sector, ETAW will be reduced be- 
cause less water will be used to support landscape 
vegetation, principally reflecting increased use of 
drought-tolerant plants. For the agricultural sector, 
the ETAW reduction was calculated on the basis of 
assumptions regarding the extent to which drip irri- 
gation will be used on young orchards and grapes. 
The ETAW reductions result from the wetting of a 
smaller soil area and, therefore, less evaporative loss. 
As the trees and vines mature and the root systems 
expand, however, the water savings potential 
becomes slight, if any. 

Reduction in irrecoverable losses from distribution 
systems (seepage to saline ground water) was deter- 
mined for the Imperial Valley, based upon the results 
of a study by the Department.^ 

The quantity of outflow to a salt sink or other unus- 
able water body was determined through a hydrolog- 



' Investigation Under California Water Code Section 275 of Use of Water 
by Imperial Irrigation District. Department of Water Resources. Decem- 
ber 1981. 



ic balance analysis relating net water use to net 
water supply. 

Reductions in applied water and the related water 
supply savings in each HSA by 2010 are presented in 
Table 54. The urban water supply savings are about 
50 percent higher than the agricultural savings. This 
is due primarily to the proximity of the major metro- 
politan areas to the ocean, where large portions of 
urban waste water and runoff (including storm drain 
flow) become outflow to the ocean. The remaining 
excess applied water percolates to ground water or 
IS otherwise available for reuse. The urban water sup- 
ply savings in inland areas is accomplished principal- 
ly by reducing landscape evapotranspiration. 

The very large reduction in applied water from in- 
creased irrigation efficiency in the Central Valley — 
nearly 3 million acre-feet — provides only 120,000 
acre-feet in water supply savings because of the 
reuse of the excess applied water and the need to 
maintain specified outflows through the Delta. Ex- 
cess irrigation water in the Central Valley, other than 
that consumptively used by native vegetation along 
drains and streams or in wetland areas, either perco- 
lates into ground water basins or drains back into 
rivers that flow to the Delta. During most of the irriga- 
tion season. Delta outflows are controlled to main- 
tain water quality standards set by the State Water 
Resources Control Board. Under normal conditions, 
these required flows are such that any reduction in 
irrigation return flow to the Delta must be offset by 
increased reservoir releases (or by reducing export 
diversions). 



TABLE 54 

ANNUAL APPLIED WATER REDUCTIONS AND RELATED WATER SUPPLY SAVINGS 
IN 2010 RESULTING FROM WATER CONSERVATION ' BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





Urban 


Agricultural 


TOTAL 


HSA 


Applied 

Water 

Reductions 


Water 
Supply 
Savings 


Applied 

Water 

Reductions 


Water 
Supply 
Savings 


Applied 

Water 

Reductions 


Water 
Supply 
Savings 


NC 


25 

190 

25 

360 

240 

140 

130 

85 

90 

5 

40 
45 


20 

190 

25 

290 

160 

140 

30 

25 

25 

10 
40 

955 


5 

5 

40 

45 

40 

30 

1.480 

580 

810 

35 

50 

360 

3.480 


5 
5 

25 

10 
110 

340 

m 

645 


30 
195 

65 
405 
280 
170 
1.610 
665 
900 

40 

90 

405 



4.855 


20 


SF 


195 


cc 


30 


LA 


290 


SA 


160 


SD 


165 


SB 


30 


SJ 


35 


TL 


135 


NL 




SL 


10 


CR On-farm 


380 


CR Distribution system 


150 


TOTAL 


1,375 


1.600 







Reductions and savings trom the level of water use that would occur without the 
projected conservation actions. 



172 



The relatively large savings of 135,000 acre-feet 
projected for the Tulare Lake HSA primarily reflect 
reduced percolation of excess applied water to sa- 
line high water tables and moisture-deficient soils. '° 

A large water savings potential exists in the Colo- 
rado River HSA because excess applied water m the 
Imperial Valley and much of the Coachella Valley 
enters saline drains or saline ground water and can- 
not be reused. Where this occurs, any reduction in 
excess applied water represents a water savings. 
Substantial savings are also expected from distribu- 
tion system improvements to reduce seepage to sa- 
line ground water and excess spillage to the Salton 
Sea. 

The water conservation assumptions presented in 
this report represent what is now believed will likely 
occur. However, wider use of the conservation meas- 
ures described in these assumptions or use of other 
water-saving measures could bring about even great- 
er savings. 

Energy Savings from Water Conservation in 
the Central Valley 

A cursory estimate was made of the effect of a 



' Soils described as moisture-deficient are extraordinarily dry and have an 
unusually high capacity for retaining moisture. Water absorbed by 
moisture-deficient soils is "locked up" and unavailable to plants. More- 
over, It does not percolate to a usable ground water source and thus 
represents a loss. These soils are confined primarily to a relatively small 
area along the southwestern edge of the valley floor in the Tulare Lake 
HSA. 



projected increase in irrigation efficiency on the use 
of electrical energy in the Central Valley. Part of the 
excess applied water in the valley runs off and is 
reused downstream or becomes part of the Delta 
outflow. The remainder percolates to ground water 
and is pumped and reused. With an increase in irriga- 
tion efficiency, less deep percolation of excess ap- 
plied water would occur and less repumpmg would 
be necessary to satisfy applied water needs. This, 
along with estimates of pumping lifts and other fac- 
tors affecting energy use, provide the basis for cal- 
culating the energy savings in 2010 due to 
agricultural water conservation. 

Annual Energy Savings from Increased Irrigation 
Efficiency in the Central Valley in 2010 

Million 
Hydrologic Study Areas kilowatthours 

Sacramento 20 

San Joaquin 80 

Tulare Lake 300 

TOTAL 400 

As would be expected, the projected reduction in 
electrical energy use is greatest m the Tulare Lake 
HSA, where most pumping lifts by 2010 are expected 
to range between 250 and 450 feet. Lesser savings are 
expected in the San Joaquin HSA, where lifts are 
expected to range between 100 and 200 feet. The 
savings in the Sacramento HSA would be even less, 
with lifts of 50 to 100 feet. 



173 



CHAPTER V 
PROJECTED USE OF WATER SUPPLIES TO 2010 



This chapter analyzes the supply of water needed 
in California to satisfy the net water use projected to 
occur by 2010. It presents the situation related to 
existing and potential future surface water develop- 
ment, together with the role that ground water and 
reclaimed waste water are expected to play in meet- 
ing future needs. The chapter concludes with a sum- 
mary of current and projected net water use and 
water supply and a discussion of water use and wa- 
ter supply conditions in each HSA. 

The analysis shows that projected increases in ur- 
ban and agricultural net water use will be supported 
by presently uncommitted Central Valley Project 
(CVP) supplies, reserve supplies of local projects, 
additional ground water overdraft, and increased 
waste water reuse. Except for the Cottonwood 
Creek Project, with yield allocated to nonfederal use, 
no new federal water supply reservoirs were as- 
sumed to be completed in the next 30 years. Howev- 
er, it was recognized that the Auburn and enlarged 
Shasta projects could be built within this period. 

A similar situation exists with the State Water 
Project (SWP) . Only relatively small additions to the 
yield of the SWP can definitely be identified at this 
time. The amount and timing of other water supply 
additions to the SWP are uncertain, although the 
possibility of substantially augmenting the yield of 
the SWP from new water supply facilities before 
2000 is not likely because of the time required for 
authorization and construction. The Department of 
Water Resources has plans under way to select the 
best possible additional projects and schedule. 

No new local projects were identified as definitely 
available by 2010 to meet projected needs. However, 
it was assumed that supplemental needs in the rapid- 
ly growing Sierra Nevada foothills could be provided 
for by such projects as the Upper South Fork Ameri- 
can River Project and the Upper Stanislaus River 
Project. Local projects being considered in the Cen- 
tral Coast HSA would reduce the need to import CVP 
or SWP water to that area. 

For the SWP, the yield from existing and planned 
facilities is inadequate to meet projected contractual 
commitments. Because the scheduling of future de- 



pendable supplies is uncertain, the potential shortfall 
is shown in the figures in this chapter as an SWP 
shortage. In most cases, the shortage could be offset 
by the use of ground water, thereby further increas- 
ing ground water overdraft. 

Only a substantial commitment to large-scale sur- 
face water storage and conveyance facilities would 
enable the major water supply problems in the State, 
including ground water overdraft, to be brought un- 
der control in the next 30 years. As noted above, 
except for Auburn Dam, which is in the final design 
stage but must be reauthorized by Congress, and the 
Cottonwood Creek project of the Corps of Engi- 
neers, it could be as much as 30 years before any 
other new major surface water supply projects — fed- 
eral or State — can be put into operation. As a result, 
ground water overdraft in the San Joaquin Valley is 
projected to increase from 1.2 million acre-feet at the 
1980 level of development to 2.4 million acre-feet and 
could go as high as 3.2 million acre-feet by 2010. The 
real increase, however, will depend on the extent to 
which reserve CVP supplies can be used in the Mid- 
Valley Canal service area or made available to the 
SWP and the extent to which SWP shortages will be 
offset by increased ground water use. Outside the 
San Joaquin Valley, an overall reduction in ground 
water overdraft is projected, with only the Sacra- 
mento and Colorado River HSAs showing any signifi- 
cant increase. 

The other major problem area, the South Coastal 
region, where half the State's population lives, is 
faced with the potential of a shortage in dependable 
supplies occurring as early as the end of this decade. 
Identified supplies from the SWP in 1990 will be less 
than projected requirements by 215,000 acre-feet. By 
2010, the shortage increases to 410,000 acre-feet. 
These potential shortages could occur, even though 
the use of reclaimed waste water savings from water 
conservation are expected to increase considerably. 
In the event of a prolonged drought such as occurred 
from 1928 to 1934, SWP supplies could not meet 
needs in this region. Extreme measures that could 
directly affect business, industry, and agriculture 
would be necessary to cope with such a situation. 
There is no assurance that surplus Colorado River 
supplies will be available to California, once the Cen- 



175 



Figure 47. REMAINING DEVELOPABLE SURFACE WATER IN CALIFORNIA 

Long-Term Average-1980 Development Level 

MILLIONS OF ACRE-FEET 



78.5 



I.SLandUse Changes a/ 



1.4 Inflow from OregoiT, 

COLORADO RIVER 

DIVERSIONS 

4.8 



SURFACE RUNOFF 
FROM PRECIPITATION 
70.8 ty 



100% 
2% 



78.5 



6% 



6% 



27% 



59% 



1,2 EVAPORATION 



GROUND WATER 

RECHARGE 
4.6 ^ 



COLORADO RIVER 

DIVERSIONS 

4.8 



STORAGE OR DIRECT 

DIVERSION OF 

IN-STATE WATER 

21.3 



REMAINING IN STREAMS 
46.6 



a/ Gain in unimpaired runoff due to change 
from native vegetation to paved areas, 
buildings, and other land uses. 

b/ Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 1, 1951 

c/ Percolation from streambeds. Excludes 
planned recharge and direct percolation 
through the soil. 

d/ Total is 5.1 million acre-feet, the balance 
of which comes from release of stored 
water and return flows 

e/Of the 5.5 million acre-feet, about 4.6 is 
estimated to be in the Sacramento HSA 



46.6 



O 



DEVELOPMENT 

IMPROBABLE 

Over 8.5 



POSSIBLE x/,,V>^ 

VELOPMENT/^ 

POTENTIAL s/V/ 

y Less than 5.5 




3.6 
1.2 




OTHER NORTH 
COAST SOURCES 
10.0 



NORTH COAST WILD 

AND SCENIC RIVERS 

17.8 



SALINITY REPULSION d/ 



OUTFLOW TO NEVADA 



EXISTING SUPPLIES 



PRESENT DISPOSITION 
OF EXISTING SUPPLIES 



DISPOSITION OF 
REMAINING RUNOFF 



176 



tral Arizona Project is in operation. Ground water 
overdraft could provide emergency supplies, but this 
would require institutional changes in the operation 
of several adjudicated ground water basins. 

Additional surface water supplies could be devel- 
oped within the Sacramento Valley and could be 
used to meet or greatly reduce much of the need for 
supplemental supplies. The amount available and the 
projects being considered to develop this supply are 
presented in the following section of this chapter. 

Surface Water Supplies 

California's surface water available under the 1980 
level of development averages 78,500,000 acre-feet 
per year. The sources and their present disposition 
are shown m Figure 47. The extent of present com- 
mitments on flows currently remaining in streams 
and the balance that has potential for development 
are shown by the right-hand bar. This distribution is 
in accordance with the basic assumption on water 
supply availability described m the preceding chap- 
ter. Out of the total of 24.0 million acre-feet of uncom- 
mitted remaining runoff, only 5.5 million acre-feet is 
considered developable. The reasons for this are 
both physical and economic. Likewise, North Coast 
flows amounting to about 10 million acre-feet are not 
considered to be a potential source of supply during 
the period of analysis. 

Elsewhere in the State, the unregulated flow oc- 
curring in small coastal streams in the San Francisco 
Bay. Central Coast, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San 
Diego HSAs offer only limited opportunities for de- 
velopment. The same is true of runoff in the Southern 
California desert areas. In effect, it appears at this 
time that the opportunities for any significant further 
development of California's water resources are lim- 
ited essentially to the Central Valley. 

Present planning recognizes the need for equal 
consideration of instream and offstream uses of wa- 
ter. The center bar of Figure 47 shows the amount of 
water remaining in streams after allowance is made 
for imported water and present use. As depicted, 60 
percent of California's surface water supplies pres- 
ently remain in streams and rivers. Even if all the 
surface water estimated to be developable were 
eventually diverted. 52 percent of the State's surface 
water would remain in streams and rivers. 

Additional surface water development has been 
planned or considered that would develop a portion 
of the 5.5 million acre-feet identified as "potentially 
developable." Some of these include development 
of local supplies to meet local needs and are de- 
scribed later in this chapter. The greatest need. 



however, exists in the San Joaquin. Tulare Lake, and 
South Coastal region HSAs and involve large-scale 
interbasin transfers. Consequently, further major sur- 
face water development probably can be accom- 
plished only by the State through additions to the 
SWP and by the federal government, primarily 
through additions to the CVP. 

State Water Project Supply 

Dependable supply from existing and proposed 
facilities of the SWP under present and projected 
conditions is shown on Figure 48. About half the 
present SWP yield is derived from Lake Oroville, and 
the remainder is developed from surplus flows in the 
Delta and re-regulated in San Luis Reservoir. SWP 
project yield declines with time because Delta inflow 
IS depleted by irrigation and urban development pro- 
jected to occur in the areas of origin and because the 
CVP will be using Delta CVP supplies that are cur- 
rently available to the SWP.' 

For the next several years, SWP requirements can 
be met in average and wet years, but the risk of 
shortages will increase with the delay in adding facili- 
ties. Some additional yield (60,000 acre-feet) can be 
provided by installing the last four pumps in the Har- 
vey 0. Banks Delta Pumping Plant, bringing it up to 
its design capacity, and by proceeding with the 
ground water storage program to the extent possible 
without a Delta facility (200,000 acre-feet). Enlarge- 
ment of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct 
will facilitate delivery of water to Southern California 




^ After studies for tfiis report were completed, otfier more recent studies of 
coordinated SWP-CVP operation and revised operation of Oroville Res- 
ervoir sfiow that tfie firm yield of the SWP is about 200,000 acre-feet 
greater for the period 198O-2010. This would reduce the potential short- 
ages shown for the SWP later in this chapter. 



Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant near Tracy, an SWP 
facility, lifts water from the Delta 244 feet into the California 
Aqueduct. The Delta Operations and Maintenance Center is 
situated at left, and Bethany Dam and Reservoir appear at 
top. Addition of the final four pumps to bring the plant to 
design capacity of 10,300 cubic feet per second will improve 
operational flexibility and provide additional supplies for the 
SWP. 



177 



Figure 48. SWP PROJECTED WATER REQUIREMENTS AND 

WATER SUPPLY SOURCES 




ground water basins for storage underground; 
however, it does not add yield to the system. The 
Cottonwood Creek Project presently being planned 
by the Corps of Engineers (175.000-acre-foot yield) 
was assumed to proceed as planned. 

SWP Ground Water Storage Program. SWP 

yield can be increased significantly by a conjunctive 
operation program that involves storage of surplus 
water supplies in ground water basins in SWP serv- 
ice areas in the San Francisco Bay, Tulare Lake, Los 
Angeles, and Santa Ana HSAs. Surplus water would 
be stored during wet years and pumped for use dur- 
ing dry periods as part of the SWP yield. 

Conjunctive operation of surface and ground wa- 
ter supplies has been practiced for many years in 
areas such as the Salinas Valley, Santa Clara County, 
the San Joaquin Valley, and in several parts of South- 
ern California. This has been accomplished largely 
with local surface supplies. The SWP provides the 
opportunity for a substantial increase in conjunctive 
use through long-distance transfer of excess north- 



ern water. Six areas identified on Figure 49 appear to 
be the most promising for further evaluation. The 
basins ultimately selected, operated in conjunction 
with excess flows delivered through the California 
Aqueduct and its branches, could develop an es- 
timated 200,000 acre-feet per year of dependable 
supply. 

Conjunctive operation of the SWP and ground wa- 
ter basins will require: 

• Basins having suitable location, empty storage 
capacity, adequate infiltration and transmissibility 
characteristics for recharge, and good water qual- 
ity. 

• Excess water at the Delta for conveyance to basins 
for recharge after all entitlements and water qual- 
ity standards have been met. 

• Capacity in the California Aqueduct between the 
Delta and the selected ground water basin at the 
same time the excess water is available at the Del- 
ta. 



178 



Figure 49. POTENTIAL GROUND WATER 

FEASIBILITY STUDY AREAS FOR 

STATE WATER PROJECT 



South Bay 
Basins, 



Oran 




/ 



/ 



\ 



\ 
Fan Area Basins 



ernando Basin 



Chino Basin \ 



Bunker Hill- \ 
San Tlmoteo- • 
Yucaipa Basins^ 




Two methods of operation to augment water yield 
are possible — direct and indirect. Both methods de- 
pend on the availability of excess water in the Delta 
and capacity in the California Aqueduct. 

The direct method would involve the use of SWP 
water for direct recharge of ground water basins. 
The recharged water would be extracted and deliv- 
ered to SWP contractors during dry years. Surface 
facilities for this type of operation consist of spread- 
ing areas, conveyance facilities, and pumping facili- 
ties for future water extraction. 

The indirect method would provide additional 
SWP water in wet years, in lieu of pumping water 
from the underlying ground water basin. Thus, 
ground water storage would be allowed to increase 
through normal recharge of the basin. The stored 
ground water would be pumped and used during 
drought periods when surface water deliveries were 
inadequate to meet requirements. Use of the indirect 
method would eliminate the need to construct 
spreading facilities required for a large-scale, direct- 
method operation. 

Many issues must be resolved before ground water 
storage programs to augment SWP supplies can pro- 
ceed. These include the equitable sharing of basin 
storage space, allocation of costs and benefits, and 
appropriate management procedures. For example, 
current SWP contracts allow for the sale of "surplus 
water" at a price equal to the cost of delivering the 
water, which is well below that of contract entitle- 
ment water. Under a ground water storage program, 
some of this more favorably priced water now being 
purchased by agricultural contractors would proba- 
bly have to be diverted, instead, to ground water 
recharge. 

SWP Brackish Water Reclamation Program. 

The Department of Water Resources is proceeding 
with implementation of a program to desalt brackish 
agricultural drainage water that could increase sup- 
plies for the SWP. The principal elements of the pro- 
gram are: 

• To operate a demonstration desalting facility to 
obtain information needed for design and cost es- 
timating of large-capacity plants. 

• To determine possible sites for desalting facilities. 

• To evaluate desalting facilities, delivery of brackish 
agricultural drainage water to desalters, convey- 
ance of desalted water to places of use, and dis- 
posal of brine. 

• To determine a schedule of demand for desalted 
water and availability of proposed desalting facili- 
ties. 

• To develop a coordinated plan of operation for 
desalting facilities. 

• To determine the feasibility of using brine from the 
desalter for salt-gradient solar ponds that would 
provide the energy for operating the desalter. 



179 



Preliminary determinations of existing and project- 
ed locations and characteristics of agricultural drain- 
age water are already available from previous 
studies. The Department has evaluated the technol- 
ogy of desalting agricultural drainage in the San Joa- 
quin Valley with pilot plant studies and is 
constructing a demonstration desalting plant to ob- 
tain design and cost data. The demonstration plant 
capacity of the desalter is 344,000 gallons per day. 
The data obtained from the facility will be used to 
evaluate large-scale desalting facilities designed to 
produce nominally 25.000 acre-feet per year. Desalt- 
ing systems use considerable energy, and on-site en- 
ergy recovery and power generation from 
salt-gradient solar ponds would reduce net energy 
requirements. 

Projected Use of SWP Supply. The dependa- 
ble supply of existing facilities o' :r~e SWP is shown 
in Figure 48. The line showing projected require- 
ments reflects the effect of projected conservation 
measures and actions. Projections of supply are 
based on the assumption that certain facilities would 
be constructed as scheduled. The impact of poten- 
tial SWP water shortage on growth, as well as other 
means of coping with the deficiencies, have not been 
determined. 

The water use and water supply summaries for the 
San Francisco Bay, Tulare Lake, Los Angeles. Santa 
Ana, and San Diego HSAs presented later in this 
chapter discuss allocation of existing dependable 
SWP supplies. These allocations include the addi- 
tional yield developed by the Cottonwood Creek 
Project, installation of the remaining Delta pumps, 
and a ground water storage program yielding 200,000 
acre-feet. The remaining requirements of the SWP 
are shown as a potential shortage in dependable wa- 
ter supplies. A large portion of this potential shortage 
in the Tulare Lake HSA would probably be translated 
into ground water overdraft. In wetter-than-normal 
years, some of the shortage can be met from surplus 
water. It is also possible that other sources of supply 
can be added before 2010 to increase the yield of the 
SWP. The most promising of these are a Delta water 
transfer facility and purchase of uncontracted-for 
water from the CVP. Until additional water supplies 
are provided, the threat of shortages that are more 
frequent and more severe than under the present 
dry-year deficiency contract provisions will exist. 

Federal Central Valley Project Supply 

The net water supply capability of the existing 
Central Valley Project is projected to ultimately 
(beyond 2010) be about 9.45 million acre-feet per 
year, assuming full use of water by present and po- 
tential water contractors. The northern portion of the 
system (the Sacramento, American, and Trinity Riv- 
ers) will contribute 7.7 million acre-feet of this 
amount for use in the Sacramento River, American 



River, and Delta service area. The other units — New 
Melones, Friant, Hidden and Buchanan, Sly Park, and 
Sugar Pine Reservoirs — account for the remaining 
1.75 million acre-feet. 

The estimate for the northern CVP system is based 
on coordinated operation with the SWP to maintain 
Delta water quality standards in accordance with the 
State Water Resource Control Board's Decision 
1485. The current level of Trinity River fish releases is 
assumed to continue indefinitely. The estimate does 
not include supply from the proposed Auburn Reser- 
voir. 

CVP water supply is predicated upon a considera- 
ble amount of reuse; that is, return flow to the Sacra- 
mento River and the Delta from upstream CVP 
service areas is counted again as project supply 
available for rediversion or to meet Delta outflow 
requirements. Therefore, if upstream use does not 
increase as projected, the CVP water supply would 
be reduced. 

Under the 1980 operating criteria and level of de- 
velopment, the net water supply from the northern 
portion of the CVP system is about 6.5 million acre- 
feet per year. Since this total is not needed in all 
years to meet present contractual obligations, and 
because some conveyance systems have not been 
completed, operational spills and a portion of the 
releases to maintain instream flows indirectly 
become part of the Delta water supply and are 
shared with the SWP. In the future, these reserve 
supplies will be used to satisfy service area obliga- 
tions and there will be a reduction in the Delta supply 
shared by the SWP. 

The dependable supply potential of New Melones 
Reservoir is 210,000 acre-feet per year. The dependa- 
ble supply of the Friant Division is 800,000 acre-feet 
annually, plus an average of 657,000 acre-feet of non- 
firm supplies. The nonfirm supplies are used con- 
junctively with ground water in the service areas of 
the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals and result in firm 
supplies to those users. Hidden and Buchanan Reser- 
voirs near Madera, completed by the Corps of Engi- 
neers in 1979, have been added to the CVP. and each 
provides 24,000 acre-feet per year to project yield. 
Sugar Pine Reservoir will provide 2,800 acre-feet an- 
nually to meet supplemental needs in the service 
area of the Foresthill Divide Public Utility District. 

The San Felipe Division, presently under construc- 
tion, will deliver water from San Luis Reservoir to 
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. Facilities may 
be extended later to provide service to Monterey and 
Santa Cruz Counties. Principal features of the project 
are shown on Plate 1 and Figures 21 and 60. The 
project will provide about 216,000 acre-feet annually 
by 2020 — 145,000 acre-feet to Santa Clara County, 
40,000 acre-feet to San Benito County, and 20,000 
acre-feet to Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. 



180 



About 60 percent of the water delivered to Santa 
Clara County will be used for recharge of the ground 
water basin. Nearly all the water provided to San 
Benito County will be delivered as surface water to 
replace boron-contaminated ground water and to 
bring agricultural land into production. Construction 
of project facilities to supply Santa Cruz and Monte- 
rey Counties is being deferred for the present time. 
Because of limited capacity m the Delta-Mendota 
Canal, the Department has agreed to wheel water for 
San Felipe through the California Aqueduct, pro- 
vided the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) first 
meets its share of Decision 1485 requirements. 

Possible future additions to the CVP include the 
proposed Mid-Valley Canal, completion of Auburn 
Dam and Reservoir, and enlargement of Shasta Dam 
and Reservoir. A Mid-Valley Canal that could deliver 
water to areas of serious ground water overdraft in 
the eastern San Joaquin Valley has been studied 
jointly by USBR and the Department. The proposed 
alignment is shown on Plate 1 and Figures 66 and 68. 
The project would supply annually 500,000 acre-feet 
of dependable supply and 150,000 acre-feet of non- 
firm water from existing and planned CVP reservoirs 
in the Sacramento River Basin and from surplus v/\n- 



ter and spring flows in the Delta. Full realization of 
the project yield would require a Delta water transfer 
facility. Water would be conveyed from the Delta 
through the California Aqueduct or an enlarged Del- 
ta-Mendota Canal. 

There are several issues and problems in connec- 
tion with the proposed project that would require 
resolution before the project could move forward. If 
the California Aqueduct were used, capacity avail- 
able for conveying the water would need to be deter- 
mined. Water management measures to control the 
use of water in the service area would have to be 
implemented to ensure that overdraft was reduced 
and no additional land was irrigated. Allocation of 
CVP water supply for the project would need to be 
made. The cost, excluding new storage project 
costs, would be between $600 and S700 million at 
January 1980 price levels, depending on the alterna- 
tive means assumed to convey the water from the 
Delta. Cost of irrigation water would depend on the 
extent of financial integration with the CVP, the ef- 
fect of recent revisions of reclamation law, and the 
amount of CVP dependable supply that can be made 
available. 

Construction of Auburn Dam was suspended in 




Auburn Dam site on the North Fork American River. Down- 
stream view shows the present status of construction. A 200- 
foot-high upstream cofferdam is situated in the foreground, 
with the dam's keyway or "notch" in the canyon visible just 
above. V^ork on the dam has been suspended, pending rede- 
sign to meet higher seismic criteria and reauthorization by 
Congress. 



181 



1975 because of increased seismic requirements. The 
dam has since been redesigned. The Auburn-Folsom 
South Unit of the CVP is being re-evaluated by the 
USBR, and a bill, H.R. 2219. for reauthorization of the 
unit was submitted to Congress in 1983. As planned. 
Auburn Reservoir would have a gross storage capaci- 
ty of 2,326,000 acre-feet. Initial power plant installed 
capacity would be 300 megawatts. An additional 450 
megawatts could be added later. The reservoir 
would add about 318,000 acre-feet per year to the 
dependable water yield of the CVP. Other project 
purposes are recreation, fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment, and flood control needed to control the stand- 
ard project flood in the lower American River. 

The estimated first cost of the Auburn-Folsom 
South Unit IS S2.06 billion in 1982 prices. Of this 
amount, about $310 million had been expended 
through September 1981 on Sugar Pine Dam and 
Pipeline, Folsom South Canal, and Auburn Dam and 
Powerplant. 

Enlargement of Shasta Reservoir also is the subject 
of joint study by USBR and the Department. Shasta 
Lake is the principal water storage facility for the 



CVP and has a storage capacity of 4.55 million acre- 
feet, which is only 80 percent of the long-term aver- 
age annual runoff at the dam site. Consequently, 
there is sufficient unregulated runoff to justify sub- 
stantial storage enlargement. 

Studies conducted in 1978 by USBR indicate that 
the optimum upper limit of storage capacity would 
be 14 million acre-feet. Preliminary estimates indicate 
that about 1.4 million acre-feet of dependable dry- 
period yield could be developed from a reservoir of 
this size. The enlarged reservoir, together with an 
enlarged power plant, would increase present aver- 
age annual generation of 2 billion kilowatthours by 
some 30 percent, depending on the mode of opera- 
tion. The estimated first cost is $1.8 billion at 1981 
prices. 

Projected Use of CVP Supply. As stated earlier 
in this section, the long-range net supply (yield) of 
the CVP presently available for allocation to water 
users IS about 9.45 million-acre feet per year. The 
entire Fnant Division supply is presently committed. 
In the Auburn-Folsom South Unit. Sugar Pine Reser- 
voir has just been completed, and its 2,800-acre-foot 




Shasta Dam and Reservoir of the Central Valley Project, 
showing the outline of the proposed enlargement. Raising the 
present height of the dam by another 200 feet would create 
a 14-million-acre-foot reservoir and increase the dependable 
water supply by about 1.4 million acre-feet per year. 



182 




The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Water right permits for 
the SWP and CVP require water quality in Delta channels to 
be maintained at prescribed levels as a condition for export 
of water from the Delta. 



supply was assumed to be fully used by 2000. The 
dependable supply from New Melones Reservoir, 
210,000 acre-feet, was assumed to be reserved for the 
designated service area within San Joaquin, Stanis- 
laus. Tuolumne, and Calaveras Counties. 

No additional conservation storage was assumed 
to be added to the CVP between now and 2010. The 
Folsom South Canal and the San Felipe Division were 
assumed completed, and the present Cross Valley 
Canal conveyance arrangement was assumed to 
continue. 

Future water needs to be met from the CVP were 
projected to be 8.1 million acre-feet per year by 2010. 
This IS an increase of one million acre-feet over the 
1980 level. The major increases are projected to oc- 
cur in the Tehama-Colusa Canal, American River, Fol- 
som South Canal, and San Felipe service areas. 
There are potential demands in the proposed West 
Sacramento Canal and Mid-Valley Canal service 
areas, but those facilities are not now authorized and 
were not included in the foregoing estimates. 

Impact of Delta Outflow Requirements on 
Operations of SWP and CVP 

Both the SWP and the CVP develop part of their 



yield from surplus flows to the Delta. The Delta is the 
focal point of operations for the SWP and, to a con- 
siderable extent, for the CVP. The amount of Delta 
surplus flows available for export depends on 
amounts of inflow. Delta area consumptive uses, and 
Delta outflow requirements. These surpluses occur 
during winter and spring. During summer and fall, 
however, water must be released from both SWP 
and CVP reservoirs to comply with Delta outflow 
requirements. 

Outflow requirements are established by the State 
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as a con- 
dition of water rights issued for the CVP and the 
SWP. For the Delta, the SWRCB has reserved juris- 
diction over terms and conditions affecting Delta wa- 
ter supplies in three general areas: (1) salinity 
control, (2) protection of fish and wildlife, and (3) 
coordination of terms and conditions of the respec- 
tive permits for the CVP and SWP. In its water rights 
Decision 1485, which sets forth the terms and condi- 
tions currently in effect, the SWRCB recognized the 
uncertainty associated with future project facilities 
and the need for additional information on the ef- 
fects of project operations and water quality condi- 
tions in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. 



183 



Figures 50 and 51 show uses of Delta inflow at the 
1980 and 2000 levels of development. For both levels. 
in about 8 out of 10 years, annual Delta inflows are 
more than adequate to meet uses. In the other years. 
exports by the CVP and SWP would have to be re- 
duced, as would required outflow under Decision 
1485. 

Figure 52 shows the monthly disposition of Delta 
inflow for a near-average water year (1928) and a 
very dry water year (1929) under the 1980 level of 
development. As typified by these two years. Delta 
exports for the CVP and the SWP are a combination 
of water released from storage and use of surplus 
flows. The cross-hatched area shows the extent to 



which release of stored water is required not only to 
meet export needs but also to meet local consump- 
tive uses and water quality criteria in the Delta chan- 
nels. 

The Legislature has determined that an adequate 
water supply for all beneficial uses in the Delta must 
be maintained. Based on legislative declaration and 
statutory powers, the SWRCB has concluded that an 
adequate supply may require releases of a reason- 
able quantity of water from storage. Over the years, 
upstream water use has increased until net Delta 
outflow during July and August in all but above-nor- 
mal runoff years would be inadequate, if it were not 
for CVP and SWP operational releases. 



Figure 50. ANNUAL DELTA INFLOW 
AND ITS USES 

1980 



1980 LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT 

WrTH EXISTING FACHTES 
D-1485, AND NORTH DELTA 
WATER AGENCY AGBEEfcENT 




Figure 51. ANNUAL DELTA INFLOW 
AND ITS USES 

2000 




PERCENT OF YEARS EQUALLED On EsCEEOED 



PERCENT OF YEAflS EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED 



184 



Figure 52. MONTHLY DELTA INFLOW AND ITS USES 

FOR AN AVERAGE AND A DRY YEAR 

1928 AND 1929 



lU 

u. 
I 

UJ 

a. 
o 

< 



(0 

z 
O 



^ 



Legend 

TOTAL INFLOW WITHOUT CVP AND SWP 
TOTAL INFLOW TO DELTA 
CVP - SWP EXPORTS 

DELTA CONSUMPTIVE USE 

REQUIRED OUTFLOW FOR D-1485 

CVP AND SWP STORAGE WITHDRAWAL FOR 
DELTA REQUIREMENTS AND EXPORT 

OUTFLOW IN EXCESS OF REQUIRED 
FLOOD CONTROL RELEASES 



1980 LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT 

With existing facilities; 
D-1485; and North Delta 
Water Agency Agreement 



i^ 




Oct. Dec. Feb. Apr. Jun. Aug. Oct. Dec. Feb. Apr. Jun. Aug. Oct. Dec. 



1927 



1928 



1929 



185 



Water rights decisions for the CVP and the SWP 
recognize that the two projects should be compen- 
sated for the allocated cost of providing enhance- 
ment flows, but the SWRCB has no authority to 
specify the source of funds. Future legislation will 
have to provide for reimbursement of these allocated 
costs. 

Figure 51 shows the effect of projected future de- 
velopments in the Central Valley on Delta inflow and 
outflow. While the total volume of outflow is re- 
duced somewhat from 1980 levels, peak flows, such 
as those shown for March 1928 in Figure 52. will not 
be significantly diminished. 

Other Federal Water Projects 

Other federal water projects include those con- 
structed or proposed by the Corp of Engineers or 
USBR that are not part of the CVP. Information on 
completed projects that contribute to meeting water 
requirements within the State are shown in Table 55. 
Authorized projects and their present status are de- 
scribed here. 

The Corps of Engineers' Cottonwood Creek 
Project (Tehama and Dutch Gulch Reservoirs) is the 
only new federal water supply project assumed to be 
available by 2010. As presently proposed, the SWP 
would acquire the project yield under provisions of 
the federal Water Supply Act of 1958. However, be- 
cause of increased nonfederal cost-sharing recently 
proposed by the Corps, the Department is consider- 
ing State construction of the project as an alterna- 
tive. 



The Butler Valley Dam and Blue Lake project on 
the Mad River was authorized by Congress in 1968 
(see Plate 1). The project was proposed to provide 
a supplemental water supply for the mid-coastal 
Humboldt County region, flood protection for down- 
stream areas, and reservoir-associated recreation. 
The project has been inactive since 1974. 

The proposed Marysville Reservoir on the Yuba 
River has been under study by the Corps of Engineers 
since congressional authorization in 1966. In 1977, the 
Corps identified the Parks Bar site as the most desira- 
ble location for construction of a reservoir providing 
flood control, hydroelectric energy, water supply, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. The Corps 
discontinued study in 1980 after the USBR deter- 
mined that it was not feasible to integrate the water 
supply into the CVP. Local interests in Sutter and 
Yuba Counties, seeking additional flood protection, 
proposed an agreement between the Yuba County 
Water Agency and the North Kern Water Storage 
District for a project that could provide local bene- 
fits, as well as export water supplies to alleviate 
ground water overdraft in portions of the Tulare Lake 
HSA. Yuba County voters rejected the proposal in 
November 1981, and the Marysville Reservoir project 
IS now inactive. 

Colorado River Water Allocation to California 

Priorities for the use of Colorado River water in 
California are based on the 1931 Seven-Party Agree- 
ment, as modified in 1964 by the U.S. Supreme 



TABLE 55 

FEDERAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA 
OTHER THAN THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 



Reservoir 

Clear Lake ' 

Lake Mendocino 
Lake Sonoma ^.., 

Salinas 

Twitchell 

Cachuma 

Casitas 

East Park 

Stony Gorge 

Black Butte 

Lake Berryessa... 

New Hogan 

Pine Flat 

Terminus 

Success 

Isabella 

Stampede 



Capacity 
(acre-feet) 



Stream 



Hydrologic 
Study 
Area 



Yield 
(acre-feet 
per year) 



527.000 
122.000 
281,000 

26,000 
240,000 
205,000 
252,000 

51,000 

50,000 

160,000 

1,602.000 

325.000 

1,000,000 

150,000 

85,000 
570,000 
225,000 



Lost River 
Russian River 
Dry Creek 
Salinas River 
Santa Maria River 
Santa Ynez River 
Coyote Creek 
Stony Creek 
Stony Creek 
Stony Creek 
Putah Creek 
Calaveras River 
Kings River 
Kaweah River 
Tule River 
Kern River 
Little Truckee River 



NC 
NC 
NC 
CC 
CC 
CC 
SC 
SB 
SB 
SB 
SB 
SJ 
TL 
TL 
TL 
TL 
NL 



54,000 
115,000 
5,000 
21,200 
27,800 
20,400 

108,000 

209,000 

55,000 

165,000 

21,000 

7,000 

50.000 

6,000' 



' In Modoc County 

^ Not estimated 

'Completion 1984 

* State of California share 



186 



Court's decree in Arizona v. California. Under the 
Seven-Party Agreement, a total of 5,362.000 acre-feet 
per year of Colorado River water was allocated to 
California (Figure 53). Additional present perfected 
rights of 55,000 and 3,000 acre-feet per year, respec- 
tively, were allocated for Indian reservation lands and 
miscellaneous entities. 

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Arizona v. Cali- 
fornia, apportioned to California 4.4 million acre-feet 
per year of the first 7.5 million acre-feet available for 
use by the three Lower Basin States (California, Ne- 
vada, and Arizona) . The court also ruled that, if more 
than 7.5 million acre-feet were available. California 
would be entitled to 50 percent of the surplus. If 
insufficient water is available to provide the first 7.5 
million acre-feet per year, then present perfected 
rights are first satisfied in order of their priority dates. 
After that, the Secretary of the Interior apportions 
the remaining available water, with the stipulation 
that no more than 4.4 million acre-feet per year, in- 
cluding present perfected rights, is apportioned to 
California. 

in 1980. California used about 4.8 million acre-feet 
of Colorado River water. Of this amount, about 4.0 
million acre-feet was used for irrigation, and The 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 
(MWD) used about 850.000 acre-feet. 

When the Central Arizona Project begins deliver- 
ing water (scheduled for 1985). California can no 
longer depend upon receiving more than 4.4 million 
acre-feet per year. As the junior appropriator. MWD 
will be limited to 550.000 acre-feet per year of fourth 
priority water under the Seven-Party Agreement, less 
the water taken by the three Indian reservations and 
miscellaneous present perfected right holders. This 
would reduce the total for MWD to about 492,000 
acre-feet. After deducting 50,000 acre-feet per year 
for delivery system operating losses (seepage and 
evaporation), MWD will have a usable supply of 
about 442,000 acre-feet per year. 

In addition, the annual supply of water available to 
agencies using Colorado River water could be fur- 
ther reduced by as much as 82,000 acre-feet, if the 
1982 report by the special master, which recommend- 
ed awarding further rights for water to Indian tribes 
in California along the Colorado River, is upheld by 
the U.S. Supreme Court. If MWD were to bear all 
those losses, the agency's cumulative losses by 2000 
could be 190.000 acre-feet. The water delivered to 
Southern California by MWD would thus be reduced 
to 360.000 acre-feet per year. 

Local Water Supply Projects 

Total statewide dependable water supplies from 
projects developed by local water agencies, together 
with direct diversion of streamflow for local use, on 



an average, amounts to 11.1 million acre-feet per 
year. Major local water supply projects are shown on 
Plate 1 and Figure 21. Possible future local agency 
developments for water supply and other purposes 
are shown on Plate 1 and on figures presented in the 
HSA summaries later in this chapter. Several larger 
proposed hydroelectric power projects are also 
shown on Plate 1. Because the schedules for these 
projects are uncertain, the water supplies that would 
be developed were not included in future dependa- 
ble water supplies. Their availability would reduce 
shortages indicated or would contribute to addition- 
al net water use. 

While the supplemental water needs in many areas 
of the State must rely on service from the CVP and 
SWP. several local agencies have reserve supplies 
available that are adequate to meet all or part of their 
supplemental needs to 2010. However, in some in- 
stances, such as Yuba County, use of the supply will 
require construction of conveyance or distribution 
facilities. 

The water supplies available and the assumptions 
made regarding their future use are presented in the 
HSA summaries later in this chapter. 

Ground Water Availability and Use 

Statewide, total ground water in storage is estimat- 
ed to be 857 million acre-feet; even in basins partially 
depleted by long-term overdrafting, substantial quan- 
tities of ground water remain. With the basic as- 
sumption that there would be essentially no controls 
on ground water pumping before 2010, projected in- 
creases in use would be governed largely by pump- 




Havasu Pumping Plant at Lake Havasu on the Colorado River, 
a facility of the Central Arizona Project. Full use is expected 
by 1990, at which time California can no longer depend on 
receiving more than 4.4 million acre-feet per year. 



187 



Figure 53. ALLOCATION OF CALIFORNIA'S COLORADO RIVER WATER SUPPLY 

(IN ACRE-FEET) 

PRESENT 

Before Central Arizona Project begins operations 



MISCELLANEOUS 
PERFECTED RIGHTS' 
3.000 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS 

55,000 

IMPERIAL I.D 

PALO VERDE I.D 

COACHELLA VALLEY CWD 




METROPOLITAN WATER 
DISTRICT 



(PRIORITIES FOR USE OF 5,362,000 ACRE-FEET ARE AS SPECIFIED UNDER SEVEN-PARTY AGREEMENT) 

FUTURE 

After Central Arizona Project reaches full operation about 1990 



J/ Could be increased by 82,000 if the 
1982 recommendation by the U.S. 
Special Master is upheld by the 
Supreme Court 




METROPOLITAN WATER 
DISTRICT 



_^ INDIAN WATER RIGHTS 
55,000 

MISCELLANEOUS 
PERFECTED RIGHTS 
3.000 



4,400,000 



(APPORTIONMENT WHEN CALIFORNIA IS LIMITED TO 4.400,000 ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) 



ing costs. Information on the availability of and depth 
to ground water is presented in Chaptei III. 

In most areas of the Central Valley, ground water 
of good quality is available within economic pump- 
ing limits for projected needs. Results of economic 
modeling studies of Central Valley agricultural devel- 
opment indicated that increasing costs for ground 
water pumping, due to greater pumping lifts and 
higher energy costs, would not significantly slow the 
growth of irrigated agriculture during the next 30 
years. 

Outside the Central Valley, new or greatly expand- 
ed ground water extractions are occurring in several 
areas of the State, especially Northern California. 
The information available is insufficient to determine 
the potential for long-term sustained pumping from 
most of these basins. In deriving projections of future 
net water use, it was assumed that availability and 
cost of water in these areas would not be limiting 
factors, except m the South Lahontan HSA, where 
high water costs resulted in reduced irrigated area. 

Ground Water Use 

In 1980, ground water provided 39 percent of the 
applied water in California. Between 1980 and 2010, 
the statewide average annual overdraft is projected 
to increase from 1.8 million acre-feet to 2.9 million 
acre-feet, largely as the result of additional irrigated 
agriculture in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake HSAs. 
Ground water overdraft estimates for the San Joa- 
quin and Tulare Lake HSAs show an increase of 
about 300,000 acre-feet and 900,000 acre-feet, respec- 
tively, by 2010. In the SWP service area of the Tulare 
Lake HSA, the overdraft situation will worsen if the 
SWP cannot meet its contractual commitments. This 
could increase ground water overdraft at 2010 by as 
much as 600,000 acre-feet per year. Surplus SWP wa- 
ter and CVP nonfirm supplies have been used in re- 
cent years in place of ground water pumping and for 
direct recharge of ground water basins. 

Dependable ground water supplies and present 
and projected overdraft are discussed in the HSA 
summaries at the end of this chapter. The discussion 
also includes local ground water conditions and po- 
tential quantity and quality problems. 



Reclaimed Waste Water 

.At the 1980 level of development, reclaimed waste 
water provided 0.5 percent of the applied water in 
California. This represents only a small part of the 
total waste water produced. Constraints on the use 
of reclaimed waste water because of health, physi- 
cal, and economic reasons are discussed in Chapter 
III. A higher level of use is expected in the future. 



based on the following assumptions: 

• Reuse of water supplies will become more inten- 
sive because of economic conditions and the con- 
servation ethic. 

• Ground water recharge will become the most sig- 
nificant form of future reuse, and guidelines for 
increasing such use will be adopted by health 
agencies. 

Legal Requirements and Public Acceptance 

Regulations and requirements regarding the qual- 
ity of water from all sources subject to public use are 
set by federal. State, and local authorities. State regu- 
lations and requirements are prescribed in the Water 
Reclamation Law (Division 7, Chapter 7 of the State 
Water Code). Statewide waste water reclamation 
criteria are set by the Department of Health Services 
(DHS) for those uses of reclaimed waste water that 
affect the public health. Theregional water quality 
control boards set requirements regarding the waste 
water reclamation criteria on either the producer or 
the user, or both. 

Results from on-going studies on the effects of 
reclaimed waste water will probably lead to relaxa- 
tion of the criteria for controlling use, thereby allow- 
ing additional municipal and industrial reuse. 

Criteria to protect public health have been estab- 
lished for recreation impoundments and landscape 
irrigation. While DHS has not yet established waste 
water criteria for ground water recharge, it has is- 
sued a position paper pertaining to the development 
of basin plans for the SWRCB. The current rule pro- 
hibits direct injection to ground water and requires 
consideration of surface spreading on a case-by-case 
basis. DHS further recommends against waste water 
reuse in small ground water basins because the quan- 
tity to be reused would be large in relation to the total 
quantity of water in the basin. 

The public is conscious of the need for conserving 
water resources, and many persons feel that use of 
reclaimed waste water is acceptable, provided that 
precautions are taken to protect public health. 
However, the public does not generally support the 
use of reclaimed waste water for direct domestic 
uses. 

Role of the Department of Water Resources 

The Department of Water Resources has for many 
years had statutory responsibility to study and pro- 
mote waste water reclamation. This responsibility 
was reiterated and updated by the 1973-74 Legisla- 
ture in Assembly Bill 3815, referred to as the Waste 
Water Reuse Law of 1974. In addition to re-express- 
ing State policy that "There should be maximum 
reuse of waste water," the bill directs the Depart- 
ment to study the technology for reusing waste wa- 



189 



ter and further the reasonable application of such 
use. 

The Department's waste water reclamation activi- 
ties include: 

• Support of research in waste water reclamation 
technology. 

• Participation in regional waste water reclamation 
planning and development. 

• Determination of the feasibility of local waste wa- 
ter reclamation projects for inclusion in the SWP. 

The Department supports research and demon- 
stration programs to provide information for assess- 
ing health concerns and environmental impacts, 
determining statewide marketability of reclaimed 
water, and developing low-energy waste water recla- 
mation projects, it has also participated in a number 
of regional studies on the use of reclaimed waste 
water. 

Development of regional waste water reclamation 
plans has been completed for the San Francisco Bay 
area and Los Angeles/Orange Counties. The plan- 
ning study in San Diego County is nearing comple- 
tion. 

Possibilities for using treated municipal waste wa- 
ter for irrigated agricultural use in the Castroville 
area are being evaluated by the Monterey Regional 
Water Pollution Control Agency. It is conducting a 
seven-year study, of which five years are being spent 
in field studies that will be completed in 1986. Pro- 
gram costs are estimated to be S7.5 million. The De- 
partment of Water Resources is providing technical 
assistance and is contributing S80.000 annually. 



Projected Use of Reclaimed Waste Water 

Preset: a.scnarge reqjirenents for sewage I'eat- 
ment plants result in the production of effluent that 
either meets or approaches health criteria for land- 
scape irrigation such as parks and golf courses, cer- 
tain industrial uses, and ground water recharge. 
More highly treated waste water is being produced 
than is being put to beneficial use. Projected waste 
water reclamation for the major urban areas is shown 
in Table 56. Table 57 summarizes the projected use of 
reclaimed waste water for each HSA. Use of re- 
claimed waste water for beneficial purposes will 
reduce the need for additional fresh water supplies. 
Almost half the increase in the use of reclaimed 
waste water is projected to occur in the Los Angeles 
HSA. and. by 2010. almost 60 percent of total waste 
water use will take place in the South Coastal region. 

Comparison of Water Supply and 
Projected Use 

For tne purposes ot anaiysis, oepenaaoie supplies 
were balanced against projected use for a normal 

year. This means that, for a normal year, supply and 
net use would be in balance, with no shortages. For 
wetter years, there would be surplus surface water 
supplies; for dry years, deficiencies as a percentage 
of normal-year requirements would be imposed by 
the CVP and SWP. in accordance with their con- 
tracts. Other users relying on surface supplies would 
face varying degrees of shortage in dry years. 
Ground water supplies are based on long-term aver- 
ages. Pumping in dry years will cause the water table 
:o drop, but the level recovers in wet years. 



TABLE 56 

PROJECTED INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN USE OF 

RECLAIMED WASTE WATER BY MAJOR URBAN AREAS ^ 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In acre-feet) 



Region 



JXC 



San Luis Obispo County ' . 

Santa Barbara Coonty' 

Ventura County ' . 



Orange-Los Angetes Counties ' 

San Befnardino-ftrverside Counties *_ 
San D>ego County' 



TOTAL. 



CC 

cc 

LA 

LA.SA.SD 

SA 

SD 



10.000 
15.700 
48.200 
11.000 
20.000 

109.400 



IXC 



3.900 

118.100 



10.000 

134.000 







76.400 





76.400 



24Z700 
11.000 

x.ooo 

319.800 



' Assunes swne reiaxaoon ot Department o( Health Senices' restrictions on recharge 
of groml water basvis. 

' Jenis and Adamson. Consulting Santary and Civ< Engineers. South San Luis Obispo 
CoiMitr Santabon Disthct — Wastetnimer Treatment Plant knprtniements and Effkt- 
ent Disposal ProfecL Pro/ect Heport March 1976. 

Jenis and Harrison. Consiiting Sanitary and Crri Engineers. Wasxemaar Treat- 
ment Disposal and fleelamation FacUbes for itie City of San Lue CMiispa ianaiy 
\9n. 

Jdm Carolo Engineers. Mom Bay—Cayucos WasteMaier Treatment and Disposal 
Factoes. Prtitect Hepon. September 1978. 

'City of Santa Barbara. Sana a9f«o»a/tec4am»oaF'/^D(ect Phase L Landscape Irriga- 
tion. Conceptual Report January 19B2. 

mcitups. Goleta County Water District 20I Faotties Plan for Wasteiiater Recla- 
mation. Protect Report May ISSa 



* C-i^ Hd and County of Ventura. Venti^a Courrr^ -^ ,',as:e^ater Reuse Study. 
FacSties Plan. December ISBi. 

Department of Water Resoirces. Ventura Cotrttymde Water Reuse Study. Memo- 
randixn Report. Joie 19B2. 

■ Orange arvi Los Angeles Counties' Water Reuse Study. SiMnmary racSHes /%a Apri 

1982. 

■ Oeoartment of Water Resoixces. Southern Dslnct Tast Mx £ Etakjam Ax tu m iaf 

kVastewarar Redamation Protects i Souttiem CaSfomia. June 1978. 
' San D«go City/County Water Reuse Study Group. San Diego CityA^oumy Water 
Reuse Study— Work Plan. iiMV 1978. 

Depertment of Water Resources. Southern District Status fieport on San Diego 
City/County Water Reuse Study. Memorandum Report. Ji^ie 196Z 



190 



TABLE 57 

PRESENT AND PROJECTED USE OF RECLAIMED WASTE WATER 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



HSA 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


Increase 
1980-2010 


NC 


9 
10 
9 

59 

29 

9 

17 

21 

67 

5 

9 

3 

247 


10 

I 

101 
47 
43 
22 
25 
78 
6 
13 

401 


10 
13 
27 
196 
73 
55 
23 
29 
86 
7 
15 

567 


10 
15 
27 

267 
78 
55 
25 
33 
99 
8 
15 

J5' 

677 


1 


SF 


5 


CC 


18 


LA 


208 


SA 


49 


SD 


46 


SB 


8 


SJ' 


12 


TL' 


32 


NL 


3 


SL 


6 


CR 


42 


TOTAL 


430 







Does not include planned reclamation of agricultural drainage water. 

Includes reclaimed agricultural return flows (normally lost to the Salton Sea) for power plant cooling 



Dependable supply is defined as the maximum an- 
nual quantity of water that normally can be made 
available each year under an assumed reoccurrence 
of historic hydrologic conditions and a specified 
delivery schedule that may include specified defi- 
ciencies during critical dry periods. For large systems 
such as the SWP and the CVP, the critical period is 
all or part of the sequence of years from 1928 through 
1934. For projects with less carryover storage, the 



critical period may be only two years or less. For 
smaller local water storage projects and direct diver- 
sion from rivers, average water supplies were as- 
sumed as the dependable supply. Where conjunctive 
use of surface and ground water supplies is prac- 
ticed, as in many areas of the Tulare Lake HSA and 
the South Coastal region HSAs, the ground water 
storage regulates the average surface supply essen- 
tially into a dependable supply. 




V/ater Factory 21 in Orange County. Operation of this plant, 
together with the primary and secondary treatment of munici- 
pal waste water at the plant appearing at top, involve most 
of the treatment processes in use today. Treated water pro- 
duced by advanced treatment and desalted water are blend- 
ed with water from deep wells and then injected underground 
to form a barrier to sea water intruding into the ground water 
in the region. 



191 



Figure 54. WATER YEAR NATURAL BASIN RUNOFF 
October 1, 1 976-September 30, 1977 



-KLAMATH RIVER 23' 



SALMON RIVER 21 = = 



Cigi'nj 



% WATER YEAR RUNOFF IN PERCENT 

OF NORMAL 

e ESTIMATED 
WATERSHED BOUNDARY 

^^^ -■; = 3L0GIC BASIN BOUNDARY 



RUSSIAN RIVER 6% 
PUTAH CREEK 5°. 

NAPA RIVER 2", 
COSUMNES RIVER 7% 



MOKEIUMNE RIVER 19^ 




COYOTE CREEK 0= 
ORESTIMBA CREEK S°Jt, 

ARROYO SECO 5% 

NACIMIENTO RIVER 5% 

LOS GATOS CREEK 5°=<el 

SANTA YNEZ RIVER 15=ce, 



TOTAL INFLOW 
I TO SHASTA 48°o 



SUSAN RIVER 30°o/e 

FEATHER RIVER 2i\ 
YUBA RIVER 15% 
•,^TRUCKEE RIVER 22% 



AMERICAN RIVER 14% 

WEST FORK CARSON RIVER 27% 
EAST FORK CARSON RIVER 25% 
-^WEST WALKER RIVER 27% 

EAST WALKER RIVER 25% 
STANISLAUS RIVER 15% 
TUOLUMNE RIVER 19°'o 
MERCED RIVER 16% 
OWENS RIVER 56% 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 22°. 
KINGS RIVER 25°, 
^ KAWEAH RIVER 24% 

TULE RIVER 12°/o 
X ^ KERN RIVER 30% 



MOJAVE RIVER 35°.(el 



^ 




SAN LUIS REY RIVER 70°o(el 



192 



Figure 55. CUMULATIVE UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF FOR TWO YEAR 
DROUGHTS FOR SELECTED CENTRAL VALLEY SUPPLY SOURCES 

(WATER YEARS IN PERCENT OF NORMAL) 



RIVER AND AGENCY 
SERVED 

TUOLUMNE 

San Francisco Wate 
Department 



MOKELUMNE 

East Bay Municipal 

Utility District 

AMERICAN 

Bureau of Reclamatii 

Central Valley Project 

FEATHER 

Dept. of Water Resource^ 

State Water Project^^ — - 

SACRAMENTO«> SHASTA 

Bureau of Reclamation ■ 
Central Valley Project 



1930 



19 7(1 



1977 



1931 



1930 



19 7 6 



1977 



1931 



1930 



1 c> 7 R 



1977 



1931 



w//M}?si'mm . 



1976 



1934 



1977 



///////////////////l 



1 976 



1977 



Percent 



■1 



Effects of 1976-1977 Drought Period on 
Estimates of Dependable Supply 

The recent drought years, 1976 and 1977, were the 
two driest consecutive years in recorded history for 
most of the northern and central regions of Califor- 
nia. Runoff from Sierra Nevada river basins was far 
less than the previous driest two-year periods, 1930- 
1931 or 1933-1934. Runoff from the northern Cascade 
Range was essentially equal to that of the previous 
driest period, 1923-1924. Figure 54 shows computed 
and estimated natural runoff of river basins in per- 
cent of normal for the 1977 water year. 

Figure 55 compares these dry periods for streams 
that are the primary sources of supply for the San 
Francisco Bay area, the CVP, and the SWP. It shows 
that the principal water supply sources for the San 
Francisco Bay area were more severely affected by 
the 197&-1977 drought than by the previously worst 
two-year period, 1930-1931. The figure also reveals 



that the drought of 1976-1977 was less severe to the 
north, with the impact on inflow to Shasta Lake 
about half as severe as the impact on American River 
inflow to Folsom Lake. 

For the Bay area supply sources, the new dependa- 
ble supply IS less than The estimate of dependable 
supply based on the 1928-1934 critical period. For the 
East Bay Municipal Utility District, dependable sup- 
ply was reduced the greatest amount — 30 percent. 
While this reduction appears severe, there is a com- 
pensating factor made apparent by the recent 
drought. A policy of imposing additional conserva- 
tion measures in dry years could partially offset the 
effect of the new critical operating period on system 
dependable supply. Previously, in determining de- 
pendable surface water supply, the usual practice 
was to assume no supply deficiencies for urban uses, 
and variable deficiencies for agricultural uses. During 
the drought, urban areas showed that average water 



193 



use could be reduced by up to 25 percent from pre- 
drought levels without serious problems in most 
cases. This would indicate that planning for some 
urban shortages during severe droughts could be an 
acceptable management practice. However, similar 
reductions m use in the future cannot be as easily 
achieved because of the extent to which urban water 
conservation is now being practiced. 

Dry-Year Realities. A comparison of dependa- 
ble water supplies with average water use is accepta- 
ble for long-range planning where a high degree of 
accuracy in determining shortages is not essential. 
However, it should not be presumed that, during a 
severe drought, water needs can be met within the 
specified level of deficiencies assumed for project 
yield analysis. This shortcoming became apparent 
during the drought, especially for those projects with 
little or no dependable supplies in excess of current 
needs. Basically, two related things happened. First. 
water requirements increased over average-year re- 



quirements because soil moisture available to crops 
from winter rainfall was below normal. Second, 
streamflow m some cases was less than expected 
because of increased percolation to ground water 
from stream channels. For example, the Sacramento 
River, a major conveyor for the CVP and the SWP, 
lost water in its lower reaches to ground water re- 
charge because of increased ground water pumping 
near the river. This caused the water table near the 
river to fall below the river level and water to perco- 
late from the river into the adjacent ground water 
aquifer. 

During a drought period, crop and lawn irrigation 
may begin earlier and, for perennial vegetation, con- 
tinue later in the year. When project operation stud- 
ies were conducted, water supply deficiencies for a 
dry year were based on water uses in an average 
year. However, actual shortages for a particular year 
may be much greater than the amount so computed. 




Cosumnes River near Sloughhouse, as it oppeared in Novem- 
ber 1977. Lowered ground water tables during the drought 
caused more water to percolate from stream channels, reduc- 
ing or, OS here, entirely depleting streams that flowed across 
alluvial areas. 



194 



Statewide Summary of 1980 and 

Projected Net Water Use 

and Water Supplies 

This section, along with the following section, 
which summarizes net water use and supply by Hy- 
drologic Study Areas, brings together the present 
and projected net water use and the water supplies 
that will be needed by decades to 2010, The data 
summarized in Tables 58 and 59 show that an imbal- 
ance between use and supply in some major water- 
using areas will increase steadily to 2010. This imbal- 
ance, which includes shortages in the SWP, is ex- 
pected to increase ground water overdraft 
substantially. 

Dependable supplies for both the CVP and the 
SWP are less than the average supply available in 
about four out of five years. Although annual ground 
water overdraft is projected to increase about 1.1 
million acre-feet between 1980 and 2010, it is expect- 
ed that, in above-normal water years, excess surface 
water will be available for use in lieu of pumping 
ground water or for direct recharge, provided there 



is an adequate conveyance system. Consequently, 
the projected overdraft amounts may be overstated 
for some HSAs. An example of the use of excess 
surface water supplies to reduce ground water over- 
draft exists in the Tulare Lake HSA. The overdraft 
shown in 1980 is less than in earlier years because of 
the use of surplus surface SWP supplies. However, 
the SWP will likely be in a shortage situation, at least 
in the near future, and available supplies will be need- 
ed to meet projected requirements. Therefore, no 
reduction in overdraft was projected because sur- 
plus water will likely be available only in the very 
wettest years. 

In some HSAs overdraft is projected to continue 
but, at the same time, substantial reserve surface 
supplies are indicated. Reserve supplies are devel- 
oped but these supplies are not available to other 
parts of an HSA because distribution facilities or in- 
stitutional arrangements are lacking. 

Further details pertaining to net water use and 
related water supplies are presented for each HSA in 
the following section of the report. 



TABLE 58 

PROJECTED STATEWIDE USE OF WATER SUPPLIES 

BY DECADES TO 2010 

(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 





1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


Change 
1980- 
2010 


NET WATER USE 


27,045 

4,978 

646 

59 

1,093 

33,821 


27.865 

5.670 

700 

120 

930 

35.285 


28,215 

6,205 

710 

160 

865 

36,155 


6.840 
720 
175 
870 

37.330 


1.680 


Urban 


1.862 




74 




116 




-223 


TOTAL 


3.509 






DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 


9,274 
1,808 
5,839 
7,077 
5,115 
247 
2,656 ' 

32,016 


9,350 
1,455 
6,010 
7,690 
5,110 
400 
2.310 

32,325 


9,350 
1,440 
5,980 
7,950 
5,180 
560 
2,320 

32,780 


9.390 
1.455 
5.990 
8.110 
5.200 
675 
2,315 
33.135 


116 




-353 


Ground Water 


151 


Central Valley Project 


1.033 


Other Federal Water Development 


85 


Waste Water Reclamation . 


428 


State Water Project 


-341 


TOTAL 


1.119 






GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


1,790 

15 

1.413 


1,950 

1,010 

820 


2,245 

1.130 

860 


2.875 

1.320 

955 


1.085 


SHORTAGE 


1.305 


RESERVE SUPPLY 


-458 







' Includes SWP surplus water deliveries. 



195 



TABLE 59 

SUMMARY OF PRESENT AND PROJECTED NET WATER USE AND WATER SUPPLY 

BY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 
BY DECADES TO 2010 
(In 1,000s of acre-feet) 



Year 


NC 


SF 


CC 


LA 


SA 


SD 


SB 


SJ 


TL 


NL 


SL 


CR 


TOTAL 


1980.. 


NET WATER USE 


1.081 
1.180 
1.200 
1.230 

1.080 
1.180 
1.200 
1.230 






1 





9 

85 
75 
60 


1.204 
1.276 
1.325 
1.395 

1.197' 
1.225 
1,260 
1.330 

7 

20 





30 
65 
65 

138 
110 
190 
220 


1.099 
1.175 
1.195 
1.200 

870 

985 

1.005 

1.015 

224 
180 
180 
175 

5 

10 
10 
10 

17 






1.906 
1.995 
2.015 
2.095 

1,824 
1,870 
1,956 
2.030 

82 





125 
60 
66 

164 





962 
1.050 
1.100 
1.180 

962 
1.050 
1.085 
1.095 

10 






15 
86 

203 





634 
716 
805 
890 

634 
625 
625 
630 








90 

180 

260 

46 





7.464 
7.936 
7.986 
8,185 

7.371 
7,835 
7.885 
8.015 

85 
70 
60 
120 

8 

30 
40 
50 

535 
275 
340 
370 


6.341 
6,580 
6.750 
7.020 

5.949 
6.130 
6.240 
6.280 

391 
430 
470 
680 

1 
20 
40 
60 

191 
320 
220 
230 


8188 
8,425 
8,700 
9.030 

7,332 ' 
6,580 
6,590 
6,600 

856 
1,190 
1,450 
1.770 


665 
660 
660 

56 
10 




421 
460 
455 
470 

416 
440 
450 
460 

5 
10 
5 

10 






17 
20 
20 
20 


419 
415 
426 
410 

316 
365 
355 
310 

103 
40 
50 
70 



20 
20 
30 

33 

16 
66 


4.102 
4,090 
4.200 
4.226 

4.075 
4.050 
4.130 
4.140 

27 
10 
30 
60 



30 
40 
35 

4 





33 821 


1990 


35 286 


2000 


36156 


2010 


37 330 


1980. 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 


32.016 ' 


1990 


32 310 


2000 


32 695 


2010 


33 050 


1980. 


GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


1 790 


1990 ... 


1 960 


2000 


2 245 


2010 


2 875 


1980. 


SHORTAGE 


15 


1990 


1025 


2000 


1 216 


2010 


1,406 


1980. 


RESERVE SUPPLY 


1.413 


1990 . 


820 


2000 


860 


2010 


955 







' Includes SWP surplus water deliveries. 



196 



HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA SUMMARIES OF NET WATER USE 

AND WATER SUPPLY 



This section compares present and projected net 
water use with dependable water supply for each of 
the 12 Hydrologic Study Areas (HSAs). Deficiencies 
in supply appear in the tables as ground water over- 
draft or shortage. The section also highlights related 
water nnanagement issues within the HSAs. Net wa- 
ter use values in the tables include the effect of an- 
ticipated water conservation measures. 

Following are explanations of terms that identify 
the types of water use and the sources of supply 
presented in the HSA summary tables. 

• Irrigation, Urban, and Wildlife and Recreation 
Net Water Use. Derived as described m Chap- 
ter IV. 

• Energy Production. Includes both power plant 
cooling and enhanced oil recovery as described in 
Chapter IV. 

• Conveyance Losses. Water irrecoverably lost 
while supplies are being conveyed from the source 
to the area of use. 

• Total Net Water Use. The sum of evapotranspi- 
ration of applied water (ETAW), irrecoverable dis- 
tribution system losses, and outflow from each 
Planning Subarea (PSA). 

• Local Surface Water Development. Includes 
local project supplies and direct diversion of sur- 
face water other than federal and State Water 
Project diversions. 

• Imports by Local Water Agencies. Interbasm 
diversions (from one HSA into another) by a local 
agency. 



• Ground Water. Annual average recharge from 
natural sources, plus recharge from local reser- 
voirs operated to augment natural stream percola- 
tion, or to supply recharge basins. It does not in- 
clude percolation of imported supplies. 

• Central Valley Project. Existing facilities, plus 
the San Felipe Division. 

• Other Federal Water Development. Corps of 
Engineers' projects and USBR projects other than 
the CVP. 

• Waste Water Reclamation. Reclaimed waste 
water used to meet needs that would otherwise be 
met by fresh water. 

• State Water Project. Existing facilities, plus 
specific additions shown m Figure 48. 

• Ground Water Overdraft. Long-term excess of 
withdrawals over replenishment. 

• Shortage. The difference between dependable 
supply and projected requirements. 

• Reserve Supply. Dependable surface water 
supply that is available but not needed at a particu- 
lar time and that cannot be distributed to other 
areas of need because of a lack of conveyance 
facilities and/or institutional arrangements. 

The bar charts compare the sum of net water use 
(by type) with the related water supply (by source) . 
The shaded extension of the net use bar represents 
the reduction in need for water supply resulting from 
projected urban and agricultural water conservation. 



197 



Iron Gate R»s., 



.J~ 



C - CroseW 

Hctty 



u 

..L 



lA^^J 



?ott 



Copco 
Lakm 




L»k» Sliattint 




"^"-^T 



\ 







Clair t 

&ngte 
Lake 






1 ^r^ji^cy- 



Weaverville .^-^t_ Lewlston «os. 




Clear Creek 
Tuanel 



Lake Plllsbury 



Lower 

Klamath 

Lake 



Tule 
Lake 



Clear 
Lake 




Legend 

•f 

c:;_^;z?' existing projects 



SANTA ROSA-SONOUA 
AQUEDUCT 



PETALUUA 
AQUEDUCT 



Figure 56. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - 
NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 




Figure 57. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 





i_ 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 



Millions of Acre-Feat 

1 1.5 



1980 




NET USE 



SUPPLY 



2010 



1.5 




Reduction in need for water supply due to conservation 





Thousands 


of acre- 


-feet 


















CHANGE 




NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


1 


IRRIGATION 


714 


780 


790 


810 


100 


H URBAN 


151 


170 


180 


190 


40 


B WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


216 


230 


230 


230 


10 


H ENERGY PRODUCTION 

















m CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


— 


— 








TOTAL 


1081 


1180 


1200 


1230 


150 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


368 


370 


375 


375 


10 




IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


2 


2 


2 


2 







GROUND WATER 


243 


310 


320 


330 


90 




CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 


















OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


458 


485 


490 


510 


50 




WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


9 


10 


10 


10 






STATE WATER PROJECT 


— 


— J 


— 


— 


— 




TOTAL 


1080 


1 180 


1200 


1230 


150 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 















SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 
















SHORTAGE ^ 


1 


___ 


___ 


____ 


— . 


RESERVE SUPPLY^ 


9 


85 


75 


60 


-^ 



Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded. 



J/ LOCAL URBAN 

2/ KLAMATH PROJECT AND LOCAL, 1980: WARM SPRINGS PROJECT, FUTURE 

199 




NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use in the North Coast HSA 
is projected to increase by about 150,000 acre-feet by 
2010. This increase will be supported primarily by 
90.000 acre-feet of ground water. Lake Sonoma, a 
federal facility in Sonoma County, and other federal 
projects in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties will supply 
another 50,000 acre-feet. The remainder will come 
from local surface supplies. The reserve supply 
shown for this HSA is primarily from Warm Springs 
Dam and Reservoir (Lake Sonoma). Yield from the 
reservoir will probably not be fully used until after 
2010. 

As discussed in Chapter III, the nature of irrigated 
agriculture in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties has 
changed considerably in the last ten years due to the 
increased development of ground water. This has 
brought modern irrigation systems into an area that 
before had typically been irrigated by the wild flood 
technique, which relies on streamflow when it is 
available. Now, with water available for the full grow- 
ing season, crop production has increased. If ground 
water pumping costs do not become prohibitive, 
more of the same kind of development can be ex- 
pected. 

Some of the prospects for, and impacts of. in- 
creased ground water use and other water-related 
topics in specific locations within the North Coast 
HSA are discussed in the following sections. 

Butte Valley 
Ground water pumping is still increasing in Butte 



and Red Rock Valleys, almost entirely for the produc- 
tion of alfalfa. A new alfalfa pelletizing mill has been 
constructed and is operating in Red Rock Valley. Fu- 
ture alfalfa production will be a function of prices 
and energy costs. Historically, alfalfa raised in this 
region has brought higher-than-average prices be- 
cause of its high protein content. The costs of energy 
used for pumping ground water could become a con- 
straint in the future. 



Shasta Valley 

["creasec ground water pumping in the Big 
Springs and Little Shasta River area is probably start- 
ing to impair flows in the Shasta River. Big Springs 
artesian flow has been diminishing over the past few 
years. Water use on the many new residential farms 
(2- to 20-acre "ranchettes") in the juniper lands east 
of Big Springs also may be impairing Shasta River 
flows. 

Scott Valley 

Over the past 10 years or so, irrigation develof>- 
ment, together with increases in ground water pump- 
ing, has so increased that no flow can be observed 
in the Scott River in the northern portion of the valley 
in late summer. Available valley lands and the water 
supply to irrigate them are essentially in equilibrium 
today. This leaves little water for salmon and steel- 
head production, which is the major problem facing 
this area. Methods of augmenting flows for instream 



200 



uses, such as improving irrigation efficiency, devel- 
oping additional storage, or relocating points of sur- 
face water diversion to improve flows in critical 
stretches of the river are being studied. 

Trinity River 

Major water problems on the main stem of the 
Trinity River are related to inadequate fish flows be- 
low Trinity Lake. Decline in salmon and steelhead 
runs are blamed on large-scale transbasin diversions 
of Trinity River water to the Sacramento Valley to 
meet CVP demands, along with increased siltation 
caused by poor logging and road building practices. 
Flow reregulation and watershed and spawning grav- 
el improvement are the major local issues currently 
under negotiation in the region. Construction of a 
debris dam on Grass Valley Creek should greatly im- 
prove the situation, especially if it is augmented by 
some sand dredging in the Trinity River. 

Humboldt Bay Region 

Water supply and use in this region are essentially 
in balance. The major water purveyor. Humboldt Bay 
Municipal Water District, has nearly reached the limit 
of its ability to meet increasing future needs with its 
water supply from the lower Mad River. Upstream 
storage options are limited and costly. Existing sup- 
plies may be stretched through institutional arrange- 
ments with the pulp paper industries so that they can 
reduce water use by using more chemical reagents 
in the pulp bleaching process. Conjunctive use of 
surface and ground water in the Mad River Basin 
may provide some assistance. 

Mendocino Coast 

Very little irrigated agriculture remains on the 
Mendocino Coast. Water use is restricted mainly to 
residential use and a few industrial uses, such as the 
sawmill at Ft. Bragg. The major water problems exist 
where residential users and small communities such 
as Mendocino and Albion extract ground water from 
the coastal terraces. Aquifers on the shallow terraces 
produce limited amounts of water, some of it of poor 
quality because of high sulfide and iron levels. Few 
deep alluvial ground water bodies are present in this 
area. 

Russian River 

With the availability of water from Warm Springs 
Dam and Reservoir (Lake Sonoma) in 1984, the major 
water supply problems m the lower Russian River 
area will be solved. That supply should meet the 
needs in the lower Russian River beyond 2010. The 
remaining major water problem concerns the stretch 
of the Russian River above Dry Creek. 

Lake Mendocino supplies water to agricultural and 
urban users m Mendocino, Sonoma, and Mann Coun- 



ties, and for instream requirements in the Russian 
River. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) 
has filed an application with the Federal Energy Reg- 
ulatory Commission (FERC) for relicensmg of the 
Potter Valley Project, owned and operated by 
PGandE. The project diverts water from the Eel River 
through a tunnel and the Potter Valley Power Plant 
into the East Fork Russian River. The water then 
flows into Lake Mendocino. Humboldt County, the 
Department of Fish and Game, and the Department 
of Water Resources requested FERC to require 
greater flows in the Eel River to improve the fisheries 
in the basin. This would reduce the flows diverted 
into the Russian River. (Recommended operation 
schedules are described m Eel-Russian River Stream- 
flow Augmentation. Bulletin 105-5, published by the 
Department of Water Resources in 1976.) At a settle- 
ment conference led by FERC in May 1979, all parties 
accepted an interim schedule of minimum flows to 
be released down the Eel River below Cape Horn 
Dam for a three-year study period. The proposed 
flows were lower than those proposed by the Depart- 
ment in Bulletin 105-5 but higher than previous 
PGandE releases. During the three-year period, be- 
ginning on November 1. 1979. the parties analyzed 
the effects of the increased flows on the Eel River 
fishery and the effects of reduced flows on the Rus- 
sian River water supply. A final report on the Eel 
River fishery studies was published in December 
1982. 

After extensive negotiations, the parties agreed to 
a permanent flow schedule and, in November 1982, 
filed a proposed settlement agreement with the Ad- 
ministrative Law Judge for the FERC. The judge cer- 
tified the settlement agreement in May 1983 and 
submitted it to FERC staff for final review before 
issuance of the license. 

Additional issues of concern: 

• Lake Mendocino's recreation use has become an 
important factor in Mendocino County's economy. 
The reservoir level in Lake Mendocino is drawn 
down as a result of diversions and instream re- 
quirements in the Russian River. Urban and agricul- 
tural water diverters. recreational users, and the 
fishery are all competing for a limited supply of 
water in dry years. The problem may be intensified, 
if less water is diverted from the Eel River to the 
Russian River. 

• The Santa Rosa Plain remains the principal area of 
ground water use in the Russian River basin. This 
basin is generally in hydrologic balance, although 
the distribution of ground water pumpage 
throughout the basin is not uniform, indicating a 
need for further ground and surface water man- 
agement planning, particularly in light of anticipat- 
ed municipal and industrial use and availability of 
supplies from Lake Sonoma. 



201 



Legend 



d> 



EXISTING PROJECTS 



POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 



SANTA ROSA-SONOMA 
AQUEDUCT 

PETAL UMA 
AQUEDUCT 



PUT AH SOUTH 
CANAL 

NOR TH BA y 
AQUEDUCT 



MOKELUUNE 
AQUEDUCT 



CONTRA COSTA 
CANAL 





SOUTH BAY 
AQUEDUCT 



Lake Del Valle 



Coyote Lake 



20 



30 



MILtS 



Figure 58. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS- 
SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



202 



Figure 59. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



Millions of Acrm-Fmmt 

1.5 

I I 



1.5 



1980 



2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 




NET USE 



SUPPLY 




Shortage 
Reduction in need for water supply due to conservation 





Thousand; 


3 of acre- 


-feet 


















CHANGE 




NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


1 


IRRIGATION 


121 


110 


100 


90 


-30 


1 


URBAN 


967 


1050 


1090 


1 170 


200 




WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


96 


100 


100 


100 


— 




ENERGY PRODUCTION 


6 


2 


15 


15 


10 




CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


14 


15 


20 


20 


10 


TOTAL 


1204 


1275 


1325 


1395 


190 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


228 


228 


228 


228 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


454 


460 


445 


455 


— 




GROUND WATER 


21 1 


220 


220 


220 


10 




CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 


81 


120 


160 


210 


130 




OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


56 


60 


60 


60 


— 




WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


10 


10 


10 


15 


10 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


150 


125 


140 


140 


-10 


TOTAL 


1 190 


1225 


1260 


1330 


140 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


7 


20 






-10 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 


7 









-10 




SHORTAGE U 


_ 


30 


65 


65 


70 


RESERVE SUPPLY i/ 


138 


1 10 


190 


220 





Totals for 1990. 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded. 



ly SWP SOUTH BAY AQUEDUCT SERVICE AREA 

JJ IMPORTS BY LOCALS AND CVP; WARM SPRINGS PROJECT 

203 




204 



SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use in the San Francisco 
Bay HSA is projected to increase by about 190,000 
acre-feet by 2010, reflecting continued urban growth. 
By 2010, urban uses will account for about 85 percent 
of total net water use. Although agricultural net wa- 
ter use is expected to decline somewhat because of 
urban encroachment on irrigated land (mostly in the 
South Bay area), it will still be significant — about 
90,000 acre-feet annually. 

The increase in use by 2010 will be partially sup- 
ported by an additional import of 130,000 acre-feet 
from the CVP (the San Felipe Division). Essentially 
no change is projected in total annual net use of 
ground water. SWP water delivered through the 
North Bay and South Bay Aqueducts is expected to 
total 140,000 acre-feet in 2010. In the absence of ade- 
quate future water supply facilities to augment the 
existing yield of the SWP, shortages in the amount of 
65,000 acre-feet will most likely occur. Water trans- 
fers and exchanges could offset the effects of these 
shortages. 

North Bay 

When Phase II of the North Bay Aqueduct is com- 
pleted in the mid-1980s, the total water supply of the 
North Bay area will be more than adequate to meet 
projected needs beyond 2010. However, a problem 
of water supply distribution will exist in Napa 
County. Conveyance facilities will be too costly to 
permit communities in the northern part of the 
county to obtain water from the North Bay Aque- 
duct, which terminates in the southern part of the 
county. As an alternative, a local plan is being de- 
vised that will allow SWP entitlements and northern 
Napa County surface water to be exchanged 
between the cities of Calistoga and Napa. 

Other water management problems include; 

• Lack of a more complete evaluation of the ground 
water resources m the Napa Valley. 

• Need to determine the water quality and quantities 
for achieving a desirable ecological balance in the 
Suisun Marsh and means of implementing the bal- 
ance. 

South Bay 

The Department of Water Resources has been 
conducting planning studies to determine when sup- 
plemental water is needed m this area and to evalu- 



ate the potential for increasing the effectiveness of 
existing and future supplies through pooling or ex- 
changes by interconnection of delivery systems and 
adjustments of service areas. 

Although the South Bay may have sufficient water 
supplies on a regional basis beyond 2010, certain 
areas have been identified that will have supplemen- 
tal water needs in excess of current reserve supplies. 
However, if local water agencies cooperate in im- 
provement of the overall delivery systems, these sup- 
plemental needs can be met, and new water supply 
projects will not be required until after 2010. 

Water management problems and issues in the 
area include: 

• Alameda County Water District will have supple- 
mental water needs m excess of current reserve 
supplies, beginning about 2000. Alternatives avail- 
able include an increase in deliveries from the San 
Francisco Water Department (SFWD), surplus lo- 
cal water supplies from the Alameda County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, 
or SWP entitlement exchanges between Zone 7 
and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 

• Deliveries under East Bay Municipal Utility Dis- 
trict's (EBMUD) contract with the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation (USBR) for deliveries from the Fol- 
som South Canal have been included as a part of 
EBMUD's future available water supplies. Not all 
of this supply is projected to be required by 
EBMUD before 2010. 

• With completion of the San F >lipe Division of the 
CVP (scheduled for 1987) .vdter management 
problems — especially ground water overdraft and 
land subsidence in Santa Clara County — will be 
alleviated. 

• SFWD has proposed construction of a fourth bar- 
rel of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct to transport the 
full yield of San Francisco's Sierra Nevada reser- 
voirs to the Bay area. SFWD's projections indicate 
that supplemental water needs will equal current 
reserve supplies shortly before 2000. Their projec- 
tions also indicate that, shortly before 1990, the 
existing system for importing the water from the 
Sierra Nevada reservoirs will be inadequate to 
meet peak daily demands. Projections by the De- 
partment of Water Resources, however, do not 
indicate that SFWD will need additional delivery 
capacity until beyond 2010. 



205 




I 



y- 



Legend 

c;jr> EXISTING PROJECTS 



POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 



10 20 30 



SOUTH COAST CONDUIT- 



Santa Barbara 



Figure 60. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS- 
CENTRAL COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



206 



Figure 61. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
CENTRAL COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



Millions of Acre-Feot 



1.5 



1^ 

_J 



1980 



2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 




NET USE 



SUPPLY 




Overdraft and shortage 
Reduction in need for water supply due to conservation 






(Thousands of acre- 


-feet) 


















CHANGE 




NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


H 


IRRIGATION 


902 


940 


940 


930 


30 




URBAN 


188 


210 


230 


250 


60 




WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


2 


5 


5 


5 


. 




ENERGY PRODUCTION 


7 


15 


15 


10 


__ 


jj 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 





5 


5 


5 


10 


TOTAL 


1099 


1 175 


1 195 


1200 


100 




DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


39 


54 


54 


54 


10 




IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 




. 






,,^_ 




GROUND WATER 


768 


768 


768 


768 







CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 




40 


60 


70 


70 




OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


54 


54 


54 


54 







WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


9 


30 


30 


30 


20 




STATE WATER PROJECT 





40 


40 


40 


40 




TOTAL 


870 


985 


1005 


1015 


140 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


224 


180 


180 


175 


-50 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 













H SHORTAGE 


5 


10 


10 


10 


10 


RESERVE SUPPLY i/ 


17 














Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded. 



1/ 
1/ 



LOCAL URBAN SUPPLIES. 1980: SWP. FUTURE 



NACIMIENTO RESERVOIR AND SWP 



207 




208 



CENTRAL COAST HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use in the Central Coast 
HSA :s projected to increase by about 100,000 acre- 
feet by 2010. The Monterey Bay area will use 70,000 
acre-feet, of which 40,000 acre-feet will represent ur- 
ban net water use. Nearly all the 20,000-acre-foot in- 
crease in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara 
Counties will support urban use. 

The entire increase in net water use in the Monte- 
rey Bay area will be satisfied by imports from the 
federal San Felipe Division of the CVP. The increase 
in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties was 
assumed to be met by construction of the distribu- 
tion facilities from Nacimiento Reservoir and the 
State Water Project's Coastal Branch Aqueduct or 
local alternatives. 

The Monterey County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District completed construction of 
Nacimiento Dam and Reservoir in 1958. The reservoir 
has a capacity of 350,000 acre-feet and a yield of 
85,000 acre-feet per year, much of which is released 
to the Salinas River for ground water recharge. In 
1959, an agreement between the counties of Monte- 
rey and San Luis Obispo gave San Luis Obispo 
County an annual entitlement to 17,500 acre-feet. The 
county is presently diverting about 2,400 acre-feet for 
use near the reservoir, but it has not yet built a distri- 
bution system to deliver water to other areas. San 
Luis Obispo County officials scheduled an election 
on a bond issue to finance construction of such a 
system for November 1980, but the board of supervi- 
sors decided to postpone the election. 

Santa Barbara County has asked the Department 
of Water Resources to determine whether Gibraltar 
Reservoir and Cachuma Reservoir enlargement, 
Camuesa Canyon Dam construction, and Santa Bar- 
bara Wastewater Reclamation are eligible for fund- 
ing as part of the State Water Project. Santa Barbara 
County has reduced its entitlement from the SWP 
and is pursuing local projects as an alternative to the 
Coastal Aqueduct. It will be able to meet its water 
requirements through a combination of local 
projects, and remaining supply from the Coastal 
Aqueduct. 

Following are highlights of the major water man- 
agement issues and examples of some with more 
limited impact in the HSA. 

Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz 
Counties 

Precipitation is highly variable, and most ground 
water basins are relatively small in the northern part 



of the Central Coast HSA. This causes large variation 
m water supplies from year to year, with resultant 
large changes in ground water levels. Severe short- 
term water shortages can occur during years of 
drought. In addition, some ground water basins are 
already in an overdraft condition. 

To support the growing water needs and alleviate 
the overdraft in these counties, the water supply to 
certain parts of the area must be increased. This may 
be accomplished by developing local supplies or by 
importing water. 

Specific areas where problems exist and some of 
the possible solutions are discussed in the following 
sections. 

Salinas Valley. The present hydrologic balance 
indicates a total overdraft of about 60,000 acre-feet 
per year in the Salinas Valley, a substantial increase 
over the 16,000 acre-feet of annual overdraft that oc- 
curred during the 1969-1975 period. On the valley's 
east side, where there is little natural ground water 
recharge, pumping lowers the ground water levels 
and causes large subsurface flows from the western 
side. This, together with excessive pumping in the 
western region, has lowered the ground water table 
below sea level near the coast, and sea water is in- 
truding into the ground water basin. 

A project formulated to alleviate these problems 
was endorsed by Monterey County in September 
1982. Project features include: (1) a dam on Arroyo 
Seco River at the Pools Reservoir site with a capacity 
of 100,000 acre-feet; (2) a 4.7-megawatt power plant 
at the dam; (3) an Arroyo Seco-Salinas Conveyance 
Canal for delivery of the water to the Salinas River; 
(4) a Castroville Pipeline; and (5) an East Side Pipe- 
line. Project features are shown on Figure 60. The 
reservoir would have an annual yield of 43,000 acre- 
feet and provide flood control and recreation bene- 
fits. Energy production is estimated at 19 million kilo- 
watthours annually. Project costs are estimated to be 
approximately $80 million at December 1981 prices. 

Water deliveries to the East Side service area 
would alleviate ground water overdraft. Deliveries to 
the Castroville service area would reduce ground wa- 
ter extractions and sea-water intrusion. 

Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Valley. The 

municipal and industrial demands of the Monterey 
Peninsula, which far exceed the local ground water 
supply, are met by imported surface and ground wa- 
ter from Carmel Valley. The present hydrologic bal- 
ance indicates a small overdraft of about 2,000 



I 



209 



acre-feet per year in the Monterey Peninsula and 
2,000 acre-feet per year in the Carnnel Valley. Sea- 
water intrusion has also been identified in the vicinity 
of Marina. 

The potential exists for further development of the 
Carnnel River, where an average of 70,000 acre-feet 
per year flows to the ocean. Presently, water is 
stored in two small reservoirs; however, there are no 
major reserve supplies to be drawn on in the event 
of a drought. During the drought of 1976 and 1977, 
severe shortages occurred, and water rationing was 
instituted on the Monterey Peninsula. In the future, 
as population grows and water needs increase, the 
development of an additional supply from waste wa- 
ter reclamation or surface storage will assume even 
greater importance, even with strong water conser- 
vation programs. 

To meet these needs, the Monterey Peninsula Wa- 
ter Management District is currently proposing the 
enlargement of San Clemente Reservoir to increase 
its active storage capacity to 27,000 acre-feet. If voter 
approval is obtained, construction could begin by 
1986. 

The District has also approved a ground water re- 
charge project in Seaside, east of Monterey, that 
would convey excess flows from the Carmel River in 
wet years to local recharge basins. 

Elkhorn Slough and Pajaro Valley. Overdrafts 
of about 4,000 acre-feet per year in the Elkhorn 
Slough area and about 16,000 acre-feet per year in 
the Pajaro Valley were estimated for 1980. This over- 
draft has reversed the natural seaward gradient of 
the ground water table, and sea-water intrusion is 
occurring in both areas for several miles on each side 
of the mouth of the Pajaro River. Increasing water 
use in the future will worsen the situation, unless new 
supplies are developed or the overdraft is curtailed. 
The Pajaro ground water basin has been defined by 
the Department as a basin subject to critical condi- 
tions of overdraft. 

South Santa Clara, Hollister, and San Juan 
Valleys. Extensive agricultural development has 
resulted m a present overdraft of about 28,000 acre- 
feet per year. This is a significant increase from the 
11,000-acre-foot annual overdraft calculated in the 
hydrologic balance for the 1969-1975 period. In addi- 
tion, pumping has been limited in some parts of east- 
ern Hollister Valley by concentrations of boron and 
chloride in the ground water that limit its suitability 
for agricultural use. 

A supply of imported water will become available 
to the area when the San Felipe Division of the Cen- 
tral Valley Project is completed. Much of the import- 
ed water will be used to recharge the ground water 
basin. Surface water will be delivered to replace 
poor-quality ground water in the Hollister Valley. 



San Luis Obispo County 

City of Morro Bay. During the past 25 years, the 

city of Morro Bay has frequently rationed water, and. 
since 1976. has had an active water conservation pro- 
gram. Based on studies that indicated water short- 
ages in Morro Bay would continue, the State Coastal 
Commission imposed a building moratorium in 1978. 
Recently, a study by the Department showed that the 
problem is not one of supply but rather of location 
and number of wells. Nevertheless, facilities to in- 
crease recharge of the ground water basins and to 
import additional water will be necessary to ensure 
adequate supplies of good quality water will be avail- 
able. 

Los Osos — Baywood Park Area. This area, sit- 
uated 4 miles south of Morro Bay, obtains its water 
from the underlying ground water basin. The popula- 
tion of this area is growing rapidly. As urban growth 
continues, central waste water treatment facilities 
may be needed to replace septic tanks and protect 
ground water quality. Additional water will be need- 
ed in the future. 

City of San Luis Obispo. Projections of water 
use by the city of San Luis Obispo indicate that the 
city's dependable water supply will not satisfy all 
needs by the mid-1980s. Salinas Reservoir, in the Up- 
per Salinas Valley, is one of the city's water sources. 
Negotiations are under way to enlarge the reservoir's 
capacity, but the city of San Luis Obispo and the 
communities in the northern portion of the county 
have not resolved related water rights issues. 

Santa Barbara County 

South Coast Area. The south coast area, in- 
cluding the communities of Carpinteria, Summer- 
land, Santa Barbara, and Goleta, is water-deficient. 
The area is predominantly urban, with limited ground 
water sources and fixed entitlements to surface wa- 
ter supplies. Additional sources of water are needed 
to curtail overdrafting of the ground water basin and 
to meet supplemental needs, should further urban 
growth take place. 

San Antonio Basin. In this basin, which lies 
between the Santa Maria and Santa Ynez Valleys, 
water use by Vandenberg Air Force Base and irrigat- 
ed agriculture exceeds the supply from existing 
sources. The base has expressed interest in obtaining 
water from the State Water Project. The amount 
needed and the extent to which additional conserva- 
tion and reclamation could reduce needs have not 
been determined, but may be significant. 

Lompoc Area. Although present use in the Lom- 
poc ground water basin is estimated to exceed sup- 
ply by about 3,000 acre-feet per year, the ground 
water levels remain near the surface along the Santa 
Ynez River near Lompoc, with only relatively small 



210 



amounts of vacant storage space available. More- 
over, the ground water supply in the zone with avail- 
able storage space is high in total hardness and total 
dissolved solids. In the city of Lompoc, all water is 
softened in a municipal plant. Use of home water 
softeners adds to the problem by increasing the total 
dissolved solids in water returning to the ground wa- 
ter basin. Salsipuedes Dam and Reservoir Project on 
Salsipuedes Creek, a major tributary of the Santa 
Ynez River, has been investigated at various times as 
a means of augmenting water supplies in the Lom- 
poc area. This could be accomplished through a 
ground water replenishment program or by direct 
surface deliveries. A 50,000-acre-foot capacity reser- 
voir could yield up to 6.500 acre-feet per year, de- 
pending on the method of operation. Estimated unit 



costs of water in 1982 prices range from S650-S850 
per acre-foot for ground water replenishment and 
from $1,400-S1,900 per acre-foot for surface delivery. 
The location of the proposed reservoir is shown on 

Plate 1. 

Santa Maria Valley. Although the Santa Maria 
Valley has a relatively large ground water basin, stud- 
ies indicate that urban and agricultural use of ground 
water exceeds the annual rate of replenishment and 
that the mineral concentration is high. Therefore, ad- 
ditional water will be needed in the future. A con- 
junctive use program that makes use of the ground 
water basin and additional surface water supplies 
could increase the yield and help improve water 
quality. 



211 



.WEST BRAMCH CALIFO/tUIA AQUEDUCT 
. LOS AHGELES AQUEDUCT 





COLORADO mVER 
AQUEDUCT 



SANTA ANA 




Legend 



JO 



EXISTING PROJECTS 



POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 





San Diego 



SAN DIEGO 



Lo»er Otay Rms 

vrTco 



Figure 62. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - LOS ANGELES, 
SANTA ANA. AND SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS 

212 



Table 60 WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
LOS ANGELES HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1 980-20 10 





(Thousands 


of acre- 


-feet) 


















CHANGE 


NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 




IRRIGATION 


276 


250 


220 


190 


-90 




URBAN 


1634 


1630 


1680 


1790 


260 




WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


8 


10 


16 


20 


10 




ENERGY PRODUCTION 


7 


30 


25 


20 


10 




CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


81 


75 


76 


76 


__ 


TOTAL 


1906 


1995 


2015 


2096 


190 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 














LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


29 


29 


29 


29 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


762 


640 


640 


640 


-1 10 




GROUND WATER 


483 


483 


463 


483 







CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 





_ 


_ 


_ 






OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


20 


20 


20 


20 







WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


69 


100 


195 


266 


210 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


481 


600 


690 


590 


1 10 


TOTAL 


1824 


1870 


1955 


2030 


210 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


82 








-80 




SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 









— 


— 




SHORTAGE 1/ 


___ 


126 


60 


65 


60 


RESERVE SUPPLY 2/ 


164 





— 


— 


' X." 



Table 61 WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
SANTA ANA HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 

(Thousands of acre-feet) 



NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


{ 1 CHANGE 
2000 2010 ; 1980-2010 




IRRIGATION 

URBAN 

WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 

ENERGY PRODUCTION 

CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


320 

586 

2 

9 

45 


290 

710 

10 

40 


250 

800 
10 

40 


220 

910 

10 

40 


-100 

320 

10 

-10 


TOTAL 


962 


1050 


1 100 


1180 


220 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 

IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 

GROUND WATER 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 

WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 

STATE WATER PROJECT 


93 
290 
402 

29 
138 


93 
120 
402 

50 
38 5 


93 

120 
402 

70 
400 


93 

120 
402 

80 
400 




-170 


50 
260 


TOTAL 


952 


1050 


1085 


1095 


140 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 
SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 
SHORTAGE \J 


10 


— 


15 


85 


-10 
90 


RESERVE SUPPLY 2/ 


203 











1/ SWP, BASED ON FIGURE 48 _2/ SWP 



Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are roundei). 

213 



Table 62 WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 





(Thousands 


of ace 


-•■eet) 


















CHANGE 


NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 




IRRIGATION 


198 


190 


180 


170 


-30 




URBAN 


389 


480 


580 


670 


280 




WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


7 


10 


10 


10 







ENERGY PRODUCTION 



















CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


40 


35 


35 


40 




TOTAL 


634 


715 


805 


890 


250 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY | 


1 ' ' 1 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


37 


37 


37 


37 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


290 


21 5 


21 5 


21 5 


-80 




GROUND WATER 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


77 


77 


77 


77 







WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


9 


40 


50 


55 


50 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


221 


255 


245 


245 


20 


TOTAL 


634 


625 


625 


630 







GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 






1 








SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 






— 









SHORTAGE \_J 




90 1 


180 


260 


260 


RESERVE SUPPLY 2/ 


46 


1 


— 


— 





1/ SWP, BASED ON FIGURE 48 _2/ SWP Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded 



214 



Figure 63. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY LOS ANGELES, 
SANTA ANA, AND SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS 1980-2010 



NET USE 
SUPPLY 



millions of Acre Foot 



3 

_J_ 



5 

_L 



6 

_L 



7 



8 

_L 



9 

_i_ 



10 





1980 


NET USE 


^" 


SUPPLY 






2010 




Reduction in need for water supply due to conservatioi 



Overdraft and stiortage 





Thousands 


, of acre- 


feet 


















CHANGE 




NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


1 


IRRIGATION 


794 


730 


650 


580 


-210 


H URBAN 


2509 


2820 


3060 


3370 


860 


H WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


17 


30 


35 


40 


20 


H ENERGY PRODUCTION 


16 


30 


25 


20 


— 


1 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


166 


150 


150 


155 


-10 




TOTAL 


3502 


3760 


3920 


4165 


660 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


159 


159 


159 


159 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


1332 


975 


975 


975 


-360 




GROUND WATER 


962 


962 


962 


962 







CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 




OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


20 


20 


20 


20 







WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


97 


190 


315 


400 


300 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


840 


1240 


1235 


1235 


400 




TOTAL 


3410 


3645 


3665 


3755 


340 


■ 


GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


92 








-90 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 














— 


■ SHORTAGE ^ 





215 


266 


410 


410 


RESERVE SUPPLY 2/ 


413 














Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded. 



ly SWP, BASED ON FIGURE 48 
2/ SWP 



215 




Los Angeles Times photo 



216 



SOUTH COASTAL REGION (LOS ANGELES, SANTA ANA, 
AND SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS) 



Total increase in average annual net water use 
from 1980 to 2010 in the South Coastal region is pro- 
jected to be about 660,000 acre-feet. Agricultural net 
water use will decrease by about 210,000 acre-feet by 
2010 because of urban expansion onto irrigated 
lands. Urban net water use will increase by about 
860,000 acre-feet by then. 

The additional 1,020,000 acre-feet of water supply 
required is much larger than the increase in total net 
water use, because the mandated reduction of water 
imported from the Colorado River will reduce sup- 
plies about 360,000 acre-feet per year below present 
levels of use. No cooling water use was projected 
from these supplies by 2000. The SWP is expected to 
provide 400,000 acre-feet of additional supplies. Ad- 
ditional waste water reclamation was projected to 
provide about 300,000 acre-feet. Assuming prolonged 
delays in providing additional water supplies for the 
SWP, shortages in dependable supplies are project- 
ed to reach 410,000 acre-feet per year by 2010. 

The total increase in net water use for the region 
reflects the effect of water conservation measures 
implemented between 1980 and 2010. These meas- 
ures result in a reduction in need for water supplies 
in 2010 of 375,000 acre-feet per year. By 1980. conser- 
vation efforts had reduced annual water supply 
needs by an estimated 140,000 acre-feet below the 
level it would otherwise have reached. 

The major water management issues are dis- 
cussed in the following sections. 

City of Los Angeles 

About 80 percent of the city's present water supply 
— 467,000 acre-feet per year — is obtained from the 
Owens Valley-Mono Lake area. This supply could be 
significantly reduced if the courts rule against the 
city in the litigation related to the export of water 
from Mono Lake and the Owens Valley. Should this 
occur, the city would have to increase the supply 
obtained from The Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California (MWD). This would be in addi- 
tion to the 660,000 acre-feet of additional supply that 
the entire South Coastal region is expected to need 
by 2010. 



Oxnard Plain 

In the Oxnard Plain area of Ventura County, 
ground water pumping for both urban and agricul- 



tural uses has created sea-water intrusion problems 
in the Ventura Central ground water basin. The basin 
has been designated by the Department of Water 
Resources as subject to critical conditions of over- 
draft. A physical plan involving ground water basin 
management has been developed to control that 
problem, and an assessment district has been formed 
to finance the plan. The Department and the State 
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will con- 
tinue to monitor the situation. 

Upper Santa Ana Area 

A local agency proposal to increase its use of Colo- 
rado River water has been approved by SWRCB. The 
plan changes the method of averaging limitations of 
the total dissolved solids in the effluent at certain 
waste water treatment plants. This would allow for 
optimum use of Colorado River water in the basin. 

MWD and the Department are jointly funding a 
feasibility study, in cooperation with the Chino Basin 
Municipal Water District, to develop a ground water 
basin storage program in conjunction with the SWP 
and local facilities. A similar study involving the San 
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the 
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency is also being con- 
ducted for some other areas. 

San Diego County 

Because of low rainfall and limited ground water 
supply, the county relies heavily on imported water 
to meet its requirements. Therefore, any interruption 
of imported water supplies would be critical to the 
area. Various public agencies within the county have 
embarked on a variety of programs to help bridge the 
gap between future uses and supplies. 

Renewed interest has also been expressed in the 
construction of the Santa Margarita Project in north- 
ern San Diego County. The project, which would 
consist of Fallbrook Dam and DeLuz Dam on the 
Santa Margarita River, and associated distribution 
facilities, would provide flood control and supple- 
mental water supplies to the Fallbrook Public Utility 
District and the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendle- 
ton. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is currently 
(1982) updating the feasibility report and the Envi- 
ronmental Impact Statement on the project to reflect 
local conditions that have changed since the original 
reports were completed in 1969. Legislation has been 
introduced in Congress to authorize construction of 
the project. 



i 



217 




SISKIYOU 



MODOC 




GOOM* ^ 
L. 



Y 



LASSEN 



Bnlarg* 
ShB9 



CImmt Cr. TunntI 



20 



MILES 



-iP^. 



Legend 
i::^3:z> existing projects ! 

POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 



Dlxl» Rttug* 




PUTAH SOUTH 
CANAL 



MOffTN BAY AQUEDUCT ' 



■^ ' 



Figure 64. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - 
SACRAMENTO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Figure 65. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
SACRAMENTO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 



_L 



Millions of Acre Feet 



1980 




10 

_1 



-Overdraft and shortage 



2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 




Reduction in need for water supply due to conservation'' 
Thousands of acre-feet 





NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


CHANGE 
2010 j1980-2010 




IRRIGATION 

URBAN 

WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 

ENERGY PRODUCTION 

CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


6682 
493 
160 

129 


7030 
590 
165 

150 


7010 
660 
165 

150 


7140 
730 
165 

150 


460 

240 

20 




TOTAL 


7464 


7935 


7985 


8185 


720 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 

IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 

GROUND WATER 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 

OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 

WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 

STATE WATER PROJECT 


2866 

9 

1798 

2422 

259 

17 


2950 

9 

1870 

2710 

270 

20 

5 


2960 

9 

1900 

2715 

270 

20 

10 


3010 

9 

1930 

2760 

270 

25 

10 


140 



130 

340 

10 

10 

10 




TOTAL 


7371 


7835 


7885 


8015 


640 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 
SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 
SHORTAGE ^ 


85 
8 


70 
30 


60 
40 


120 
50 


40 

40 




RESERVE SUPPLY 2/ 


535 


275 


340 


370 





2/ 



Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 I 0, and CHANGE are rounded. 
LOCAL URBAN 

CVP, AND LOCAL (PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY, AND OROVILLE- 
WYANDOTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT). 

219 




220 



SACRAMENTO HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



The total projected increase in net water use from 
1980 to 2010 IS about 720.000 acre-feet per year. Al- 
though ETAW increases by 730,000 acre-feet, net wa- 
ter use for agriculture increases by only 460,000 
acre-feet because basin outflow from irrigation re- 
turn flows will be substantially reduced by greater 
irrigation efficiency. The increased irrigation effi- 
ciency and a greater proportion of lower water-using 
crops will reduce agricultural applied water by about 
150,000 acre-feet below 1980 levels. An increase in 
the average irrigation efficiency for rice from 45 per- 
cent to 55 percent will have a great effect on the total 
amount of applied water because of the high applica- 
tion rates and the large acreages involved. 

The increase in total annual net water use by the 
urban sector in 2010 will be significant — 240.000 acre- 
feet. That amount is about 35 percent of the total 
increase. 

The principal source of supply to meet the in- 
creased use will be the current reserve supplies of 
the Central Valley Project, with an increase in use in 
2010 of about 340,000 acre-feet annually over 1980 
levels. Increased net use of local surface supplies and 
ground water will be about 140,000 and 130,000 acre- 
feet, respectively. 

The stepped-up Central Valley Project deliveries 
will be provided to the southwestern part of the Sac- 
ramento Valley through the Tehama-Colusa Canal. 
Additional local surface water use will occur princi- 
pally on the east side of the Sacramento Valley. In- 
creased ground water use is expected to occur 
throughout the valley floor and in the area upstream 
of Shasta Lake. 

Highlights of the major water management-related 
issues and some examples of those of more limited 
or local impact are presented in the following sec- 
tions. 

Sacramento Valley Floor 

Large increases in irrigated land acreage have oc- 
curred during the past decade. These increases are 
related to the availability of new water supplies from 
the Tehama-Colusa Canal, increased use of ground 
water, and changes in crop patterns. In the latter 
case, winter-planted and spring-irrigated wheat has 
replaced as much as 95 percent of the formerly dry- 
farmed barley crop. Rice, a high water-using, relative- 
ly high income crop, has doubled in acreage. The 
introduction of new and higher-yielding varieties of 



rice and wheat and increasing domestic and foreign 
demand for these crops are responsible for the in- 
creased acreages. 

One of the major water issues in the Sacramento 
Valley is local control of ground water resources. 
Valley farmers strongly defend their ground water 
basin because they feel it is threatened by those 
wishing to export this resource. Other major con- 
cerns are bank erosion, seepage, and recreation tres- 
pass along the Sacramento River. Declining fish runs 
in the Sacramento River and the Delta is another 
issue in the valley. 

Chico Area Ground Water. The ground water 
basin in and around the city of Chico is recharged 
mostly by Big Chico, Little Chico, and Butte Creeks, 
which drain volcanic rock areas to the east. Some of 
the fairly shallow municipal wells around Chico are 
exhibiting nitrate levels above public health 
standards. Effluent from non-sewered residential 
development, fertilization of agricultural crops, and 
rainfall runoff into drainage wells located throughout 
the city have been blamed for this contamination. 
Discontinued use of high-nitrate domestic wells and 
drainage wells and extension of the city's sewer 
system will probably alleviate this problem. 

Yolo-Solano Counties. Completion of Indian 
Valley Dam and Reservoir on North Fork Cache 
Creek has virtually eliminated the ground water over- 
draft problem in Yolo County, except in local areas, 
such as the Yolo-Zamora area, where Indian Valley 
water is not available. Both Yolo and Solano Coun- 
ties will need additional water after 2000. The 
proposed West Sacramento Canal Unit of the CVP is 
the most likely source of supplemental water sup- 
plies for the area. 

Upper Pit River 

The number of wells in the upper Pit River basin 
has increased by 300 percent between 1960 and 1980. 
Most of this increase is for irrigating alfalfa, primarily 
using sprinklers. Use of large center-pivot or wheel- 
line sprinklers to irrigate alfalfa is now commonplace. 
Some of this activity has replaced acreages of 
meadow pasture that had been irrigated by wild 
flooding from surface water supplies, when they 
were available. 

Big Valley, which relies on Pit River flows for its 
main water supply, is receiving less water than it 



221 




s. 

■^ 












, . • . . » ■ 



"*: -■::•..■- 



<■• 









received formerly because water use is increasing in 
Warm Springs Valley and in the upper South and 
North Fork Pit River regions. Sprinkler irrigation and 
land leveling to improve surface irrigation of alfalfa 
and summer-grown grain have increased farm in- 
come substantially and changed once-pastoral val- 
leys into fairly intensely irrigated agricultural regions. 
With high costs of further surface water develop- 
ment, future expansion of irrigation will probably rely 
on ground water sources. Irrigation by ground water 
in Fall River and Big Valley is currently being affected 
by ever-increasing electrical energy costs. Some 
farmers in Big Valley claim that 30 percent of their 
gross revenue from alfalfa production is needed to 
pay pumping energy charges. It remains to be seen 
whether farm income can stay abreast of costs of 
energy for pumping. 

Shasta County 

The foothill and mountain areas of eastern Shasta 
County have become popular sites for subdivision 
development. Residential water is provided almost 
entirely from domestic wells drilled in low-yield vol- 
canic rock. Water supplies vary from small to practi- 
cally nonexistent. The sheer number of new wells has 
caused existing wells to fail in summer-home areas at 
middle and lower elevations. Shasta County is em- 
barking on a multi-year study to help resolve this 
problem. 



Sierra Nevada Foothills 

Rapid population growth in the Sierra Nevada 
foothills IS taxing the developed surface and ground 
water supplies. Surface water systems lack adequate 
storage capacity. They were especially vulnerable 
during the 1976-77 drought, with rationing common- 
place. The community of Paradise and the Nevada 
and El Dorado Irrigation Districts were all forced to 
ration water. Ground water is a very unpredictable 
source because of the geologic formations typical of 
the area, which are characterized by underlying vol- 
canic or fractured crystalline rock. Many wells went 
dry during the drought. Ground water quality is a 
problem in some areas. 

Some of the water supply problems resulting pri- 
marily from population growth in the El Dorado Irri- 
gation District could be alleviated by the proposed 
Upper (Mountain) South Fork American River 
Project (SOFAR), which is sponsored jointly by the 
district and the El Dorado County Water Agency. 
The project consists of a diversion dam at Forni that 
would divert part the South Fork water through a 
series of reservoirs, tunnels, and powerhouses. Flow 
in the amount of 30,000 acre-feet would be diverted 
annually for urban and agricultural use, with the re- 
maining flow returned to the South Fork near Pollock 
Pines. Total gross storage capacity of the project 
would be 199,000 acre-feet. Its total installed generat- 



222 



ing capacity would be 110 megawatts, with an aver- 
age of 470 million kilowatthours of electricity 
produced per year. Estimated first cost of the project 
IS about S450.000.000 at 1983 first quarter price levels. 

The voters of El Dorado County have authorized 
the issuance of up to $560 million in revenue bonds 
to finance construction of the project. A permit from 
the State Water Resources Control Board was ap- 
proved in the fall of 1982 and a permit from the Fed- 
eral Energy Regulatory Commission for power 
generation was pending at that time. Contractual 
commitments for the sale of energy and the ability to 
market bonds for construction capital will be re- 
quired before SOFAR can proceed. 

In March 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 



filed a lawsuit, asking the U.S. District Court to invali- 
date any water rights granted by the State Water 
Resources Control Board that give priority over fed- 
eral water rights. USBR claims that it is not subject 
to State water law that gives a local area priority 
rights to local water, should it decide to build a water 
project. 

Meanwhile, local USBR representatives have been 
cooperating with the El Dorado Irrigation District 
and the El Dorado County Water Agency to clear the 
way for the district to proceed while USBR and 
SWRCB argue their positions in court. A proposal by 
the district is being reviewed by the local USBR staff, 
who will send a recommendation to Washington, 
D.C., for review and approval. 



223 




FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL ■ 



[tfTCH^ 



Jackson 

»lddle BaP 
Res. 
\Camanche , \y ^ 

.#rK "■■■ i 

SAN JOASIUIN 

"Stockton 



v^ \/C^ STANISLAUS 

•»\Vo 
■s-\\o 



FKIAHT KERN CANAL 



20 



JO 




Legend 



EXISTING PROJECTS 



POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 





Figure 66. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS- 
SAN JOAQUIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



224 



Figure 67. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
SAN JOAQUIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 



SUPPLY 



Minions of Acre Feet 

-15 6 



1980 




NET USE I 



2010 



10 



Reduction in need for water supply 



y^ncuu^ii'-'M III ii^^u IV 

/ due to conservation 



1-^ Overdraft and shortage 





Thousands of acre- 


-feet 


















CHANGE 


NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


|1980-2010 


M IRRIGATION 


5892 


6050 


6160 


6370 


1 480 


H URBAN 


249 


310 


360 


420 


170 


J WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


74 


80 


80 


80 


10 


H ENERGY PRODUCTION 


15 


20 


20 


20 




I 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


1 1 1 


120 


130 


130 


20 




TOTAL 


6341 


6580 


6750 


7020 


680 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 


■"" 


LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


3055 


3030 


3020 


3000 


-60 




IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 





— 










GROUND WATER 


972 


970 


900 


910 


-60 




CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 


1838 


2040 


2230 


2280 


440 




OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


55 


55 


55 


55 







WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


21 


25 


25 


30 


10 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


8 


8 


8 


8 





TOTAL 


5949 


6130 


6240 


6280 


330 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


391 


430 


470 


680 


290 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 


— 




— 


— 


— 




SHORTAGE ^ j 


1 


20 


40 


60 


60 


RESERVE SUPPLY -^ 


191 


320 


220 


230 








Totals f( 


r 1 990, 2 


000. 20 1 


0. and CHA 


NGE are rounded 



jy MOSTLY LOCAL 

_Z/ MINOR LOCAL AMOUNTS AND CVP. 1980: ADDITIONAL CVP. FUTURE ( NEW MELONES ) 

225 




•^■^ ¥V»1 



SAN JOAQUIN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use is projected to increase 
by about 680,000 acre-feet by 2010, including 480,000 
acre-feet in agricultural use and about 170.000 acre- 
feet in urban use. Delivery of Central Valley Project 
reserve supply from New Melones and Folsom Reser- 
voirs and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta would 
provide about 440,000 acre-feet of the required in- 
crease in supply. The remaining net use is expected 
to be supplied from increased ground water over- 
draft of about 290,000 acre-feet annually. 

Ground Water Overdraft 

Since the area will continue to rely on ground wa- 
ter as a source for irrigated agriculture, water agen- 
cies are attempting to alleviate the overdraft 
conditions through artificial recharge and conjunc- 
tive use programs. Immediate problems caused by 
overdrafting are localized land subsidence, water 
quality degradation near Stockton from salt-water 
intrusion, and higher pumping costs. 

Sierra Foothills Region 

Surface water systems in this region lack adequate 
storage to serve as dependable sources of water for 
irrigation and urban use. Furthermore, because of the 
geologic formations of this region, which are charac- 
terized by fractured rock, ground water is an unrelia- 
ble source. As a result, water resources undergo 
wide seasonal and yearly fluctuations. This problem 
was evident during the 1976-77 drought, when many 
communities and rural users were forced to undergo 
severe water rationing. 

Supplemental water supplies to alleviate some of 
the present shortage in Calaveras County would be 
provided by the proposed North Fork Stanislaus Riv- 
er Project. Calaveras County Water District 



(CCWD) IS planning to construct a multipurpose 
project to develop energy and regulate water to sup- 
ply the future needs of the county. The project would 
consist of several facilities upstream from New Me- 
lones Reservoir, including enlargement of Spicer 
Meadow Dam and Reservoir on Highland Creek and 
construction of three diversion dams, three tunnels, 
two power plants, and an afterbay. Approximately 
192.000 acre-feet of storage and 205 megawatts of 
hydroelectric generating capacity would be pro- 
vided by this project. The estimated first cost is 
between $300 and S350 million at 1982 prices. 

Annual yield estimates range from 68.000 to 103,000 
acre-feet. About 57.000 acre-feet of this yield is 
planned for Calaveras County, and the balance 
would be available for downstream power develop- 
ment to assist in financing the project. The Northern 
California Power Agency (NCPA) would participate 
in the development of the project by purchasing the 
power as agreed in a memorandum of understanding 
between CCWD and NCPA in 1977. A license from 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
was issued to CCWD in January 1982. However, both 
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the 
Friends of the River have protested the issuance of 
the license. PGandE is protesting because the 
proposed project would directly or indirectly affect 
several of PGandE's power facilities in the portion of 
the Stanislaus River watershed in Calaveras County. 
Friends of the River's protest of the project involves 
environmental concerns. Construction of a New 
Spicer Meadow Dam and Reservoir would inundate 
Gabbot Meadow, an area that supports a large deer 
herd. The matter is now (1982) in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals in Washington. D.C. 

The Cosumnes River Water and Power Authority 



226 



was formed in March 1981 by a joint powers agree- 
ment between the boards of supervisors of Amador 
and El Dorado Counties. (Sacramento and San Joa- 
quin Counties joined the Water and Power Authority 
later.) Its purpose was to study the possibility of de- 
veloping a water supply and power project on the 
Cosumnes River and its tributaries. Prior studies by 
the Cosumnes River Association showed that a 
project including Steely. Bakersford. and Cape Cod 
Dams, with a combined reservoir storage capacity of 
about 500.000 acre-feet and four power plants having 
a generating potential of about 217 million kilowatt- 
hours per year, was potentially feasible. Some 94,000 
acre-feet of water per year could be developed by 
the project for water needs above the proposed 
Cape Cod Regulating Reservoir. The project would 
develop an additional 69.600 acre-feet for use down- 
stream from Cape Cod Reservoir. 

FERC preliminary applications have been made for 
several new hydroelectric power projects in the 
HSA. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has 
proposed the Upper Mokelumne River Hydroelectric 
Project, consisting of Middle Bar Dam. Railroad Flat 
Dam. Middle Fork Diversion Dam. and two power 
plants. The city and county of San Francisco and the 
Modesto Irrigation District have proposed the 
Clavey-Wards Ferry Project on the Tuolumne River 
and tributaries. PGandE has applied for a Kerckoff II 
project to further develop the head from Kerckoff 
Reservoir to Millerton Lake. The Upper San Joaquin 
Water and Power Authority has applied for a project 
on Granite and Jackass Creeks. 

Folsom South Canal Service Area 

The Folsom South Canal service area of the CVP. 
which includes portions of Sacramento and San Joa- 
quin Counties in the Sacramento and San Joaquin 
HSAs. is one of the areas experiencing ground water 
overdraft. The problem is most evident near the city 
of Stockton, an area that presently depends on 
ground water as a major supply for irrigated agricul- 
ture and urban development. Water agencies are 
planning to eliminate ground water overdraft by im- 
porting surface water for conjunctive use with 
ground water. The alternative most often considered 
for additional surface water is the Auburn-Folsom 
South Unit of the CVP, which includes Auburn Dam 
and completion of the Folsom South Canal. The Del- 
ta and/or New Melones Reservoir have also been 
mentioned as possible sources. The Auburn-Folsom 
South Unit has been the subject of a major conflict. 
The State of California contends that USBR, the 
builder of the dam. must provide instream flows in 
the lower American River in accordance with 
SWRCB Decision 1400. USSR's position is that the 
additional water developed by Auburn Reservoir is 
not adequate to meet requirements in the Folsom 
South Canal service area and also the instream flows 
needed to meet the requirements of Decision 1400. 
An attempt was made to negotiate a memorandum 



of understanding between all parties to resolve the 
conflict, but discussions were discontinued in 1978. 

Because of uncertainties surrounding reauthoriza- 
tion of Auburn Dam. the Department of Water Re- 
sources investigated other water management 
alternatives for satisfying the water needs of the Fol- 
som South Canal service area. The Department's 
investigation indicates that, by completing the Fol- 
som South Canal, (1) water needs of the Folsom 
South service area to 2000 can be met by use of firm 
yield from Folsom Lake and conjunctive use of non- 
firm yield and ground water, and (2) by using those 
measures and other alternatives, water needs 
beyond 2000 can be met without Auburn Dam. The 
investigation was predicated on meeting the mini- 
mum lower American River flows prescribed by Deci- 
sion 1400 with relatively minor modifications. New 
studies by USBR indicate partial agreement with the 
Department's lower estimate of water needs in the 
service area. As noted earlier in this chapter, this 
CVP unit IS being re-evaluated by USBR in connec- 
tion with authorization by Congress. 

Delta Service Area 

The mam source of water in the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta is the surface water in the channels, 
which IS derived from unregulated streamflow. re- 
turn flow from upstream uses, and releases from up- 
stream storage reservoirs. The Delta channels also 
serve as a collection point and water transfer system 
for water drawn on by the two statewide water 
projects, the CVP and the SWP. To protect this water 
against salinity intrusion from San Francisco Bay. it is 
essential to maintain a sufficient outflow of fresh 
water. 

Under State law. the Department and the U.S. Bu- 
reau of Reclamation are required to maintain water 
quality standards in the Delta channels as defined in 
SWRCB water right Decision 1485, and as it may be 
amended in the future. In addition, the Department 
has reached an agreement with the North Delta Wa- 
ter Agency and the East Contra Costa Irrigation Dis- 
trict to maintain quality standards set by the 
contracts within their boundaries. The standards set 
forth in the contracts, or future standards set by 
SWRCB. whicheverare higher, will prevail. Under the 
provisions of a draft Coordinated Operations Agree- 
ment, as yet unexecuted, both the CVP and the SWP 
would be committed to meet the single set of speci- 
fied water quality and outflow standards for the Del- 
ta set forth in Decision 1485. In previous years, the 
USBR has agreed to meet the Decision 1485 stand- 
ards voluntarily, except possibly in critically dry 
years. Water is released from upstream State and 
federal reservoirs — Oroville. Clair Engle. Shasta, and 
Folsom — to maintain quality and for other SWP and 
CVP purposes. The Department has attempted to 
negotiate agreements with other Delta water users 
but has not yet succeeded. 



227 




i 



Legend 
i:;j:z> existing projects 



MILES 



POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 




Figure 68. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - 
TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



228 



Figure 69. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



Minions of Acre-Feet 

4 5 6 



10 



1980 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 



2010 




-Overdraft and shortage 



Reduction in need for water 
supply due to conservation 






Thousands 


of acre- 


-feet 


















CHANGE 


NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


T| IRRIGATION 


7781 


7955 


8185 


8475 


700 


J URBAN 


236 


280 


310 


350 


1 10 


m WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


38 


40 


40 


40 


— 


ENERGY PRODUCTION 


10 


25 


40 


40 


30 


1 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


123 


125 


125 


125 


— 




TOTAL 


8188 


8425 


8700 


9030 


840 




DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 














LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


2199 


2199 


2199 


2199 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 




GROUND WATER 


551 


551 


551 


551 







CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 


2736 


2780 


2790 


2790 


50 




OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


243 


243 


243 


243 







WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


67 


80 


90 


100 


30 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


795 


730 


720 


720 


-70 




TOTAL 


6591 


6580 


6590 


6600 


10 


■ GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


856 


1 190 


1450 


1770 


910 




SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 1/ 


741 






. , 


-740 




SHORTAGE 2/ 





655 


660 


660 


660 


RESERVE SUPPLY 3/ ^ 


56 


10 











Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded 

L'' Value for 1980 reflects delivery of SWP surplus water supplies that were used in lieu of pumping ground woter ond for direct 
rechorge, (Average delivery for 1979-1981 was 741,000 acre-feet). Surplus woter ovoilability will be reduced in the future to 
meet increosing requirements ond is expected to be available only in wet yeors until substantial odditpons to dependoble supplies 
are ovoilable for the SWP. Future overdraft could be reduced from the amount shown by the extent thot SWP surplus woter deliveries 
con be made available 'but see note 2). 

_2,/ S WP^ bosed on Figure 48 About 90 percent of this amount could be met from ground woler, odding to the pro|ected overdroft. 



3/ CVP 



229 




230 



TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use in the Tulare Lake HSA 
is projected to increase about 840,000 acre-feet by 
2010, including 700,000 acre-feet of agricultural use 
and 110,000 acre-feet of urban use. Tfie additional 
needs are expected to be met by a small increase in 
CVP supplies, additional waste water reuse, and a 
substantial increase in ground water overdraft. 

Ground Water Overdraft 

The immense ground water overdraft in the Tulare 
Lake HSA is one of the most significiant unresolved 
water resource problems in California. The present 
rate of overdraft is calculated to be about 860,000 
acre-feet per year. The importation of SWP water 
and the availability of 741,000 acre-feet of surplus 
supplies (1979-1981 average) have reduced average 
ground water overdraft from about 1,300,000 acre- 
feet in 1972 to 860,000 acre-feet in 1980, This has been 
achieved despite an increase in irrigated crop acre- 
age of about 300,000 acres. 

SWP surplus supplies will diminish as the require- 
ments for water begin to exceed available supplies. 
Assuming that, by 2010, the SWP is augmented by 
only the projects shown in Figure 48, shortages m 
dependable water supplies would reach 660,000 acre- 
feet per year. About 90 percent of this shortage can 
be made up from ground water, which would result 
in a total overdraft in 2010 as high as 2,400,000 acre- 
feet per year. However, in wetter-than-normal years, 
some surplus surface supplies will continue to be 
available for ground water recharge, to the extent the 
California Aqueduct has capacity available to deliver 
the water. Also, if additions to SWP yield can be 
provided before 2010, ground water overdraft may 
not reach the level indicated. 

The proposed Mid-Valley Canal addition to the 
Central Valley Project, discussed earlier in this chap- 
ter, would also reduce the rate of ground water over- 
drafting by providing replacement water to irrigated 



areas. Preliminary studies indicate an average of 
about 450,000 acre-feet per year would be provided 
to the Tulare Lake HSA. (A north branch would pro- 
vide about 160,000 acre-feet per year to the San Joa- 
quin HSA.) 

Recently, large increases in electrical energy costs 
have given water agencies added incentive to inten- 
sify ground water recharge efforts in an attempt to 
reduce pumping lifts. The availability of SWP surplus 
supplies and the completion of the Cross Valley Ca- 
nal in 1975 have enabled Kern County Water Agency 
to implement a large-scale program aimed at mitigat- 
ing overdraft. This program is over and above all 
other recharge programs and other projects using 
surface water in lieu of pumping in the area. 

Numerous public and private water agencies are 
engaged in the acquisition, distribution, and sale of 
surface water to growers in the Tulare Lake HSA. 
Since most of the agencies overlie usable ground 
water and use ground water conjunctively with sur- 
face water, some of their operational practices such 
as artificial recharge and use of "nonfirm" surface 
supplies in lieu of ground water can be viewed as 
elements of a ground water management program. 
The agencies do not, however, have the power to 
control ground water extractions. Such authority is a 
requisite to comprehensive ground water manage- 
ment. 

Dinkey Creek Project 

The large increases in the value of electrical ener- 
gy have made some projects that were either infeasi- 
ble, or only marginally feasible, financially more 
attractive. As a result, the Kings River Conservation 
District is investigating additional development of 
the upper Kings River and its tributaries for power, 
flood control, and water conservation. In addition to 
adding power to Pine Flat Dam (now under construc- 
tion), the Dinkey Creek Project on Dinkey Creek, a 
tributary to the North Fork of the Kern River, was 
found to be economically justified, and the Kings 



231 






• ? - .«••. 







-ii£iW3;^^4r-. 



■•«*«*• -« 



'j'.**f^^ j 



,.ii- 

4*^-' 



In the absence of a drainage export facility, evaporation 
ponds are used as salt sinks to dispose of drainage water too 
salty for reuse. 




, ^.t 



232 



Figure 70. PROPOSED VALLEY DRAIN 



River Conservation District has applied to the Fed- 
eral Energy Regulatory Commission for a license. Al- 
though the project would be operated primarily to 
maximize power benefits, the 90,000-acre-foot reser- 
voir would also develop about 10,000 acre-feet annu- 
ally of new water for the Kings River service area. 

Salt Management 

The valley floor of the Tulare Lake HSA is essential- 
ly a closed basin, and most salts brought into the 
basin with water supplies, fertilizer, and soil amend- 
ments are not removed. These conditions have been 
studied extensively. The most recent, the San Joa- 
quin Valley Interagency Drainage Program, was con- 
ducted jointly by the Department, USBR, and 
SWRCB, and culminated in a report. Agricultural 
Drainage and Salt Management in the San Joaquin 
Valley,'^ June 1979. The report defines the problem, 
describes alternative solutions, and recommends a 
plan for solution of the problem — export of brackish 
water from the Tulare Lake HSA. The location of the 
proposed valley dram is shown on Figure 70. 

There is very little willingness at this time among 
the beneficiaries of the drain to move ahead with the 
recommended plan. At this time, only a few farmers 
are threatened by a high water table because drain 
water is unable to percolate at a sufficient rate 
through underlying clay strata. The problem is of no 
immediate or near future concern for the larger num- 
ber of farmers who may eventually be affected and 
who would be needed to spread the cost in financing 
a master drain. As an interim solution, local interests 
are constructing facilities to convey drainage water 
to large evaporation ponds located on poor-quality 
land, where the salts are concentrated. 



' Agricultural Drainage and Salt Management in the San Joaquin Valley: 
Final Report Including Recommended Plan and First-Stage Environ- 
mental Impact Report, San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Pro- 
gram; US Bureau of Reclamation. California Department of Water 
Resources, the California State Water Resources Control Board: witfi 
Appendixes to Final Report, June 1979 (reprinted November 1979). 



Stockton 



LEGEND 

Existing San Luis Droin 
Proposed Extensions 
Drainage Problem Areos 
(present and potential ) 

Edge of Valley Floor 




233 



ORE. 




Legend 

(^JZ>- EXISTING PROJECTS 



POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS 



20 30 



MILES 




Prosser Cr. Re 



Truckee 
River 



Carson 
River 



Figure 71. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - 
NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 

234 



Figure 72. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



Millions of Acre-Feet 



1.5 

_1 



1.5 

I 



1980 



2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 




NET USE 



SUPPLY 




Overdraft 





Thousands of acre- 


-feet 


















CHANGE 


NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


■I IRRIGATION 


387 


410 


410 


420 


30 


URBAN 


23 


30 


35 


40 


20 


M WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


1 1 


10 


10 


10 





■ ENERGY PRODUCTION 















J 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 










— 




TOTAL 


421 


450 


455 


470 


50 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


312 


310 


310 


320 


10 




IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 


1 1 


1 1 


1 1 


1 1 







GROUND WATER 


88 


1 10 


120 


120 


30 




CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 
















OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 














WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


5 


10 


10 


10 







STATE WATER PROJECT 






— 






TOTAL 


416 


440 


450 


460 


40 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


5 


10 


5 


10 


10 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 






_ 








SHORTAGE 










... 




RESERVE SUPPLY -l/ 


17 


20 


20 


20 



Ay 



Totals for 1990, 2000, 2010, and CHANGE are round 
MOSTLY LOCAL PROJECTS, PLUS SOME FROM STAMPEDE RESERVOIR. 



235 





NORTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



In the North Lahontan HSA, annual net water use 
in 2010 is projected to be about 50,000 acre-feet 
greater than it was in 1980. The principal increases 
will be about 30,000 acre-feet for irrigated agriculture 
and about 20,000 acre-feet for urban uses. 

Ground water will provide the principal source of 
water, with annual net use projected to increase by 
about 30.000 acre-feet by 2010. Expanded develop- 
ment of local surface water will supply the remain- 
der. 

Nearly all the growth m agricultural water use is 
expected to take place m Modoc and Lassen Coun- 
ties. Little is known, however, about the potential 
ground water yield in this part of the HSA and the 
recent rapid increase in ground water pumping is 
causing concern. An example of these concerns and 
other water management-related issues important to 
this HSA follows. 

Surprise Valley Ground Water 

Ground water pumping for the production of alfal- 
fa by sprinkler irrigation has doubled since 1960. 



Some areas of Surprise Valley, particularly around 
Cedarville, may already be in overdraft. Wells located 
nearer the mountains on the west side of the valley 
nearly cease flowing in late July and August, but, 
according to well measurement data, they recharge 
fully by the following spring. Increased pumping 
higher on the alluvial fan has reduced the water sup- 
plies reaching some of the meadow pastures along 
the margins of the alkali lakes in this area; this pump- 
ing creates space for recharge from local creeks that 
formerly irrigated the meadows. The Department of 
Water Resources is presently studying Surprise Val- 
ley to evaluate the probable impact of increased 
pumping and to examine means of increasing ground 
water recharge. 

California-Nevada Interstate Compact 

California and Nevada have agreed to allocate 
between them the water supply of Lake Tahoe and 
the Truckee. Carson, and Walker Rivers. The Califor- 
nia-Nevada Interstate Compact was approved by the 
California Legislature in 1970 and the Nevada Legisla- 
ture in 1971. However, the compact will not go into 



236 



effect until it is approved by Congress. That approval 
has been held up by federal agencies that believe (1 ) 
the United States should not be bound by terms of 
the compact, and (2) the compact would prejudice 
efforts to increase inflow to Pyramid Lake to pre- 
serve the fishery. 

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is 
responsible for controlling land use in the Lake 
Tahoe Basin to protect the lake from quality degrada- 
tion. The State Water Resources Control Board has 
made detailed studies of current and potential future 
water use in the basin under the limitations imposed 
by TRPA and the interstate water compact. Similar 
studies have not been made for the Truckee, Carson, 
and Walker River Basins; therefore, the projections in 
this report for the three river basins are not as reliable 
as those for the Tahoe Basin. 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian tribe has sued the 
State of California, and others, to secure additional 
water to maintain Pyramid Lake and provide ade- 
quate flows for fish spawning in the Lower Truckee 



River (between Derby Dam and Pyramid Lake). 
USBR has declined to contract for the sale of water 
from Stampede Reservoir on Little Truckee River un- 
til this matter is resolved. In the interim, the reservoir 
is being operated for fishery enhancement. A 1982 
decision in Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy Dis- 
trict, et al. V. Kleppe. et al. sets a higher priority for 
fishery preservation than for municipal uses in the 
operation of Stampede Reservoir. Thus, the availabil- 
ity of water from the Truckee River will depend on 
the outcome of current litigation. 

In the Carson and Walker River Basins, most of the 
irrigation water requirements are met by direct diver- 
sion from streams. Surplus water is usually present 
during the spring snowmelt period, but streamflows 
are low during most of the irrigation season. Howev- 
er, with a minor exception, storage projects studied 
to date have not been economical. The compact and 
the court decree, which is presently on appeal, 
would give Alpine County water users the right to 
store 2,000 acre-feet each year adverse to the federal 
Lahontan Reservoir downstream in Nevada. 



237 



Figure 73. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - 
SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 




MolBve Res. 



Figure 74. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



Minions of Acre-Feet 



1.5 

_J 







1.5 

I 



NET USE 


1980 






SUPPLY 







2010 



NET USE 



SUPPLY 




Overdraft and shortage- 
Reduction in need for water supply due to conservation- 





Thousands of acre- 


-leet 


















CHANGE 


NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


■ IRRIGATION 


338 


300 


270 


230 


-1 10 


H URBAN 


60 


80 


1 10 


120 


60 


H WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


12 


25 


25 


30 


20 


H ENERGY PRODUCTION 


2 


5 


15 


25 


20 


I 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


7 


5 


5 


5 







TOTAL 


419 


415 


425 


410 


-10 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


44 


45 


45 


45 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 










— 




GROUND WATER 


178 


180 


170 


130 


-50 




CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 


— 


— 






— 




OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 






■ 








WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


9 


10 


15 


15 


10 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


85 


1 10 


1 15 


120 


30 




TOTAL 


316 


355 


355 


310 


-10 




GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


103 


40 


50 


70 


-30 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 














SHORTAGE ^ 




20 


20 


30 


30 




RESERVE SUPPLY -^ 


33 





15 


55 


— ii 



Totals for 1990. 2000,20 10. and CHANGE are rounded. 

jy SWP (MOJAVE WATER AGENCY AND CRESTLINE LAKE ARROWHEAD WATER AGENCY 

2/ SWP. 1980: SWP ENTITLEMENT WATER USED FOR GROUND WATER RECHARGE IN ANTELOPE VALLEY. FUTURE. 



239 







■'!t:- 







■>^ 



«?':v*fc 



'^- 




4'^ 







SOUTH LAHONTAN HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use is expected to decline 
by about 10.000 acre-feet between 1980 and 2010. 
Agricultural net water use is expected to drop by 
about 110.000 acre-feet, reflecting a decrease of 
more than 30 percent in irrigated alfalfa and pasture 
acreage as ground water availability and costs 
become major problems in the area. However, urban 
net water use is expected to double, reaching about 
120.000 acre-feet. Water for power plant cooling will 
add about 20,000 acre-feet to net use by 2010. 

The large reduction in irrigated acreage projected 
by 2010 is expected to reduce ground water net use 
by about 80.000 acre-feet per year. Ground water 
overdraft would decrease by about 30.000 acre-feet 
per year. Much of the increase in urban net water use 
is expected to be met by a 30.000-acre-foot increase 
in SWP deliveries. 

The water issues in the South Lahontan HSA in- 



volve: (1) exportation of water from the Owens- 
Mono area, and (2) local ground water quality and 
quantity problems. 

Exportation of Water 

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 
(LADWP) diverts both surface and ground water 
from the Owens Valley and surface water from the 
Mono Basin, totaling 483,000 acre-feet per year. In 
recent years, after deduction of conveyance losses. 
LADWP's supply averaged about 467.000 acre-feet, 
with an average of 100,000 acre-feet annually from 
the Mono Basin. 

Since the commencement of LADWP's surface di- 
version project in Mono Basin in 1941. the lake's sur- 
face elevation has dropped more than 40 feet. 
However, lake levels recovered m 1982 and 1983 be- 
cause of above-normal runoff and reduced diver- 
sions by LADWP. 



240 



In February 1983. the California Supreme Court is- 
sued its decision in the Mono Lake Litigation. Na- 
tional Audubon Society v. Superior Court. The 
Supreme Court held that water rights licenses issued 
to the city of Los Angeles to divert water tributary to 
Mono Lake are subject to the public trust doctrine. 
Under this doctrine, the State retains continuing 
supervision over the taking and use of water. The 
holder of a license issued by the State has no vested 
right to the use of water m a manner harmful to the 
trust. The public trust doctrine protects navigable 
waters from harm caused by diversion of nonnaviga- 
ble tributaries. 

The court also held that there is no duty to exhaust 
administrative remedies before the State Water Re- 
sources Control Board: rather, the courts and 
SvVRCB have concurrent jurisdiction to consider 
whether the city's diversions violate the public trust. 

H.R. 1341 (Richard Lehman. California), a bill that 
would establish a Mono Basin National Forest Scenic 
Area, is now being considered by Congress. If 
passed, the bill would provide land-use guidelines to 
preserve the scenic qualities of federally-owned 
property in the Mono Basin. The Secretary of 
Agriculture would manage the area in a manner con- 
sistent with the protection of California water rights, 
and this management would not affect or impair ex- 
isting water appropriations and operations taking 
place in the Mono Basin. 

In Owens Valley, residents have objected to 
ground water pumping by LADWP. contending that 
the extractions will severely lower ground water lev- 
els and adversely affect native plant and animal life. 
They also claim that health problems will develop as 
dust storms become more frequent. Pending resolu- 
tion of this dispute, a court order has been issued 
that restricts pumping to a maximum rate of 149.5 
cubic feet per second. This reduces the quantity of 



ground water available for delivery by the Los Ange- 
les Aqueduct. 

Both legal and legislative actions have been taken 
by opponents of LADWP's programs. Lawsuits have 
been filed by opponents (the Sierra Club, the Audu- 
bon Society, Inyo County, and the Great Basin Uni- 
fied Air Pollution Control District) to seek either an 
end to or curtailment of the diversions by LADWP. In 
1980, Inyo County voters passed a ballot measure to 
manage ground water extractions in the valley. That 
ordinance, which would have given the county the 
authority to limit pumping by LADWP, was ruled un- 
constitutional by the Superior Court in San Bernar- 
dino County. 

Local Ground Water Use 

Greater urban and agricultural water use has 
caused ground water levels to decline in Antelope 
Valley, Fremont Valley, and Indian Wells Valley. Agri- 
cultural net water use is projected to decrease from 
338.000 acre-feet m 1980 to 230.000 acre-feet in 2010. 
primarily because the income from crops commonly 
grown here appears insufficient to pay the increased 
cost of ground water pumping. 

Because of concern over recent and projected 
population growth and declining water levels in the 
Indian Wells area, the major water users and the U.S. 
Geological Survey are evaluating ground water re- 
charge, the change in water levels, and the discharge 
from Indian Wells Valley. However, the projected 
economic base does not appear sufficient to support 
importation of needed water supplies. 

In the Mojave River area, levels of nitrate, fluoride, 
and other mineral constituents in the ground water 
supplies have increased. Some basins in the area 
must continue to rely on ground water, despite de- 
clining water levels, until the local distribution system 
for State Water Project water is built. 



241 



Legend 




<^ 



EXISTING PROJECTS 



I 



Figure 75. SURFACE WATER PROJECTS - 
COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



242 



Figure 76. WATER SUPPLY AND USE SUMMARY 
COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 1980-2010 



Millions of Acre-Feet 

4 5 6 





1980 




NET USE 






SUPPLY 


1 






2010 


f 


NET USE 






SUPPLY 


1 









10 

_l 



Reduction in need for water supply due to conservation 



" Overdraft and shortage 



PROJECTED USE OF WATER SUPPLIES 1980-2010 

Thousands of acre-feet 



1 










CHANGE 




NET WATER USE 


1980 


1990 


2000 


2010 


1980-2010 


1 


IRRIGATION 


3434 


3560 


3700 


3680 


240 


H URBAN 


102 


130 


170 


200 


100 


1 WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 


20 


20 


20 


20 





I 


ENERGY PRODUCTION 


3 


20 


30 


45 


40 


I 


CONVEYANCE LOSSES 


543 


360 


280 


280 


-260 




TOTAL 


4102 


4090 


4200 


4225 


120 


DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY | 




LOCAL SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT 


4 


4 


4 


4 







IMPORTS BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES 




— 


— 








GROUND WATER 


68 


70 


70 


70 







CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 















OTHER FEDERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 


3970 


3920 


3990 


3990 


20 




WASTE WATER RECLAMATION 


3 


20 


30 


40 


40 




STATE WATER PROJECT 


30 


40 


40 


40 


10 


TOTAL 


4075 


4050 


4130 


4140 


70 


M GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT 


27 


10 


30 


50 


20 


SWP SURPLUS WATER DELIVERY 














SHORTAGE^' 




30 


40 


35 


30 




RESERVE SUPPLY ^ 


4 














jy SWP 
2y SWP 



Totals for 1990, 2000, 20 10, and CHANGE are rounded. 



243 




244 



COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA 



Total annual net water use between 1980 and 2010 
is projected to increase by only about 120.000 acre- 
feet, most of which is increased urban use. This sug- 
gests little change in agricultural water use; however, 
this IS not the case. By use of water saved by intensi- 
fied conservation measures, irrigated acreage was 
projected to increase significantly. This would result 
in an increase in evapotranspiration of applied water 
of more than 400,000 acre-feet by 2010, with essential- 
ly the same water supply as is currently used, but 
with considerably reduced losses to the Salton Sea 
and to saline ground water. There are supplemental 
water needs in other parts of the HSA that can be 
met by a combination of State Water Project deliver- 
ies and ground water overdraft. The Colorado River 
Indian tribes were projected to use their full entitle- 
ment of 55,000 acre-feet by 2000. 

The following are the more significant water issues 
in this HSA. 

The Salton Sea 

Concern about the rising level of the Salton Sea 
has been a major factor in recent water conservation 
efforts in this HSA. The water level in the sea is rising 
and inundating surrounding land. The Salton Sea is a 
natural sump and is maintained mainly by return irri- 
gation flows from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, 
augmented by flows from occasional tropical storms. 
It is recognized as a valuable fishery and wildlife ref- 
uge. Reduction of return flows, either through con- 
servation or as a result of their use in developing 
geothermal resources in the area, could cause the 
level of the sea to decline, increasing the concentra- 
tion of salts in the water. This would impair fish life 
and isolate shoreline development. 

Imperial Valley Water Conservation 

Over the past several years, efforts have increased 
to improve the efficiencies of distribution and use of 
irrigation water in the Colorado River HSA. The lining 
of the Coachella Canal in 1980 is estimated to save 
1 10,000 acre-feet of water per year that had previous- 
ly been lost to seepage. Similarly, the lining of distri- 
bution canals in Imperial Valley now saves an 
estimated 130,000 acre-feet per year. 

Continuing concern for better water management 
in Imperial Valley has led the Imperial Irrigation Dis- 
trict (IID) to implement water conservation pro- 
grams directed toward reducing excess water use. 

The findings of an investigation conducted by the 
Department of Water Resources at the request of an 
IID farmer were published in December 1981 in the 
Department's report. Investigation under California 



Water Code Section 275 of Use of Water by Imperial 
Irrigation District. The study concluded that, based 
on average conditions prevailing from 1975 to 1979, 
an estimated 438,000 acre-feet of water could be 
saved annually in the Imperial Valley through various 
improvements in distribution systems and irrigation 
management. Identified measures included lining of 
portions of the Ail-American Canal, lining of addition- 
al segments of the district's laterals, construction of 
more regulatory reservoirs, elimination of canal 
spills, expanded use of seepage recovery systems, 
and implementation of irrigation management pro- 
grams to reduce excess irrigation runoff. Some of 
these actions, such as lining the Ail-American Canal, 
may not be cost-effective for the district. Improve- 
ments already being implemented are being funded 
through higher water rates to customers and penalty 
assessments to farmers found to be wasting water. 

The salvaged water reportedly could be used in a 
number of ways. First, the water could be put to use 
on lands within the IID now being irrigated with Colo- 
rado River water. The four California agricultural 
agencies with rights to Colorado River water are 
presently using about 80.000 acre-feet more than the 
3.85 million acre-feet per year allocated under the 
Seven Party Agreement. When the Central Arizona 
Project becomes operational around 1985. these 
agencies — the Palo Verde Irrigation District, the 
Yuma Project, the IID. and the Coachella Valley Wa- 
ter District — must reduce consumptive use to the 
level of their firm entitlement. As a result, some of the 
water salvaged by lining the Coachella Canal and 
from improved conservation practices will probably 
be used to sustain existing agriculture. 

Second, not all the irrigable lands within the IID are 
presently being irrigated. Landowners in these areas 
would probably farm more land, if more water 
becomes available on a firm basis. The water saved 
could, therefore, be used for this purpose. 

Third, agricultural water use varies widely from 
year to year in response to climatic conditions, type 
of crops planted, and other factors. Thus, the need 
for water to accommodate those variations must be 
recognized. 

Fourth, if the conserved water could be made 
available to coastal Southern California, that area 
could reduce its purchase of SWP water, temporarily 
reducing demands on the SWP system. However, 
there are legal and institutional issues involved in 
such a transfer. 

In this report, it was estimated that 394.000 acre- 
feet of water could be salvaged between 1980 and 
2010 and would be put to use for irrigation of addi- 
tional crops in IID. 



245 



CHAPTER VI 
OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 



The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some of 
the options which should be examined by water 
managers as they address means of meeting water 
needs. Chapter V discussed the water supply situa- 
tion as it relates to the increased demands being 
placed on the developed resource. It was shown 
that, statewide, net water use is expected to total 
37.3 million acre-feet by 2010, while the developed 
dependable supply is about 33 million acre-feet. In 
the State Water Project service areas, requirements 
are estimated to be 1.5 million acre-feet greater than 
the yield of existing and authorized facilities. This is 
the major identified water management issue. 

In the first section of this chapter, net water use- 
water supply relationships are reviewed for each ma- 
jor region of the State. This is followed by a discus- 
sion of the potential for developing additional water 
supplies, water supply savings gained from more in- 
tensive water conservation (beyond those presented 
in Chapter IV), and other management options avail- 
able to water managers. The chapter concludes with 
a view of government agency roles. 

Constraints on Water Management 

The choice of water management options will be 
constrained or influenced by a number of policy deci- 
sions. Water quality decisions, for example, may con- 
stitute an additional demand on the system. The 
Delta Decision (Decision 1485) requires the mainte- 
nance of minimum water quality standards in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Under this decision, 
slightly more than 5.0 million acre-feet annually, in- 
cluding more than 1.0 million acre-feet of developed 
supply, is needed as Delta outflow to meet these 
standards. Any revision of these standards, there- 
fore, would affect the supply capabilities of the State 
Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project. 

Other potentially serious water quality problems 
include areas with high brackish water tables, par- 
ticularly the San Joaquin Valley, where about 400,000 
acres of irrigated land are now increasingly and seri- 
ously threatened. Ultimately, more than 1.0 million 
acres could be similarly threatened. Productive 



' See Inventory of Instream Flow Requirements Related to Stream Diver- 
sions. Bulletin 216. Department of Water Resources. December 1982. 



capacity of these lands can be maintained only by 
installation of adequate soil drainage and saline wa- 
ter disposal systems. 

Decisions regarding water supply allocations for 
instream uses, including wild and scenic river desig- 
nations, have a direct bearing on the amount of water 
available for development and on the operation and 
yield of existing and proposed projects. Estimates 
and projections in this report are premised on satis- 
faction of instream flows agreed upon through 
negotiations and water rights procedures.' However, 
as more knowledge is gained of instream uses and 
related needs, further actions and decisions could 
affect the water supply options discussed in this 
chapter. 

Finally, the water management options discussed 
have not been studied sufficiently to assess engi- 
neering, environmental, economic, or financial feasi- 
bility. Although it is generally recognized in this 
report that water costs will increase significantly in 
coming years, benefits are expected to increase as 
well. Moreover, actions by the federal government to 
revise cost-sharing provisions associated with water 
projects would shift a significant financial burden to 
the states or other non-federal entities and may af- 
fect project feasibility. 

The Resource Supply Outlook 

Consideration of water resources in California in- 
volves two separate concepts — the total resource 
and the developable resource. The developable re- 
source is that portion of the resource that can rea- 
sonably be converted to a usable supply. The two are 
markedly different. This section identifies the total 
resource, by major region, and discusses the ever- 
widening gap between the total, or physical, re- 
source and the remaining developable resource, as 
limited by economic, political, and social constraints. 

The Total Surface Water Resource 

California's long-term natural (unimpaired) runoff 
was evaluated intensively during the Statewide Wa- 
ter Resources Investigation, authorized in 1947, the 
results of which were published in Water Resources 
in California (Bulletin 1, 1951). The total mean annual 



247 



natural runoff of all California streams for the 50-year 
period from 1897 through 1947 was estimated to be 
70.8 million acre-feet, excluding imports from the Col- 
orado River and inflow from Oregon. 

California's long-standing claim of 5.4 million acre- 
feet from the Colorado River was reduced to 4.4 mil- 
lion acre-feet by a decision of the U.S. Supreme 
Court in 1964, which awarded an additional 1.0 mil- 
lion acre-feet to Arizona for the Central Arizona 
Project. Decisions are pending on further reductions 
to satisfy Indian water rights. Such actions would be 
at the expense of The Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California (MWD). For this discussion, the 
Colorado River supply available to California is as- 
sumed to be 4.4 million acre-feet per year. This brings 
the total resource to 78.5 million acre-feet. (See Fig- 
ure 47 in Chapter V.) 

The Present Water Supply Situation 

Because of an aggressive water development pro- 
gram that covered several decades and ended m the 
early 1970s with completion of the California Aque- 
duct and terminal State Water Project reservoirs, 
California's present water needs are generally being 
satisfied by dependable water supplies. There are, 
however, two notable exceptions. The first is com- 
munities and agricultural areas dependent on local 
streams, with small or no storage reservoirs. They are 
often short of water toward the end of summer, and 
are critically short during drought years. The other 
important exception is areas that overdraft ground 
water basins year after year. The most outstanding 
example of this situation is the San Joaquin Valley, 
where the persistent annual overdraft is about 1.2 
million acre-feet. While water uses are presently be- 
ing satisfied by overdraft, it is not a dependable sup- 
ply. Eventually, economic forces or other restraints 
will compel pumpers to cut back in some areas, caus- 
ing changes in irrigated agriculture, unless provisions 
are made for new imported supplies. 

The Future Water Supply Situation 

Several events, some of them recent, have cast 
uncertainty over the ability to satisfy future water 
needs. In some instances, opposition to proposed 
projects has resulted from confusion arising from a 
combination of economic, political, environmental, 
and emotional concerns. 

Any program to increase developed supply will be 
affected by a variety of constraints that have con- 
tributed to the delay or rejection of proposed 
projects. 

Basic Water Supply- Net Water Use Assump- 
tions. Assumptions regarding the origin and mag- 



nitude of water supplies available to satisfy future 
net water use are summarized m this section. As de- 
scribed earlier in this report, it was assumed that 
additional surface water supplies developed by 2010 
would be obtained from Central Valley sources. 

• The South Coastal region derives its water supply 
from underground storage, local surface storage, 
and imports from the Colorado River, the Mono 
Lake-Owens Valley area, and the State Water 
Project. Local water supplies are fully developed, 
including ground water. It is assumed that import- 
ed water supplies from Mono Lake basin. Owens 
Valley, and the Colorado River entitlements will 
remain the same. Additional water supplies must 
come from the Central Valley through the State 
Water Project. However, there is potential for re- 
ducing water use in the Imperial Valley that could 
make additional supplies available. (See Chapter V 
for a detailed discussion.) 

• The Central Coast HSA will meet its future water 
needs largely from increased local development 
and from the San Felipe Division of the federal 
Central Valley Project, which will serve water to 
San Benito County and south Santa Clara Valley. In 
addition to increased local water supplies, supple- 
mental supplies for Santa Barbara and San Luis 
Obispo Counties would have to come from the 
State Water Project through the proposed coastal 
aqueduct. 

• The San Francisco Bay HSA will satisfy its future 
water needs by increased imports from Central 
Valley sources. These imports could be provided 
by local agencies, the State Water Project, or the 
Central Valley Project. The significant point is that 
any increased delivery of water to the Bay area 
would be derived from the Central Valley. 

• The North Coast HSA will satisfy its future needs 
from local sources. It is assumed that the north 
coastal wild and scenic rivers will not be available 
for export from that area. The exception is the 
Trinity River, which is expected to continue to pro- 
vide 850,000 acre-feet annually to the Central Val- 
ley. 

• The North Lahontan. South Lahontan. and Colo- 
rado River HSAs include some locations that are 
scheduled to receive deliveries from the State Wa- 
ter Project. Aside from the SWP. these areas must 
rely on water supplies within their respective re- 
gions to satisfy future needs. 

• The Central Valley, consisting of part of the Sacra- 
mento, San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake HSAs, is the 
area projected to experience the greatest increase 
in net water use over the next 30 years and beyond. 
The Sacramento HSA is the major source of supply 



248 



for regions that require additional imported water 
supplies (including the San Joaquin and Tulare 
LakeHSAs). 



Demands on the Central Valley. Based on the 

foregoing assunnptions. any further increases in wa- 
ter supplies in the South Coastal region and the Cen- 
tral Coast and San Francisco Bay HSAs (with the 
exception of the city of San Francisco) would come 
from the Sacramento HSA. The additional needs of 
the State Water Project will constitute most of the 
additional export demand on Central Valley sources. 
In addition, the largest increases in water uses are 
projected to occur within the Central Valley — the 



Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake HSAs. 
From a practical standpoint, the Sacramento HSA is 
the only reasonable source available to meet the de- 
mands of 2010 and at least the immediate decades 
beyond. 

The basic surface water resource within the Cen- 
tral Valley, expressed as mean annual natural runoff, 
is 33,640,000 acre-feet. This supply is augmented by 
an average annual import of 850,000 acre-feet from 
the Trinity River, for a total of 34.5 million acre-feet. 
This is shown by major areas in Figure 77. 

The remainder of this section discusses the availa- 
bility of the Central Valley water supply in relation to 
the projected uses of water to be satisfied. Net water 



Figure 77. CENTRAL VALLEY SURFACE WATER SUPPLY 




MAF = MILLION ACRE-FEET 



TRINITY RIVER IMPORT 
0.8 MAF 



249 



uses within the Central Valley are shown in Table 63 
for 1980 and for decades to 2010 for the Sacramento 
HSA and the combined San Joaquin and Tulare Lake 
HSAs. The areas dependent on exports from the 
Central Valley water resources are combined into a 
single value. All values are expressed as net water 
use and are consistent with those in Chapter V. 

In addition to surface runoff, precipitation on the 
Sacramento Valley floor contributes to ground water 
recharge during wetter years and adds to the total 
supply. Increased ground and surface water develop- 
ment can satisfy future water needs in the Sacra- 
mento HSA, but there is essentially no opportunity 
for additional surface or ground water yield in the 
San Joaquin and Tulare Lake HSAs, without addition- 
al imported supplies. 

The net water use in major areas in the Central 
Valley in 1980 is illustrated in Figure 78. Net water use 
in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake HSAs does not 
include the 1980 ground water overdraft of 1.2 million 
acre-feet. The "Unavoidable Delta Outflow" in that 
figure is defined as the large floodflows that occur 
during winter months of wet years that could not be 
captured economically or physically, even with addi- 
tional reservoir storage in the Sacramento Valley. 
The item "Remaining Potential Supply," 4.6 million 
acre-feet, represents the balance of the total Central 
Valley resource, 34.5 million acre-feet, after all cur- 
rent needs, excluding ground water overdraft, are 
met. This also represents the limit of future water 
development in the valley. 

Water Supply Options 

This section discusses the sources of water sup- 
plies, both surface and ground water, that could be 
available to satisfy projected needs. For new water 
supplies, it will not be a case of the use of one or 
more sources to the exclusion of others, but rather 
will probably be a combination of all sources. 

Surface Water 

The California Water Plan of 1957 demonstrated 
that California had more than sufficient developable 



water resources, after providing favorable conditions 
for fish and wildlife, to satisfy potential ultimate ur- 
ban and agricultural uses: however, it was recog- 
nized that certain of the required works would be 
extremely costly and that their need might never ma- 
terialize. 

North Coast. Streams on the North Coast could 
provide sources of water to satisfy statewide needs 
for urban and agriculture purposes beyond 2010. 
However, wild and scenic instream laws, costly 
dams, and long and costly conveyance systems keep 
the North Coast streams from being potential 
sources of water supply in the foreseeable future. 

Sacramento Valley. Most streams m this area 
have been intensively developed to provide water for 
urban and agricultural use. If the funding situation 
improves, prospects seem reasonable that, by 2000, 
the Cottonwood Creek and Auburn Dam Projects 
could be constructed and some local development of 
new water supplies could be completed. These de- 
velopments probably could provide a total new wa- 
ter yield of about 500.000 acre-feet. Also, an enlarged 
Shasta Reservoir with a potential new dry-period 
yield of about 1.4 million acre-feet probably could be 
completed by 2010 to provide a water supply beyond 
that date. 

Delta Transfer Facility. The amount of export 
water available could be substantially increased with 
a Delta transfer facility. More than 20 years of intense 
effort has been made to identify the type of facility 
that should be constructed to convey surplus water 
to the Delta pumps for export to water-deficient 
areas. The Peripheral Canal could have solved most 
issues, including fish and wildlife, water supply, wa- 
ter quality, recreation, and shipping. However, the 
rejection of Proposition 9 left the transfer issue un- 
resolved. Until a Delta transfer facility is provided, 
full use cannot be made of the available surplus wa- 
ter supplies of the Sacramento Valley. 

Colorado River. Reduction in losses of Colo- 
rado River water now serving the Coachella and Im- 
perial Valleys might increase the supplies available to 
the South Coastal region. However, there are signifi- 



TABLE 63 

PRESENT (1980) AND PROJECTED FUTURE NET WATER USES 

DEPENDENT ON CENTRAL VALLEY WATER RESOURCES ' 

(In millions of acre-feet) 



HSA 1980 

Sacramento 7,5 

San Joaquin and Tulare Lake 14.5 

San Francisco Bay. Central Coast. Los Angeles, Santa Ana, San Diego. South Lahontan, and Colorado River V6 

Total 23.6 

Increase from the Present (1980) — 

Excluding consideration of mandatory Delta outflows 



1990 2000 



2010 



7,9 8.0 

15.0 15.4 

2.5 2.6 



25,4 
+ 1,8 



26,0 
-1-2,4 



8,2 
16,0 
2,8 

27.0 

+ 3.4 



250 



Figure 78. PRESENT USE OF DEPENDABLE SUPPLY 



San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 




MAF= MILLION ACRE-FEET 



1/ INCLUDES GROUND WATER PRIME SUPPLY 



cant legal and institutional matters that must be re- 
solved before this option can be exercised. 

Ground Water 

Ground water in storage is the major fresh water 
reserve in California. Water storage capacity of the 
major ground water aquifers totals over 1.0 billion 
acre-feet; by comparison, the total surface reservoir 
storage capacity is less than 40 million acre-feet. 
More than 850 million acre-feet of fresh water is 
stored in the ground water basins, about 500 million 
acre-feet of which may be usable. Sea-water intru- 
sion, water quality, and surface subsidence are some 
of the factors affecting usability. 

Sacramento Valley. This ground water basin 
has not been developed to the full extent of its poten- 
tial because the area is oriented primarily to the use 
of surface water. The physical potential exists for 



developing supplemental yield. This ground water 
supply could be used for local purposes, particularly 
during dry years, permitting surface water to flow to 
the Delta for transfer to water-deficient areas. The 
basin could easily be recharged during ensuing wet- 
ter years, resulting in an increase in total developed 
supply. 

San Joaquin Valley. The valley contains the 
largest ground water basin in the State, with more 
than 200 million acre-feet of water in storage within 
500 feet of the surface. Ground water in these areas 
has been mined heavily to compensate for a shortage 
of surface supplies, and there is currently more than 
30 million acre-feet of usable empty storage capacity. 
The principal method of increasing the supply in this 
area is transferring surplus surface water from the 
Delta during wetter years to recharge the basin, ei- 
ther by direct recharge or indirectly by using the im- 



251 



ported supply in lieu of ground water pumping. 
Transfer of surface flows would be accomplished by 
conveyance facilities of the CVP or SWP. 

Increasing ground water recharge in the San Joa- 
quin Valley will depend on availability of Sacramento 
Valley surplus supplies. However, transfer of these 
supplies has two physical limitations: transfer across 
the Delta and aqueduct capacity. The San Joaquin 
Valley ground water basin is in a state of overdraft 
and is being studied by the Depa-'tment to develop 
a conjunctive use management plan. A Department 
report. The Hydrologic-Economic Model of the San 
Joaquin Valley (Bulletin 214, December 1982). de- 
scribes the current state of the basin and the model- 
ing systems developed to aid m analyzing operation 
alternatives for conjunctive management of the 
ground water resources with surface supplies. 

South Coastal Region. This area is of particular 
importance because it offers the potential for in- 
creased use of underground storage capacity in 



areas of high water use. especially in Orange. Los 
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. 
However, greater use of ground water storage in 
these areas requires long distance delivery of surplus 
surface water during wet years from the Sacra- 
mento-San Joaquin Delta or possibly the Colorado 
River. Considerable vacant storage space is avail- 
able, but the problems of limited aqueduct capacity 
and the large amounts of energy required for pump- 
ing the water to the storage basins cloud the future 
of actions to enhance the yield of these basins. Addi- 
tional degradation of ground water quality could oc- 
cur with widespread recharge, using the saltier 
Colorado River water. However, the local ground wa- 
ter management agencies can draw on extensive ex- 
perience in ground water management in developing 
plans for optimum operation. 

South Bay Area. With its proximity to the Delta 
and with the federal San Felipe Project and the SWP 
South Bay Aqueduct for delivery, this area offers 
some opportunity for increased use of ground water. 




Santa Ana River spreading grounds, a typical ground water 
recharge operation. Local runoff regulated by Prodo Reser- 
voir is replenishing the Orange County ground water basin. 
The focility could be used in summer to spread surplus SWP 
water, when it is available. 



252 



This use would augment an already extensive ground 
water recharge program that has been practiced in 
the Santa Clara Valley for many years. 

Conjunctive Use 

Surface water storage projects can be operated in 
conjunction with ground water basins to develop ad- 
ditional project yield (described in Chapter III). The 
objective is to operate the surface reservoirs to maxi- 
mize their yield and reduce ground water use during 
wetter years and to augment surface supplies with 
ground water during dry years. As is the case with 
other future supplies, the surface water supply must 
come from the Sacramento HSA, and a Delta trans- 
fer facility is required to realize the full potential of 
such a program. 

Water Reclamation 

California reclaims more waste water than does 
any other state. Plans are under way to expand recla- 
mation of urban waste water and brackish agricul- 
tural drainage water. However, estimating future 
quantities of reclaimed water is difficult due to a 
complex set of constraints — principally public health 
concerns. As circumstances change and more is 
known about possible health risks and other factors, 
use of reclaimed water may receive greater public 
acceptance. 

In addition, certain incentives encourage the 
evaluation of future possibilities of integrating re- 
claimed waste water into the overall water supply 
picture. Increased reuse of urban waste water for 
purposes such as landscaping would free potable 
supplies for higher uses, thus improving the water 
supply situation. Transportation costs would be 
sharply reduced in the southern region of the State 
by use of locally reclaimed supplies. 

One such project is a 15-million-gallon-per-day ad- 
vanced waste-water treatment plant operated by the 
Orange County Water District. The plant produces 
injection water for use in reducing intrusion of sea 
water into the ground water supply. This project, 
which is known as Water Factory 21, includes a num- 
ber of advanced treatment steps. To meet the water 
quality requirements for injection, one third, or 5 mil- 
lion gallons, of the daily production of treated waste 
water is also desalted, using a reverse osmosis de- 
salting system. While larger plants do exist else- 
where, this IS the largest desalter m the world 
operating with treated municipal waste for its feed 
supply. 

A major plan for Los Angeles and Orange Counties 
for the reuse of waste water was completed last year 
(1982). The Orange and Los Angeles Counties Water 
Reuse Study was an effort to determine how best to 
incorporate water reuse into the water supply of the 
area. The study identified 45 projects that could 



possibly be implemented over a 30-year period. The 
aggregate capacity of the 45 projects is about 
250,000 acre-feet per year. Following up on a recom- 
mendation produced by the study. The Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California (MWD) solicit- 
ed local project proposals from its member agencies. 
MWD selected 26 proposals for its Phase I demon- 
stration program. The local projects could produce 
42,000 acre-feet per year of new yield. MWD has 
approved funding for some of these local projects, 
which involve several thousand acre-feet per year of 
water reuse. 

The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control 
Agency is evaluating possibilities for using treated 
municipal waste water for irrigated agriculture in 
Castroville. It is conducting a seven-year study that 
will be completed in 1986. The study compares both 
health effects and crop production in pilot agricul- 
tural test plots irrigated with (1) filtered secondary 
treated effluent, (2) coagulated and filtered second- 
ary treated effluent (as required by Title 22 of the 
California Administrative Code), and (3) convention- 
al ground water supplies. A progress report on two 
years of the field studies, issued in the summer of 
1982, shows little difference in crop production with 
the different types of water. Also, reclaimed waste 
water does not present a public health problem. Fur- 
ther favorable results from this study could lead to 
additional uses of waste water for agriculture 
beyond those presently contemplated. 

Brackish Agricultural Drainage Water. The 

Department of Water Resources is investigating the 
feasibility of desalting agricultural drainage water. 
The Department is constructing a demonstration de- 
salting facility at Los Banos with a desalting capacity 
of 344,000 gallons per day. The plant will be used to 
develop data for preliminary designs and cost esti- 
mates for a desalting plant to produce a nominal 
25,000 acre-feet per year. Although the Los Banos 
facility is based on years of pilot plant developmental 
work, many of the answers on cost and production 
rates will not be available until at least 1985. 

Desalting (Sea-Water Conversion) 

Desalting of sea water has at various times been 
suggested as a means of providing additional water 
supplies for California, especially at sites near the 
Pacific coast. Improvements in desalting technology 
continue to be made, but the cost of water produced 
is still considerably higher than that of alternative 
supplies. At the present time, additional surface wa- 
ter supplies can be developed and delivered to major 
water-short areas in the state at less cost than provid- 
ing desalted sea water. However, the high cost of 
importing fresh water to some isolated coastal loca- 
tions may provide economic justification for using 
desalted sea water at those sites. 



253 



Weather Modification 

In California, weather modification programs are 
concerned with increasing rain and snow from exist- 
ing storm systems. Although the overall potential of 
weather modification to amplify the usable state- 
wide water supply appears limited, results of consid- 
erable scientific study conducted to date indicate 
that augmentation can be achieved in varying de- 
grees in some but not all storm events. 

One drawback is that precipitation enhancement 
is needed most during dry years when opportunities 
to seed clouds are fewer. In wetter years, when 
storms develop more often, the increased runoff pro- 
duced artificially would require adequate regulatory 
reservoir storage to ensure that it could be con- 
served for later use. However, the potential to in- 
crease precipitation by cloud seeding and the low 
cost of seeding, particularly from ground-base gener- 
ators, has provided sufficient inducement in recent 
years to 13 agencies to conduct programs under of>- 
erations permits. 

In 1961, the federal government began working on 
Project Skywater, a leading precipitation manage- 
ment research program. One Skywater program, the 
Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project, operates m Califor- 
nia. It is a winter cloud-seeding experiment in or near 
the American River basin that is attempting to deter- 
mine the best way to seed mountain clouds. Results 
indicate there could be significant precipitation in- 
creases in the Sierra Nevada. However, more study 
is needed to establish how much an operational pro- 
gram could increase usable water supplies. 

While the direct environmental effects of the seed- 
ing agents — whether silver iodide or dry ice — are 
minimal, some detriment may result from changing 
the amount and intensity of precipitation. Continuing 
research and careful analysis of the results are aimed 
at identifying and then either mitigating or eliminat- 
ing possible negative elements of weather modifica- 
tion techniques. 

Vegetation Management 

Vegetation management could make more water 
available by removing high-water-using vegetation of 
no economic value. The recent development of pre- 
scribed burning techniques has intensified interest in 
managing chaparral, a community of woody- 
stemmed perennial plants. The helitorch. a device 
suspended from a helicopter, ignites and drops burn- 
ing jellied gasoline and greatly reduces the cost of 
brush removal. Helitorching can be carried out under 
weather and fuel moisture conditions that reduce the 
need for fire lines and standby firefighters. This 
greatly lowers program costs. 



'Amended Water Code Sections 109. 1010. 1011. and 1427: new Sections 
380-387. 1435-1442. 



The 1980 Legislature authorized a State program of 
chaparral management for fire prevention, water- 
shed management, range improvement, forest im- 
provement, and wildlife habitat improvement, with a 
provision for cost-sharing with landowners. This pro- 
gram supplements the State Range Improvement 
Program, which has been in operation since 1945. 

Chaparral is estimated to cover about 20 million 
acres of land in California. An estimated 5 million 
acres of chaparral could be managed under the State 
program; in addition, federal agencies are develop- 
ing management programs for federal lands. The to- 
tal statewide programs could ultimately reach about 
8.4 million acres. However, there is no large-scale 
program for analyzing the effects of management 
programs to determine their economic effectiveness 
in increasing water yield. 

Nonstructural Water Supply Options 

Careful management and efficient use o" a 'eaay- 
developed supplies can delay the need to construct 
additional water supply projects. The following es- 
sentially nonstructural proposals offer the opportu- 
nity to optimize use of existing water supplies, 
particularly during drought periods or other times of 
deficient supply. 

Water Transfers 

Water transfers involve changing the type or place 
of use from one location to another, on either a short- 
term or long-term basis. Transfers do not augment 
statewide supplies because no new water supply is 
created; however, they provide the opportunity to 
shift water to more seriously affected areas during 
such times of crisis as drought periods, or to allocate 
water among uses. 

The 1976-1977 drought focused attention on pos- 
sibilities for temporary transfers of water to areas 
with serious water shortages. Also, in 1978, the Gov- 
ernor's Commission to Review California Water 
Right Law recommended that water transfers be en- 
couraged as one method of responding to needs dur- 
ing very dry conditions. Since that time, transfers 
have received more attention. Over the past few 
years, numerous informal transfers have been made. 
However, legal and institutional barriers to transfers 
would need to be overcome before widespread im- 
plementation could be possible. 

In 1982, Assembly Bill 3491 ' was signed into law. It 
amended the California Water Code to provide 
greater incentives and a regulatory procedure for 
water transfers. The legislation directs the Depart- 
ment and the State Water Resources Control Board 
to encourage voluntary transfers and provides for 
transfers of water up to a period of seven years under 
conditions approved by SWRCB. The law also allows 
water that is made available by conservation or recla- 



254 



mation measures to be transferred or sold. Transfers 
lasting longer and a more "permanent" transfer sys- 
tem will require additional legislation and appropri- 
ate physical facilities. Beyond thiat. thiere are certain 
socioeconomic, institutional, and environmental con- 
siderations associated with transfers that must be 
considered. 

In the past few years, much has been written about 
the possibility of establishing a market approach to 
water transfers; that is. to put water up to the highest 
bidder. However, this would conflict in many areas 
with California's existing water rights structure and 
could have adverse impacts on other water users and 
instream beneficial uses. While California law pro- 
vides that no transfers may take place that injure 
other water users, potential adverse impacts may be 
difficult to determine. The most likely impact may 
occur when the water transfer took place upstream 
of other water users and downstream water users are 
deprived of return flow from lands which transferred 
the water. 

In an economic sense, a market system should im- 
prove the lot of both buyer and seller. The buyer 
should gam because he acquired something he 
needs and will profit from; the seller should gam be- 
cause he received more in return than had he put the 
resource to his own use. However, there is concern 
that such transactions may not adequately compen- 
sate those not directly involved in the buying and 
selling process (farm laborers, food processors, re- 
tailers, and the like). Where theoretical economists 
may view the market as a means of realizing effi- 
ciency, others see equity questions, including the 
treatment or nontreatment of instream uses in a mar- 
ket situation. Questions are being also raised as to 
whether a market concept would really result in the 
highest and best use of the resource. It may be more 
a sign of comparative purchasing power among sec- 
tors than an optimum use pattern for the benefit of 
the whole society. The urban sector, for example, 
could probably outbid agriculture for a given water 
supply; but water used to water lawns or wash cars 
may be of less economic and social value than water 
used to produce food. 

The problem is really not with short-term drought- 
related transfers but in the long-term sale or lease of 
a property right in water. Further study of this matter 
is necessary to properly evaluate the ramifications of 
long-term transfers. 

Supply Dependability and Risk 

The thrust in California water development over 
the past few decades has been to increase water 
supplies to match needs, and in many areas, to in- 
crease the dependability of supplies. Much attention 
has been given to this by the SWP and the CVP. 
which were designed to withstand reoccurrence of 



the 1928-1934 drought. Projects, facilities, and pro- 
grams of other agencies have similar built-in-risks. 
But uncertainty regarding the capability of increas- 
ing developed supplies over the next several 
decades may justify and in fact may require taking 
greater risks in delivering water to customers. 

Selection of the 1928-1934 drought to evaluate 
yield was not based on the relation of drought fre- 
quency to cost of facilities. Rather, it was based on 
the fact that both the CVP and SWP received popu- 
lar support following the 1928-1934 drought, and Cali- 
fornians wanted the projects to provide essentially a 
full supply during the entire drought, regardless of its 
frequency of reoccurrence. Of course, during normal 
and above-normal years, projects can deliver much 
more water than is defined as yield under this crite- 
rion. Surface water projects of other agencies use 
different yield-determining dry periods, but the con- 
cept is the same. This operational procedure works 
well where adequate water supplies are already de- 
veloped to meet existing and future uses. Unfortu- 
nately, the State's water uses are outpacing the rate 
at which increased supplies are being added. 

Some water projects would take greater risks by 
delivering a higher annual supply, leaving less car- 
ryover storage in case of drought. This would allow 
growing needs to be met in normal years. While the 
final answer lies in what nature will actually provide, 
there is a good argument that, in the present era of 
uncertainty regarding future water development, 
given the frequency of reoccurrence of droughts, 
existing facilities may be operating in a more con- 
servative manner than is necessary. The 1928-1934 
dry period is estimated to have a reoccurrence of 
one in 200 to 400 years. However, such dry periods 
could occur in successive decades. Nevertheless, 
with such a small frequency probability, it may be 
that projects should take a greater risk and deliver a 
higher annual average supply. This is illustrated on 
Figure 79, which depicts a typical operation for the 
State Water Project to meet demands for 2000, using 
existing facilities. 

Water Conservation 

As discussed elsewhere in this report (in particu- 
lar, under the section titled "Water Supply Savings 
from Water Conservation" in Chapter IV) , water con- 
servation efforts may or may not actually reduce the 
quantity of water supply needed, depending on how 
much reuse can be made of the excess applied wa- 
ter. The projections of water use presented in this 
report reflect the level of water conservation activi- 
ties (and the amount of related water supply sav- 
ings) considered most likely to occur on a regular, 
nonemergency basis. A specific cost-effectiveness 
determination or benefit-cost analysis was not made 
for this report. As with the population projections, 
the land use assumptions, and other long-range fore- 



255 



3.5 



Figure 79. WATER SUPPLY CAPABILITY 

STATE WATER PROJECT WITH 1982 FACILITIES 

1 \ \ \ 



ui 
ii. 
I 

tij 
oc 
o 
< 

o 

CO 

z 
o 



3.0 



CONTRACT 
DEFICIENCIES 



2.5 



2.0 




FIRM WATER SUPPLY WITH 
EXISTING STATE WATER 
PROJECT FACILITIES 



V) 
UJ 

cc 

UJ 

> 

bl 
Q 



1.5 



1.0 



I 



1 



20 40 60 80 

PERCENT OF YEARS AVAILABLE 



100 



256 



casts, these projections of water conservation are 
not viewed as the only possible set of answers, 
however. 

The experience of the 1976-1977 drought demon- 
strates that significant additional urban water con- 
servation effort is possible in emergency situations, 
although there has been a tendency to return to past 
levels of use when sufficient supplies once more 
become available. What the public perceives as ex- 
treme measures, compared to what may be consid- 
ered an acceptable extension of conservation 
measures assumed in this report, remains to be de- 
termined. However, when convinced of the need and 
equity of proposed actions, the public has demon- 
strated a willingness to cooperate not only during 
droughts but in certain situations where water short- 
ages are a long-term prospect. 

For irrigated agriculture, results of surveys by the 
Department and others are consistent in finding that 
increases in irrigation efficiency beyond that as- 
sumed in this report are possible in many areas and 
that investment to accomplish them will be made if 
benefits can be demonstrated. Where incentives do 
not currently exist or are not recognized, government 
may influence additional increases by education and 
technological development of applicable measures 
and by provision of such economic incentives as tax 
breaks, loan programs, or more direct participation in 
the risks through government-sponsored programs. 

Costs of the greater conservation efforts have not 
been determined. Consequently, cost comparisons 
with other alternatives or a determination of their 
justification are not possible. But, even more impor- 
tant, further analysis of actual water supply savings 
is required before program feasibility can be deter- 
mined. Water savings from conservation measures 
depend on reductions in evapotranspiration and/or 
outflow (or percolation) to unusable saline water. 
These can be determined only on a case-by-case ba- 
sis. The net result is that the amount of water actually 
saved as a result of conservation varies statewide, 
depending on the hydrologic characteristics of each 
area (see Chapter IV, Table 54). 



Project Costs and Financing 

The increasing cost of new water development is 
a major consideration in water management. Rapidly 
rising construction and interest costs have made it 
more and more difficult to finance new water project 
construction in recent years and have led to a search 
for new sources of funds and innovative financing 
methods. The following paragraphs illustrate some 
aspects of this situation. 

Water Project Construction Costs 

Costs of constructing water projects have risen 
significantly faster than overall prices. The Bureau of 
Reclamation Composite Index of Construction Costs 
rose 169 percent from 1970 to 1981, while the GNP 
Price Deflator Index, the base available measure of 
inflation, rose only 1 12 percent during the same peri- 
od. Construction costs are expected to continue to 
rise at least as fast as overall prices during the next 
few years. 

Moreover, the cost of new water development will 
continue to increase because the best available dam- 
sites have already been developed. For instance, the 
cost of an acre-foot of yield from Lake Oroville, the 
original SWP reservoir, is $37 in 1980 dollars, while 
the cost per acre-foot of yield from the proposed 
Cottonwood Creek Project of the Corps of Engineers 
IS estimated to be about $218 in 1981 dollars. Figure 
80 illustrates the comparative costs of water supply 
in 1980 dollars for several existing and proposed 
projects. 

Interest Rates 

The record high levels of interest rates in the 
United States during the past few years have greatly 
increased the difficulty of obtaining funding of water 
projects. As an example, the following table shows 
the impact of the recent rise in interest costs on the 
State's tax-exempt bonds and notes issued to finance 
the SWP. 



Selected SWP Bond Sales and Interest Rates 
1964 to 1982 



Date 



Effective True 
Interest Cost 
Issue Name (percent per year) 

SIOO.OOO.OOO Series "A" Water Bonds 3.63 

5100,000,000 Series "M" Water Bonds 4.94 

SIOO.OOO.OOO Series "N" Water Bonds .'. 5.67 

595.800,000 Pyramid Hydroelectric Revenue Bonds 7.89 

5150.000.000 Reid-Gardner Pro)ect. Series A, Bond Anticipation Notes 9.61 

5100.000.000 Bottlerock-Alamo Bond Anticipation Notes 10.04 

5200,000.000 Reid-Gardner Revenue Bonds 12.00 

5200.000.000 10.00 



2/18/64 

10/22/68 

2/2/71 

10/23/79 

6/30/81 

12/81 

7/82 

11/82 



257 



Figure 80. HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED COSTS OF 
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES (1980 Dollars) 



225 



200 




U. 150 
O 

I- 

o 
o 

Li. 

I 

LiJ 

q: 
o 
< 

UJ 
0. 

(/} 
< 



o 
o 



100 



1/ Includes cost allocated to power 



1940 



1960 



1970 

YEARS 



1980 



1990 



From the last half of 1980 until the limit was tempo- 
rarily increased in September 1981, the Department 
was unable to sell revenue bonds because the bond 
marlcet rates exceeded the statutory limit of 8.5 per- 
cent. Instead, the Department sold three-year bond 
anticipation notes at relatively high interest costs. 
The notes were to be redeemed with the proceeds 
from the sale of long-term revenue bonds when bond 
market conditions improved. Most other water 
project sponsors do not have the financing capability 
of the State and thus have been in even more of a 
financing dilemma. 

Funding and Financing 

During the last four decades, California has re- 
ceived federal funds averaging S250 million annually, 
in 1980 dollars, for water development and flood con- 
trol. However, in the past decade, the federal govern- 
ment has become less involved in financing new 
water projects. Proponents of water projects have 



had to search for alternative sources of funds. Figure 
81 illustrates the flow of federal funds for water sup- 
ply facilities and flood control facilities in constant 
1982 dollars over the past 46 years. Figure 82 shows 
the expenditures that would be necessary in the fu- 
ture, assuming 1982 dollars without inflation and an 
assumed construction schedule. 

Under present policies, federal spending will be 
reduced and more federal functions will be shifted to 
state and local governments. On October 12, 1982, 
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 was signed into 
law. An important element of this Act provides for 
increased revenue from federal water service con- 
tractors in order to recover more costs of existing 
federal projects. Also, the Bureau of Reclamation has 
announced that it is seeking to sell some of its exist- 
ing reclamation projects to the users. 

Whatever form cost-sharing finally takes, it ap- 
pears unlikely that the federal government will, in the 
near future, at least, provide the level of financial 



258 



Figure 81. HISTORICAL FEDERAL RECLAMATION & FLOOD CONTROL 
APPROPRIATIONS IN CALIFORNIA 



500 



CO 

« 

o 
O 

*^ 

CJ 
00 



c 

(B 
(0 

c 
o 
o 

o 

« 
c 
o 



400 



300 - 



200 - 



100 




1937 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960 1965 

FISCAL YEAR 



1970 



1975 



1980 1983 



Figure 82. PROJECTED FEDERAL WATER PROJECT APPROPRIATION 

REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA 

(ASSUMING CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASE AT 2% OVER AVERAGE INFLATION RATE) 



800 



£ 600 

s 

o 

o 



go 

c 
o 



400 



200 



PROJECTS ACCOUNTED FOR 




COTTONWOOD 

STOCKTON « SACRAMENTO 

SHIP CHANNELS 
TEHAMA COLUSA CANAL 
WESTLANDS WD DISTniBllTION 
ENLAnOED SHASTA 
AUBURN 



WARM SPRINGS 
SANTA ANA FCP 
DELTA LEVEES IMP 
FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL 
SAN FELIPE 
NEW MELONES 



1984 



1986 



988 1990 1992 

FISCAL YEAR 

259 



1994 



1996 



1998 



2000 



support for water development and flood control 
that It did during the 1940-1980 period. This will re- 
quire local water agencies and the State to bear con- 
siderably nnore of the burden of financing water 
projects. This all comes at the same time as the full 
impact of Proposition 13 (1978), which has severely 
reduced local tax revenues and is forcing local water 
agencies to rely on new methods of water project 
financing. 

Water Agency Roles in Water 
Management 

Local. State, and federal water agencies historical- 
ly have shared the job in California of developing 
what has become the world's most complex water 
supply and conveyance system. Now the roles and 
responsibilities of the various water agencies are 
changing. Willingness and ability to finance water 
developments have become critical concerns at all 
levels of government. Proposed changes in sharing 
project costs could result in shifts m financial partici- 
pation and agency responsibilities in planning, con- 
struction, and operation of water projects. 

The projected water needs presented in this report 
could be satisfied by the water agencies through 

some combination of the potential water supply op- 
tions that have been discussed earlier in this chapter. 
Surface water could be provided by State and fed- 
eral water agencies; ground water could continue to 
be obtained by individuals and increasingly by 
planned operations of local districts; conservation 
and reclamation could be undertaken by individuals 
and water agencies; and short-term transfers of wa- 
ter could be accomplished by all water agencies. All 
these actions would be in accordance with water law 
and public water policy. 

Local Agencies 

Local agencies and individuals are the major sup- 
pliers of water for agricultural and urban use. from 
both underground and surface water sources; 
however, their development of surface water sup- 
plies reached a peak m the 1960s and has since 
tapered off. Except for a few comparatively small 
projects, local agencies are presently doing little to 
provide additional surface water for their needs. The 
basic reason for this is that the remaining un- 
developed sources are limited and development and 
financing costs are high, generally beyond local fi- 
nancial capability. 

Control over ground water supplies occurs essen- 
tially at the local and individual level. Proper use of 



the ground water basins is a matter of wide concern. 
This has resulted in attempts to change ground water 
management criteria and policy. These changes, 
however, are not expected to significantly alter the 
ground water management role of local agencies. 
Where conjunctive use operations are involved. 
State and/or federal agencies will necessarily partici- 
pate in joint operation programs. 

State Agencies 

The State Water Project is the most far-reaching of 
California's water systems. It extends the length of 
the State and is the key to coordinated water man- 
agement. Local agencies have contracted for 4.2 mil- 
lion acre-feet of SWP water, and the project 
currently has a yield of about 2.3 million acre-feet. 
Plans are being developed to provide the remaining 
1.8 million acre-feet as needed. 

The limited opportunities remaining statewide for 
providing new surface water supplies, together with 
the prospects for reduced development activities by 
local and federal agencies, make it essential that ef- 
forts to better manage California's water resources 
be intensified. All options must be fully considered. 
There could be substantial statewide benefits from 
these efforts. The State must take the lead m working 
for more harmonious water management by the vari- 
ous water agencies, including exploration of innova- 
tive and nontraditional alliances and cooperative 
efforts. 

Federal Agencies 

Federal water programs in California have been 
particularly important. Federal agencies have devel- 
oped the Central Valley Project and a number of 
other major storage and conveyance systems. Fur- 
thermore, the State's complex flood control systems 
have either been federally constructed or funded. 
Also important has been federal funding of many 
local water supply projects and conveyance systems 
through loans and grant programs. But federal con- 
struction activities that just a few years back were 
moving forward actively are now proceeding at a 
greatly reduced pace. Construction and project op- 
eration costs are high, opportunities for water devel- 
opment are limited, and reduced funding has slowed 
water development programs. Proposed changes by 
federal agencies in cost-sharing would shift more re- 
sponsibility for water development to nonfederal en- 
tities. Nevertheless, federal agencies are expected to 
continue to have significant roles in managing the 
State's water resources. 



260 



GLOSSARY 



261 



GLOSSARY 



— A— 

ACRE-FOOT — The quantity of water required to cover 
one acre to a depth of one foot: equal to 3.560 cubic 
feet or 325,851 gallons. Abbreviation: ac-ft. 

ACTIVE STORAGE CAPACITY— The total usable reser- 
voir capacity available for seasonal or cyclic water 
storage. It is gross reservoir capacity minus inactive 
storage capacity. 

AFTERBAY — A reservoir that regulates fluctuating dis- 
charges from a hydroelectric power plant. 

ALLUVIUM — A stratified bed of sand, gravel, silt, and clay 
deposited by flowing water. 

ANADROMOUS— Pertaining to fish that spend a part of 
their life cycle in the sea and return into fresh-water 
streams to spawn. 

ANGLER-DAY — Participation m a fishing activity by one 
person for any part of a day. 

APPLIED WATER— The quantity of water delivered to 
the intake to a city's water system, the farm headgate, 
the factory, and, for wildlife, the amount of water sup- 
plied to a marsh or other wetland, either directly or by 
incidental drainage flows. 

AQUATIC ALGAE — Microscopic plants that grow in sun- 
lit water that contains phosphates, nitrates, and other 
nutrients. Algae, like all aquatic plants, add oxygen to 
the water and are important in the fish food chain. 

AQUIFER — A geologic formation that stores and trans- 
mits water and yields significant quantities of water to 
wells and springs. 

ARID — A term describing a climate or region in which 
precipitation is so deficient in quantity or occurs so 
infrequently that intensive agricultural production is 
not possible without irrigation. 

ARTESIAN — An aquifer in which the water is under suffi- 
cient pressure to cause it to rise above the bottom of 
the overlying confining bed. if opportunity to do so 
should be provided. 

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE— The addition of water to a 
ground water reservoir by human activity, such as irri- 
gation or induced infiltration from streams, wells, or 
recharge basins. See also GROUND WATER RE- 
CHARGE, RECHARGE BASIN. 

— B— 

BENEFITS — Net increase in the value of goods and serv- 
ices which result from the project, as compared to 
conditions without the project. 

BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES— Aquatic animals without 
backbones that dwell on or m the bottom sediments of 
fresh or salt water. Examples; clams, crayfish, and a 
wide variety of worms. 

BIOTA — All living organisms of a region, as m a stream or 
other body of water. 

BRACKISH WATER— Water containing dissolved miner- 



als in amounts that exceed normally acceptable stand- 
ards for municipal, domestic, and irrigation uses. Con- 
siderably less saline than sea water. 

— C— 

CHAPARRAL — A major vegetation type in California 
characterized by dense evergreen shrubs with thick, 
hardened leaves. 

CLOSED BASIN — A basin whose topography prevents 
visible surface outflow of water. It is considered to be 
hydrologically closed if neither surface nor under- 
ground outflow of water can occur. 

CONFINED AQUIFER— A water-bearing stratum that is 
bounded above and below by formations of imperme- 
able, or relatively impermeable, material. 

CONJUNCTIVE OPERATION— The operation of a 
ground water basin in coordination with a surface wa- 
ter storage and conveyance system. The purpose is to 
recharge the basin during years of above-average wa- 
ter supply to provide storage that can be withdrawn 
during drier years when surface water supplies are 
below normal. 

CRITICAL DRY PERIOD— A series of water-deficient 
years, usually an historical period, in which a full reser- 
voir storage system at the beginning is drawn down to 
minimum storage at the end without any spill. 

CRITICAL DRY YEAR— A dry year in which the full com- 
mitments for a dependable water supply cannot be 
met and deficiencies are imposed on water deliveries. 

— D— 

DEEP PERCOLATION— The percolation downward of 
water past the lower limit of the root zone of plants. 

DEPENDABLE SUPPLY (WATER)— The annual quan- 
tity of water that can be delivered under normal water 
supply conditions, and with allowable deficiencies 
during critical dry periods. See also CRITICAL DRY 
YEAR. FIRM YIELD. PROJECT YIELD. 

DEPLETION (WATER)— Water used and no longer avail- 
able as a source of supply. 

DESALTING — A process that converts sea water or 
brackish water to fresh water or an otherwise more 
usable condition through removal of dissolved solids. 
Also called "desalination." 

DETAILED ANALYSIS UNIT (DAU)— The smallest 
study area used in the analysis of water use and sup- 
ply, generally defined by hydrologic features or bound- 
aries of organized water service agencies. In the major 
agricultural areas, a DAU typically includes 100.000 to 
300.000 acres. 

DISCOUNT RATE — The interest rate used in evaluating 
water (and other) projects to calculate the present 
value of future benefits and future costs or to convert 
benefits and costs to a common time basis. 

DISSOLVED OXYGEN— The oxygen dissolved in water, 
usually expressed in milligrams per litre, parts per mil- 
lion, or percent of saturation. Abbreviation: DO. 



263 



DOUBLE CROPPING — The practice of producing two or 
more crops consecutively on the same parcel of land 
during a 12-month period. Also called multi-cropping. 

DRAINAGE BASIN — The area of land from which water 
drains into a river; as, for example, the Sacramento 
River Basin, in which all land area drains into the Sacra- 
mento River. Also called, "catchment area," "water- 
shed." or "river basin." 

— E— 

ECOLOGY — The study of the interrelationships of living 
organisms to one another and to their surroundings. 

ECONOMIC DEMAND — The consumer's willingness and 
ability to purchase some quantity of a commodity 
based on the price of that commodity. 

ECOSYSTEM — Recognizable, relatively homogeneous 
units, including the organisms they contain, their envi- 
ronment, and all the interactions among them. 

EFFLUENT — Waste water or other liquid, partially or com- 
pletely treated or in its natural state, flowing from a 
treatment plant. 

ENVIRONMENT — The sum of all external influences and 
conditions affecting the life and development of an 
organism or ecological community; the total social 
and cultural conditions that influence the life of an 
individual or community. 

ESTUARY — The lower course of a river entering the sea 
influenced by tidal action where the tide meets the 
river current. 

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION— The quantity of water tran- 
spired (given off) and evaporated from plant tissues 
and surrounding soil surfaces. Quantitatively, it is ex- 
pressed in terms of volume of water per unit acre or 
depth of water during a specified period of time. Ab- 
breviation: ET. 

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WATER— The 

portion of the total evapotranspiration which is pro- 
vided by irrigation. Abbreviation: ETAW. 

— F— 

FIRM YIELD — The maximum annual supply of a given 
water development that is expected to be available on 
demand, with the understanding that lower yields will 
occur in accordance with a predetermined schedule 
or probability. See also DEPENDABLE SUPPLY, 
PROJECT YIELD. 

FOREBAY — A reservoir or pond situated at the intake of 
a pumping plant or power plant to stabilize water lev- 
els. 

FRY — A very young fish. 

— G— 

GRAY WATER — All waste water generated within the 
home or small commercial establishment which does 
not contain toilet waste. 

GROSS RESERVOIR CAPACITY— The total storage 
capacity available in a reservoir for all purposes, from 



the streambed to the normal maximum operating level. 
Includes dead storage, but excludes surcharge (water 
temporarily stored above the elevation of the top of 
the spillway) . 

GROUND WATER— Water that occurs beneath the land 
surface and completely fills all pore spaces of the allu- 
vium or rock formation in which it is situated. 

GROUND WATER BASIN— A ground water reservoir, 
together with all the overlying land surface and the 
underlying aquifers that contribute water to the reser- 
voir. In some cases, the boundaries of successively 
deeper aquifers may differ and make it difficult to 
define the limits of the basin. 

GROUND WATER MINING— The withdrawal of water 
from an aquifer greatly m excess of replenishment; if 
continued, the underground supply will eventually be 
exhausted or the water table will drop below economi- 
cally feasible pumping lifts. 

GROUND WATER OVERDRAFT— The condition of a 
ground water basin m which the amount of water with- 
drawn by pumping exceeds the amount of water that 
replenishes the basin over a period of years. 

GROUND WATER PRIME SUPPLY— The long term av- 
erage annual percolation to the major ground water 
basins from precipitation falling on the land and from 
flows in rivers and streams. Also includes recharge 
from local source that has been enhanced by construc- 
tion of spreading ground or other means. Recharge of 
imported and reclaimed water is not included. 

GROUND WATER RECHARGE— Increases in ground 
water by natural conditions or by human activity. See 
also ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE. 

GROUND WATER RESERVOIR— An aquifer or an aqui- 
fer system m which ground water is stored. The water 
may be placed in the aquifer by artificial or natural 
means. 

GROUND WATER STORAGE CAPACITY— The space 
contained in a given volume of deposits. Under opti- 
mum use conditions, the usable ground water storage 
capacity is the volume of water that can. within speci- 
fied economic limitations, be alternatively extracted 
and replaced in the reservoir. 

GROUND WATER TABLE— The upper surface of the 
zone of saturation (all pores of subsoil filled with wa- 
ter), except where the surface is formed by an im- 
permeable body. 

— H— 

HARDPAN — A layer of nearly impermeable soil beneath 
a more permeable soil, formed by chemical cementing 
of the soil particles. 

HEAD DITCH— The water supply ditch at the head end of 
an irrigated field. 

HYDROLOGIC BALANCE— An accounting of all water 
inflow to, water outflow from, and changes in water 
storage within a hydrologic unit. 

HYDROLOGIC BASIN— The complete drainage area up- 
stream from a given point on a stream. 



264 



HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREA (HSA)— The largest 
study area, consisting of one or more Planning Suba- 
reas. It usually encompasses a major stream system 
drainage area, such as the Sacramento River; a closed 
hydrologic basin, such as the Tulare Lake HSA; or a 
regional group of river basins, such as the North Coast 
or Central Coast HSAs. 

— I— 

INCIDENTAL WASTE WATER RECLAMATION— 

Treated waste water returned to fresh-water streams 
or other water bodies. Additional use made of this 
treated waste water is only incidental to waste water 
treatment and disposal. 

INSTREAM USE — Use of water that does not require 
diversion from its natural watercourse. For example, 
the use of water for navigation, waste disposal, recrea- 
tion, fish and wildlife, esthetics, and scenic enjoyment. 

INTENTIONAL WASTE WATER RECLAMATION— 

The planned reuse of urban waste water for specific 
beneficial purposes. 

IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY— The efficiency of water ap 
plication on a farm. Computed by dividing evapotran- 
spiration of applied water (ETAW) by applied water 
and converting the result to a percentage. 

IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW— Applied water that is 
not transpired or evaporated but that returns to a sur- 
face or ground water supply. 

ISOHYETAL — Indicating equal rainfall, generally ex- 
pressed as lines of equal rainfall. 



— L— 

LAND SUBSIDENCE— The lowering of the natural land 
surface in response to: earth movements; lowering of 
fluid pressure; removal of underlying supporting 
materials by mining or solution of solids, either artifi- 
cially or from natural causes; compaction caused by 
wetting (hydrocompaction); oxidation of organic mat- 
ter in soils; or added load on the land surface. 

LASER LAND LEVELING— Use of instruments featuring 
laser beams to guide earthmoving equipment leveling 
land for surface-type irrigation. 

LEACHING— The flushing of salts from the soil by the 
downward percolation of water. 

LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL— A mathematical 
approach to finding the least cost or maximum return 
way of using available resources in the production of 
a good. Linear programming models consist of a set of 
linear equations that are used to describe the limiting 
factors and the objective that is sought. Linear pro- 
gramming models are normally solved using comput- 
ers. 

— M— 

MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF— The average value of annual 
runoff amounts calculated for a selected period of 
record for a specified area. 

MEGAWATT— One million watts. 



MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE— The weight in milligrams of 
any substance dissolved in one litre of liquid. Nearly 
the same as parts per million. Abbreviation: mg/L. 

MOISTURE STRESS— A condition of physiological 

stress in a plant caused by a lack of water. 

MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT— A project designed to 
serve more than one purpose. For example, one that 
provides water for irrigation and recreation, controls 
floods, and generates electric power. 

— N— 

NATURAL FLOW— The flow past a specified point on a 
natural stream that is unaffected by stream diversion, 
storage, import, export, return flow, or change in use 
caused by modifications in land use. 

NET RESERVOIR EVAPORATION— The difference 
between the evaporation from the reservoir's water 
surface and the evapotranspiration from the area inun- 
dated by the reservoir under conditions that existed 
before the reservoir was built. 

NET WATER USE — The sum of the evapotranspiration of 
applied water (ETAW) required in an area, the ir- 
recoverable losses from the water distribution system, 
and the drainage outflow leaving the area. 

NONFIRM YIELD — The amount of water from a surface 
water project that exceeds the long-term firm yield, 
occurring only periodically as a function of variation in 
runoff. Sometimes referred to as nonfirm supply. 

NONPOINT SOURCE— Waste water discharge other 
than from point sources. See POINT SOURCE. 

NONREIMBURSABLE COSTS— Project costs allocated 
to general statewide or national beneficial purposes 
and funded from general revenues. 

— P— 

PATHOGENS — Any viruses, bacteria, or fungi that cause 
disease. 

PEAK LOAD (POWER)— The maximum electrical ener- 
gy used in a stated period of time. Usually computed 
over an interval of one hour that occurs during the 
year, month, week, or day. The term is used inter- 
changeably with peak demand. 

PERCHED GROUND WATER— Ground water support- 
ed by a zone of material of low permeability located 
above an underlying main body of ground water with 
which it is not hydrostatically connected. 

PERCOLATION — The downward movement of water 
through the soil or alluvium to the ground water table. 

PERMEABILITY — The capability of soil or other geologic 
formation to transmit water. 

PHREATOPHYTES— Native plants that typically obtain 
their water supply directly from the water table or 
from the capillary fringe immediately above the water 
table. 

PHYTOPLANKTON— Minute plants, usually algae, that 
live suspended in bodies of water and that drift about 
because they cannot move by themselves or because 
they are too small or too weak to swim effectively 
against a current. 



265 



PLANNING SUBAREA (PSA)— An intermediate size 
study area consisting of one or more Detailed Analysis 
Unit(s). 

POINT SOURCE — A specific site from wfiich waste water 
IS discharged into a water body, the source of which 
can be identified, as with effluent, treated or not. from 
a municipal sewerage system, outflow from an indus- 
trial plant, or runoff from an animal feedlot. See also 
NONPOINT SOURCE. 

POLLUTION (WATER)— The alteration of the physical. 
chemical, or biological properties of water by the in- 
troduction of any substance into water that adversely 
affects any beneficial use of water. 

PROJECT YIELD— The water supply attributed to all fea- 
tures of a project, including integrated operation of 
units that could be operated individually. Usually, but 
not always, it is the same as firm water yield. See also 
DEPENDABLE SUPPLY. FIRM YIELD. 

PUMP-GENERATOR PLANT— A plant at which the tur- 
bine-driven generators can also be used as motor- 
driven pumps. 

PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT— A hydroelectric pow- 
erplant and reservoir system using an arrangement 
whereby water released for generating energy during 
peak load periods is stored and pumped back into the 
upper reservoir, usually during periods of reduced de- 
mand. 

— R— 

RECHARGE BASIN— A surface facility, often a large 
pond, used to increase the infiltration of water into a 
ground water basin, 

RECLAIMED WASTE WATER— Urban waste water that 
becomes suitable for a specific beneficial use as a 

result of treatment. 

RECREATION-DAY— See VISITOR-DAY. 

REIMBURSABLE COSTS— Those costs of a water 
project that are expected to be recovered, usually 
from direct beneficiaries, and repaid to the funding 
entity. 

RESERVE SUPPLY — Developed but presently unused 
surface water supply available to certain portions of 
Hydrologic Study Area to meet planned future water 
needs: the supply is not usually available to other areas 
needing additional water because of a lack of physical 
facilities and/or institutional arrangements. The re- 
serves include the sum of the reserves in each Plan- 
ning Subarea (PSA) from local development and 
imports, the SWP and CVP. and other federal develop- 
ment. Not all the total of these reserves is usable be- 
cause some of it consists of return flows that become 
part of the downstream reserve supply for a PSA. 
Some of the reserve supply identified for a PSA may 
also be included in the amount identified for one or 
more other PSAs. 

RETURN FLOW — The portion of withdrawn water that is 

not consumed by evapotranspiration and returns in- 
stead to its source or to another body of water. 

REUSE — The additional use of once-used water. 



RIFFLE — A shallow extending across a streambed that 
causes broken or turbulent water. 

RIPARIAN — Of. or on the banks of, a stream or other body 
of water. 

RIPARIAN VEGETATION— Vegetation growing on the 
oanks of a stream or other body of water. 

RUNOFF — The surface flow of water from an area; the 
total volume of surface flow during a specified time. 

— S— 

SAFE YIELD (GROUND WATER)— The maximum 
quantity of water that can be withdrawn from a 
ground water basin over a long period of time without 
developing a condition of overdraft. Sometimes re- 
ferred to as sustained yield. 

SALINITY — Generally, the concentration of mineral salts 
dissolved in water. Salinity may be measured by 
weight (total dissolved solids), electrical conductivity, 
or osmotic pressure. Where sea water is known to be 
the major source of salt, salinity is often used to refer 
to the concentration of chlorides in the water. See also 
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS. 

SALINITY INTRUSION— The movement of salt water 

into a body of fresh water. It can occur in either sur- 
face water or ground water bodies. 

SALT SINK— A body of water too salty for most fresh- 
water uses. 

SALT-WATER BARRIER— A physical facility or method 

of operation designed to prevent the intrusion of salt 
water into a body of fresh water. 

SECONDARY TREATMENT— In sewage, the biological 
process of reducing suspended, colloidal, and dis- 
solved organic matter in effluent from primary treat- 
ment systems. Secondary treatment is usually carried 
out through the use of trickling filters or by the activat- 
ed sludge process. 

SEDIMENT— Soil or mineral material transported by wa- 
ter and deposited in streams or other bodies of water. 

SEEPAGE — The gradual movement of a fluid into, 
through, or from a porous medium. 

SELF-PRODUCED WATER— A water supply developed 
and used by an individual or entity. Also called "self- 
supplied water." 

SERVICE AREA — The geographical land area included in 
the distribution system of a water agency. 

SEWAGE — The waste matter from domestic, commercial, 

and industrial establishments. 

SPAWNING— The deposit of eggs (or roe) by fish and 
other aquatic life. 

SPREADING BASIN— See RECHARGE BASIN. 

SPREADING GROUNDS— See RECHARGE BASIN. 

STREAMFLOW— The rate of water flow past a specified 
point in a channel. 

SURFACE SUPPLY— Developed water supply from 
streams, lakes, and reservoirs. 



266 



SURPLUS WATER— As used in this report, the term re- 
fers to developed SWP water supplies m excess of 
contract entitlement water. 



SUSPENDED SEDIMENT- 

pended in a liquid. 



-Particles of sediment sus- 



— T— 

TAIL WATER— See IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW. 

TERTIARY TREATMENT— In sewage, the additional 
treatment of effluent beyond that of secondary treat- 
ment to obtain a very high quality of effluent. 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS— A quantitative measure 
of the residual minerals dissolved in water that remain 
after evaporation of a solution. Usually expressed in 
milligrams per litre. Abbreviation: TDS. See also SA- 
LINITY. 

TRANSPIRATION — The process in which plant tissues 
give off water vapor to the atmosphere as an essential 
physiological process. 



— U— 

USABLE STORAGE CAPACITY— Ground water storage 
capacity that is capable of yielding water to wells 
economically and of being readily recharged. 



— V— 

VISITOR-DAY — Participation in a recreational activity by 
one person for any part of a day. 



— W— 

WASTE WATER — The used water, liquid waste, or drain- 
age from a community, industry, or institution. 

WATER CONSERVATION— As used m this report, ur- 
ban water conservation includes the impact of meas- 
ures and actions taken from 1975 to 2010; agricultural 
water conservation includes any increase in irrigation 
efficiency and related measures after 1980. 

WATER DEMAND SCHEDULE— A time distribution of 
the demand for prescribed quantities of water for 
specified purposes. It is usually a monthly tabulation of 
the total quantity of water that a particular water user 
intends to use during a specified year. 

WATER QUALITY— A term used to describe the chemi- 
cal, physical, and biological characteristics of water, 
usually in regard to its suitability for a particular pur- 
pose. 

WATER RECLAMATION— The treatment of water of im- 
paired quality, including brackish water and sea water, 
to produce a water of suitable quality for the intended 
use. 

WATER REQUIREMENT— The quantity of water re- 
quired for a specified use under a predetermined or 
prescribed situation. 

WATER RIGHT— A legally protected right to take posses- 
sion of water occurring in a water supply and to divert 
that water for beneficial use. 

WATERSHED— See DRAINAGE BASIN. 

WATER TABLE— See GROUND WATER TABLE. 

WATER YEAR— A continuous 12-month period for which 
hydrologic records are compiled and summarized. In 
California, it begins on October 1. 



267 



CONVERSION FACTORS 



Quanlily 



To Convert from Metric Unit 



To Customary Unit 



Multiply Metric 
Unit By 



To Convert to Metric 

Unit Multiply 
Customary Unit By 



Length 



Area 



Volume 



Flow 



Mass 

Velocity 

Power 

Pressure 

Specific Capacity 



Concentration 

Electrical Con- 
ductivity 

Temperature 



millimetres (mm) 

centimetres (cm) for snow deptfi 

metres (m) 

kilometres (km) 

square millimetres (mm') 

square metres (m') 

fiectares (fia) 

square kilometres (km') 

litres (L) 
megalitres 
cubic metres (m^) 
cubic metres (m') 
cubic dekametres (dam') 

cubic metres per second (mVs) 

litres per minute (L/min) 

litres per day (L/day) 
megalitres per day (ML/day) 

cubic deksmetres per day 
(damVday) 

kilograms (kg) 
megagrams (Mg) 

metres per second (m/s) 

kilowatts (kW) 

kilopascals (kPa) 

kilopascals (kPa) 

litres per minute per metre 
drawdown 

milligrams per litre (mg/L) 

microsiemens per centimetre 
(uS/cm) 

degrees Celsius (°C) 



incfies (in) 
incfies (in) 
feet (ft) 
miles (mi) 
square incfies dn') 
square feet (ft') 
acres (ac) 
square miles (mi') 

gallons (gal) 
million gallons ( l(y gal) 
cubic feet (ft') 
cubic yards (yd') 
acre-feet (ac-ft) 

cubic feet per second 

(ft'/s) 
gallons per minute 

(gal/min) 
gallons per day (gal/day) 
million gallons 
per day (mgd) 
acre-feet per day (ac- 

ft/day) 

pounds (lb) 

tons (sfiort. 2,000 lb) 

feet per second (ft/s) 

fiorsepower (hp) 

pounds per square inch 

(psi) 
feet head of water 

gallons per minute per 
foot drawdown 

parts per million (ppm) 

micromhos per centimetre 



degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 



03937 


3937 


3 2808 


62139 


000155 


10 764 


24710 


3861 


026417 


026417 


35315 


1 308 


08107 



25 4 


254 


3048 


1 6093 


645 16 


092903 


40469 


2 590 


3 7854 


3 7854 


0283 1 7 


76455 


1 2335 


0283 1 7 


3 7854 


3 7854 


3 7854 



1 2335 



35 315 

026417 

026417 
026417 

8107 

22046 

1 1023 

3 2808 
1 3405 
14505 
33456 

08052 

1 
1 



(1 8 X °C) + 32 (°F-32)/1 8 



45359 
90718 


3048 


746 


6 8948 


2 989 


12419 


1 


1 



76521-950 3-84 5M 



268 



THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 



DUE JAN 4 1985 



UCD LIBRARY 
m JUN 3 1988 



iiCD LIBRARY inn>,^4^--kP\ 

UCD LIBRARY I 

,^^ . RECD SEP 2 7 1993 
DUE .AN 6 198. ijK\![jy^^ 

M JUN 2 j^ 



^ 



APR -2 1999 



m. jh 



jUV^i^ 



\9B7 lU 



V- L 3 1999 m 
H JUN 30 ' 



LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORf 

Book Slil- 



PLATE 2 






A 



> 




' v" 



PLATE 2 



State of California 
Department of Water Resources 

IRRIGATED AND URBAN LANDS 



10 10 20 30 40 Miles 



20 40 60 Kilometres 




TEHAMA 



GLENN 



Legend 



'\ CD 196 



1 



•—I CH 1961-1970 
IZZl 1970-1981 
^M 1981 URBAN 




8 Miles 



8 Kilometres 



GLENN 



B/acA Butte 
Lake 




CHANGE IN IRRIGATED ACREAGE 

GLENN COUNTY 1961 - 1981 



\ 



ft^ 



Legend 
1958 

IZH 1958-1974 

\Z3 1974-1981 




__ CQujt TY^ 



^— I URBAN AREA 
U J IRRIGATED LAND 




HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS 

NC NORTH COAST 

S F SAN FRANCISCO BAY 

CC CENTRAL COAST 

L A LOS ANGELES 

S A SANTA ANA 

SD SAN DIEGO 

SACRAMENTO 
SAN JOAQUIN 
TULARE LAKE 
NORTH LAHONTAN 
SOUTH LAHONTAN 
COLORADO RIVER 
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 



o 



^V^K I N G S^*' ''^ 




CHANGE IN IRRIGATED ACREAGE 

MADERA COUNTY 1958 - 1981 



\ 



Success Res. 



<l^^ 



okersfield 




O U OUU I M LAMUN I AN 
C R COLORADO RIVER 

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 





^^^'y 









E R ' A L ^^~^, 



) 



.^-T 



EDITION OF 1982 




"8 *, Uiddle BamKes.^ 









state of California 

Department of Water Resources 



SURFACE WATER PROJECTS 
IN CALIFORNIA 



Zegend 



-^c^ EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION 
O AUTHORIZED OR APPROVAL IN PROGRESS 
RECENTLY EVALUATED OR UNDER STUDY 



WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 



Scale in Miles 

10 10 20 30 40 50 



Kilometres 

20 40 60 



NOTE: EXISTING POV/ERPLANTS NOT SHOWN. 






31 .1 



o 







SANTA B A*-ir,~IWnL _ , 




t^_, 



Salsipucdes Res. 




%^ Cachuma Resign 

Gibi altar fles- EnT. 



"X" 



\ 




\ 






\ 



^^ ^^ 



\ 



\ 



J 



'.>^ 



\. 



y 



A.' 



V 



N 



\ 



f 



P 



N A R D 



a 







Lake Havosu 



<^ 








Loke'ii/ceess ^T^. 



iiati nells , 
Vdlley ^ 



.-^ r-' 



r 



I 'Bueno Visto 
If Lake Bed 



S 







*Vt4\\ 



V: 






\ 



\ 






\ 



\ 



1 






\ 



p 



k D I 



\ 




lovrltlwr R»4l ^ / 



SAN BERNARD* 



^^'Whilliet Natrons _J f ~ ^ 

/■ Kes-ifci / \ .'' , P'V»RVeRSIDE 



«(■ "^'j nUffiFci^ V-^Pioc/o Res. 




Loire Perrfs 



'/ ^*, , )/'SBn Joelnv 

• SANTA ANA 1 /fai/roarf Cani'OnJ'ffes. IJ »„ 

/range "~"%v^4» 







EDITION OF 1983 



state of California— Resources Agency 
Department of Water Resources 

P.O. Box 388 
Sacramento 
95802 - 



'^ 



I