(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 "California water plan update"

I TC824 

ft£ 

no. 1&0-9 
8 V. 1 
Phys Sci 

Lib 



January 1998 



o 




(_ tiufotfiit 



Volume 1 
Public Review 

DRAFT 



Public Review Draft 



CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN UPDATE 



Bulletin 160-98 



Volume I 
January 1998 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

QA\/1« 

FEB 04 1998 



GOV i. UK, 



WW. k.. ■ -fttft} 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

VOLUME I CONTENTS 

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1 

California ~ An Overview 1-2 

California's Water Geography 1-9 

Some Trends in California Water Management Activities 1-15 

Changes Since the Last California Water Plan Update 1-18 

Differences in Demand/Supply Balances 1-19 

Works in Progress 1-21 

Organization of Bulletin 160-98 1-23 

Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 2-1 

Infrastructure Update 2-1 

Legislative Update 2-6 

State Statutes 2-7 

Local Water Supply Reliability 2-7 

Financing Water Programs and Environmental Restoration Programs 2-7 

Federal Statutes 2-10 

Safe Drinking Water Act 2-10 

Clean Water Act Reauthorization 2-11 

Endangered Species Act Reauthorization 2-1 1 

Reclamation, Recycling, and Water Conservation Act of 1996 2-12 

Water Desalination Act of 1996 2-12 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (PL 104-332) 2-13 

Federal and State Programmatic Actions 2-13 

State Water Project Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments 2-13 

Clarification of SWP Water Allocation Rules 2-13 

Permanent Sales of Entitlement 2-14 

Storing Water Outside a Contractor's Service Area; Transfers of Non-Project Water 2-14 

Annual Turnback Pool 2-15 

Other Operational Changes 2-15 

CVPIA Implementation 2-15 

Renewal of CVP Water Service Contracts 2-15 

Transfers of Project Water 2-16 



111 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Actions 2-16 

Land Retirement Program 2-19 

CVP Reform Act and CVPIA Administration 2-20 

Other Administrative Actions and Reports 2-20 

FERC Relicensing 2-21 

New ESA Listings 2-23 

San Francisco Bay and Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta 2-23 

Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED 2-23 

Water Quality Standard Setting 2-24 

Long-Term Solutions - Finding Process for Bay-Delta 2-25 

ESA Administration 2-26 

Suisun Marsh 2-27 

Delta Protection Commission 2-28 

San Francisco Estuary Project 2-29 

Coordinated Operation Agreement Renegotiation 2-30 

Interstate Issues 2-31 

Truckee-Carson River System 2-31 

Walker River 2-32 

Klamath River 2-32 

Colorado River ." 2-33 

Regional and Local Programs 2-34 

Local Agency Groundwater Management Programs 2-34 

Watershed-Based Planning 2-35 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Watershed Planning 2-35 

Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Plan 2-38 

San Joaquin River Management Program 2-39 

*' Conservancies 2-40 

Non-Governmental Organizations 2-40 

Update on Implementation of Urban Water Conservation MOU 2-41 

Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices 2-41 

Title Transfer of Reclamation Projects 2-41 

Chapter 3. Water Supplies 3-1 

Climate and Hydrology 3-1 



IV 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Geographic Variability 3-2 

Seasonal Variability , 3-2 

Climatic Variability 3-6 

Droughts of Recent Record 3-11 

Floods of Recent Record 3-11 

Water Supply Calculation 3-14 

Water Budgets 3-14 

Water Supply Scenarios 3-17 

Average Year Scenario 3-17 

Drought Year Scenario 3-17 

Other Drought-Related Considerations 3-21 

Surface Water Supplies 3-27 

Surface Water Development Projects 3-27 

Central Valley Project 3-27 

The State Water Project 3-36 

Klamath Project 3-43 

Colorado River 3-44 

Other Federal Projects 3-48 

Los Angeles Aqueduct 3-48 

Tuolumne River Development 3-50 

Mokelumne Aqueduct 3-52 

Yuba and Bear Rivers Development 3-53 

Reservoir and River Operations 3-54 

Water Supply Operations 3-54 

Flood Control Operations 3-55 

Temperature Control Operations 3-57 

Delta Operations 3-58 

Impacts of Recent Events on Surface Water Supplies 3-59 

Impacts of Reservoir Reoperation on Surface Water Supplies 3-63 

Groundwater Supplies 3-64 

Base Year Supplies 3-65 

Groundwater Basin Yield 3-67 

Perennial Yield 3-67 

Overdraft 3-68 

DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Land Subsidence 3-70 

Groundwater Management Programs 3-71 

Basin Adjudication 3-72 

Special Powers Agencies and Local Ordinance 3-74 

Water Transfers, Exchanges, and Banking 3-74 

Short-Term Agreements 3-75 

Drought Water Bank 3-76 

CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program 3-78 

Long-Term Agreements 3-79 

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies 3-80 

Water Recycling Status 3-81 

Water Recycling Potential 3-83 

Water Quality 3-84 

Overview of Pollutants and Stressors Causing Water Quality Impairment 3-84 

Mineralization 3-84 

Eutrophication 3-85 

Abandoned Mines 3-85 

Pathogens 3-86 

Disinfection By-Products 3-87 

Pollutants in Agricultural and Urban Runoff ". 3-89 

Temperature and Turbidity 3-93 

Establishing and Meeting Water Quality Standards 3-93 

Drinking Water Standards 3-95 

Source Water ProtectionAVatershed Management Activities 3-97 

A Source Water Protection Example 3-98 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Water Quality Planning 3-100 

Colorado River Water Quality 3-101 

Groundwater Quality 3-102 

Water Supply Summary by Hydrologic Region 3-104 

Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 4-1 

Calculation of Water Demands 4-2 

Urban Water Use 4-6 

Population Growth 4-6 



VI 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use 4-12 

Urban Water Conservation Actions 4-13 

Effects of Droughts on Water Use 4-16 

Urban Water Use Planning Activities 4-18 

Urban Water Use Forecasting 4-20 

1995 per capita water use 4-21 

Per capita water use forecast for 2020 4-21 

Summary — Urban Water Demands 4-25 

Agricultural Water Use 4-29 

Crop Water Use 4-29 

Factors Influencing Crop Water Use 4-33 

Agricultural Water Conservation Programs 4-33 

Irrigation Efficiencies 4-35 

Agricultural Acreage Forecasting 4-37 

Quantifying Present Irrigated Acreage 4-37 

Forecasting Future Irrigated Acreage 4-43 

Other Factors Affecting Forecasted Irrigated Acreage 4-46 

Results of 2020 Acreage Forecast 4-49 

Agricultural Water Demands 4-5 1 

Environmental Water Use 4-52 

Flows in Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-52 

Instream Flows 4-55 

Factors Affecting Future Instream Flows 4-57 

Instream Flow Summary 4-59 

Bay-Delta Outflow 4-60 

Hydrologic Setting 4-62 

Delta Fish Species of Special Concern ~ Anadromous and Resident Delta 

Species 4-64 

Quantifying Delta Outflow Requirements 4-67 

Wetlands 4-68 

Wetlands Policies and Programs 4-68 

Refuge Water Conservation Programs 4-72 

Wetlands Water Demands 4-72 

Summary of Environmental Water Demands 4-74 



vu 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 5-1 

Demand Management Technologies 5-1 

Urban Residential Technology 5-1 

Plumbing Fixtures 5-1 

Clothes Washers 5-2 

Water Heating 5-3 

Flow Trace Analysis 5-4 

Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Technology 5-4 

Plumbing Fixtures 5-4 

Cooling Towers 5-5 

Agricultural Technology 5-6 

Irrigation Systems 5-6 

Irrigation Scheduling 5-15 

Summary - Agricultural Technologies 5-17 

Water Supply Treatment Technologies 5-17 

Description of Water Treatment Technologies 5-17 

Activated Carbon Adsorption 5-18 

Air-stripping 5-18 

Advanced Oxidation Process 5-19 

Membrane Technologies * 5-19 

Ion-Exchange Process 5-21 

Chemical Precipitation 5-21 

Biological Treatment 5-21 

Disinfection 5-22 

Innovative Treatment Technologies 5-22 

Applications of Water Treatment Technologies 5-24 

Wastewater Reclamation 5-24 

Criteria for Indirect Potable Reuse 5-25 

Water Reclamation 5-28 

Desalting 5-28 

Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater 5-31 

Inflatable Dams 5-35 

Environmental Water Use Technologies 5-36 

Refuge Irrigation Management 5-36 



vm 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Detention of Floodwater 5-36 

Adaptive management of cropland 5-36 

Remediation of drain water 5-36 

Real-Time Water Quality Management 5-37 

Fish Screen Technologies 5-38 

State of the Art 5-38 

Current Research 5-41 

Temperature Control Technology 5-44 

Temperature Control Device 5-44 

Temperature Control Curtain 5-44 

Weather Modification 5-45 

Seeding Agents 5-46 

Dry Ice 5-46 

Silver Iodide 5-46 

Liquid Propane 5-47 

Bacteria 5-47 

Seeding Delivery Systems 5-47 

Aerial Application 5-47 

Ground Applications 5-47 

Effectiveness 5-48 

Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 6-1 

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process 6-1 

Demand Management Actions 6-9 

Water Conservation 6-9 

Urban Water Conservation Options 6-10 

Reduction of Outdoor Water Use 6-10 

Residential Indoor Water Use 6-11 

Interior Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Water Use 6-12 

Distribution System Losses 6-12 

Agricultural Water Conservation Options 6-14 

Irrigation Management 6-16 

Water Delivery Flexibility 6-16 



IX 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Canal Lining and Piping , .... 6-17 

Tail Water and Spill Recovery Systems 6-17 

Land Retirement 6-18 

Cost of Land Retirement Program 6-22 

Environmental Water Conservation Options 6-24 

Water Supply Augmentation Options 6-24 

Improving Delta Conditions 6-25 

Interim South Delta Program 6-25 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 6-26 

Statewide Options for Conveyance Facilities 6-28 

Statewide Options for Surface Storage Facilities 6-29 

Multipurpose Facilities 6-30 

Upstream of the Delta 6-31 

Evaluation of Onstream Storage Options 6-35 

Evaluation of Offstream Storage Options 6-40 

Recommended Onstream and Offstream Surface Storage Options Upstream of 

the Delta 6-44 

Illustrative Operation Example 6-47 

Off-Aqueduct Storage South of the Delta 6-48 

History of South of the Delta Off-aqueduct Storage Investigations 6-49 

Evaluation of South of the Delta Storage Options 6-50 

Recommended Storage South of the Delta 6-55 

Operation of Off Aqueduct Storage South of the Delta 6-56 

In-Delta Storage 6-57 

Groundwater and Conjunctive Use 6-57 

Potential for Conjunctive Use in the Central Valley 6-58 

Sacramento Valley 6-58 

San Joaquin Valley 6-59 

Recent Groundwater Studies with Statewide Scope 6-60 

SWP Conjunctive Use Studies 6-60 

Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan 6-62 

CALFED Conjunctive Use Component 6-62 

Water Transfers 6-64 

X DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Sources of Water for Transfer 6-65 

Prospects for Water Transfers 6-68 

Drought Year Transfers 6-70 

Transfers Involving Conveyance in SWP Facilities 6-70 

Transfers Involving Conveyance in CVP Facilities 6-72 

Colorado River Region 6-73 

Every Year Transfers 6-74 

Central Valley 6-74 

Colorado River 6-76 

Water Recycling 6-77 

Desalination 6-80 

Groundwater Recovery 6-80 

Seawater Desalination 6-80 

Weather Modification 6-82 

Other Supply Augmentation Options 6-84 

Water Bags 6-85 

Gray Water 6-85 

Watershed Management on National Forest Lands 6-85 

Long-Range Weather Forecasting 6-86 

Options for Future Environmental Habitat Enhancement 6-86 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act 6-91 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program 6-91 

Anadromous Fish Screen Program 6-91 

Spawning Gravel/Riparian Habitat Restoration Program 6-92 

1994 Bay-Delta Agreement 6-92 

Category III Program 6-92 

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program 6-95 

Other Environmental Enhancement Options 6-95 

Sherman and Twitchell Islands Wildlife Management Plans 6-95 

Fish Protection Agreements 6-96 

Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat 

Restoration Program (SB 1086) 6-96 

Financing Local Water Management Options 6-97 



XI 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Sources of Revenues 6-98 

Financing Methods 6-98 

Self-Financing 6-99 

Short-Term Debt Financing 6-100 

Conventional Long-term Debt Financing 6-100 

Innovative Long-term Debt Financing 6-102 

Credit Substitution and Enhancement 6-102 

State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs 6-103 

Relationship Between Financing and Water Agency Ownership and Size 6-104 

Public Water Agency 6-104 

Investor-Owned Water System Financing 6- 1 05 

Mutual Water Companies 6-105 

FIGURES 

Figure 1-1 . Map of the United States 1-4 

Figure 1-2. Relief Map of California 1-7 

Figure 1-3. California's Major Water Projects 1-11 

Figure 1-4. California Planning Regions 1-13 

Figure 3-1. Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff 3-3 

Figure 3-2. Regional Imports and Exports 3-4 

Figure 3-3. Northern Sierra Eight Station Precipitation Index 3-5 

Figure 3-4. Sacramento Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff 3-7 

Figure 3-5. San Joaquin Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff 3-8 

Figure 3-6. Eight-River Index Computed for January 1906-96 3-10 

Figure 3-7. Sacramento River and Santa Ynez River Runoff 3-19 

Figure 3-8. Colorado River Unimpaired Runoff at Lee Ferry 3-20 

Figure 3-9. CVP and SWP Deliveries During 1987-92 Drought 3-22 

Figure 3-10. Maximum/minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: Shasta 3-23 

Figure 3-11. Maximum/minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: Oroville 3-24 

Figure 3-12. Maximum/minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: New Melones 3-25 

Figure 3-13. Maximum/minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: Cachuma 3-26 

Figure 3-14. Major CVP Facilities 3-29 

Figure 3-15. Central Valley Project Service Areas 3-32 



Xll 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Figure 3-16. CVP Deliveries 1960-96 3-33 

Figure 3- 1 7. CVP Power Generation 3-34 

Figure 3-18. 1995 «& 2020 Level CVP Delivery Capability South of Delta 

with Existing Facilities 3-35 

Figure 3-19. Major State Water Project Facilities 3-37 

Figure 3-20. State Water Project Service Areas 3-40 

Figure 3-21 . SWP Deliveries 3-41 

Figure 3-22. 1995 and 2020 SWP Level Delivery Capability with Existing Facilities 3-42 

Figure 3-23. Colorado River Watershed 3-45 

Figure 3-24. Colorado River Service Areas 3-46 

Figure 3-25. 1995 Level CVP Delivery Capability South of the Delta Under D-1485 and WR 95-6 . 3-61 

Figure 3-26. 1995 Level SWP Delivery Capability Under D-1485 and WR 95-6 3-62 

Figure 3-27. Locations of Groundwater Management Districts and Agencies with Groundwater 

Management Plans 3-73 

Figure 4-1. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion - Inland Area 4-4 

Figure 4-2. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion - Coastal Area 4-5 

Figure 4-3. Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995 to 2020 4-7 

Figure 4-4. Components of Population Growth, 1940-1995 4-10 

Figure 4-5. Changes in Urban Per Capita Water Use Over Time 4-17 

Figure 4-6. Changes in Land Use Over Time, DAU 233 4-28 

Figure 4-7. Ranges of Applied Water and Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 4-31 

Figure 4-8. Typical Land Use Survey Map 4-38 

Figure 4-9, General Trends in Cropping Patterns Over Time 4-41 

Figure 4-10. Crop Yield Increases (1995 to 2020) Estimated by the 

Central Valley Production Model 4-45 

Figure 4-11. Areas of Shallow Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley 4-48 

Figure 4-12. California Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-53 

Figure 4-13. Bay-Delta Estuary 4-61 

Figure 4-14. Historic Delta Inflow and Outflow 1980-96 4-63 

Figure 4-15. Winter-run Salmon Escapement 4-66 

Figure 4-16. Publicly Managed Fresh Water Wetlands 4-73 

Figure 5-1 . Fish Screen Installations Map 5-40 

Figure 6-1 . Hydrologic Regions of California 6-3 



xui 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Figure 6-2. Location of the North of Delta Reservoir Sites 6-46 

Figure 6-3. Location of South of Delta Reservoir Sites 6-51 

SIDEBARS 

Summary of Key Statistics 1-3 

California's Largest Water Retailers 1-6 

California Water Statistics 1-10 

California's Hydrologic Regions 1-14 

A California Water Chronology 1-16 

Documents Now in Public Review 1-22 

CVPIA's Dedicated Water 2-17 

CVPIA Waterfowl Habitat Provisions 2-19 

Water Year Classifications 3-9 

Operations Studies 3-16 

Auburn Dam ~ Planned, But Not Constructed 3-30 

Colorado River Operations 3-48 

USACE Operating Rules for Flood Control 3-57 

Groundwater Production Conditions 3-66 

Seawater Intrusion in Orange County ^ 3-70 

Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley 3-71 

Summary of Key Statistics 4-2 

Landscape Water Use 4-15 

Urban Best Management Practices (1997 Revision) 4-18 

Variation in Conservation Estimates ~ Bulletin 160 and CALFED 4-20 

Water Use Impacts from Conversion of Agricultural Land Use to Urban Land Use for a San Joaquin 

Valley Example 4-27 

Efficient Water Management Practices for Agricultural Water Suppliers in California 4-34 

California's Nursery Industry 4-39 

Agroforestry Research 4-49 

CVPIA Anadromous Fish Restoration Program 4-56 

Recovery Efforts for Winter-run Chinook Salmon 4-65 

California Wetlands Conservation Policy 4-69 

San Diego Water Repurification Program 5-24 



XIV 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Marina Coast Water District 5-30 

McFarland Nitrate Contamination 5-33 

Case History: McClellan Air Force Base Groundwater Contamination 5-34 

Case History: Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc 5-35 

Initial Screening Criteria 6-4 

Options Category Evaluation 6-5 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Common Programs 6-28 

American Basin Conjunctive Use Project 6-61 

Is That Real Water? 6-65 

Water Code Section 1810 et seq 6-69 

Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development Project 6-82 

Monterey County Water Resources Agency's Cloud Seeding Program 6-84 

TABLES 

Table 1-1 . 2020 Average Year Forecasts 1-20 

Table 2-1. Large Dams Under Construction in California 2-1 

Table 2-2. Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992 2-2 

Table 2-3. Desalting Plants 2-3 

Table 2-4. Water Reclamation Plants 2-4 

Table 2-5. Major Fishery Restoration Projects 2-5 

Table 2-6. Sample Restoration Projects Funded in Part by the SWP's 4-Pumps Program 2-6 

Table 2-7. Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown 2-8 

Table 2-8 California Hydropower Projects - License Years 2000 - 2010 2-22 

Table 2- 9 Partial List of Targeted Watersheds and Watershed Activities 

Identified for the Watershed Management Initiative 2-37 

Table 3-1 . Severity of Extreme Droughts in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys 3-11 

Table 3-2. Major Floods Since the 1950s 3-13 

Table 3-3.Califomia Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs 3-14 

Table 3-4. Major Central Valley Project Reservoirs 3-28 

Table 3-5. Major State Water Project Reservoirs 3-38 

Table 3-6. Major Storage Facilities on the Klamath River 3-43 

Table 3-7. Storage Facilities of Other Federally Owned Water Projects 3-43 

Table 3-8. Larger Reservoirs in Los Angeles Aqueduct System 3-49 



XV 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Table 3-9. Larger Reservoirs in the Tuolumne River Basin 3-51 

Table 3-10. Mokelumne River Aqueduct System Reservoirs 3-52 

Table 3-11. Larger Reservoirs along the Yuba and Bear Rivers 3-54 

Table 3-12. Federal Flood Control Storage in Major Central Valley Reservoirs 3-56 

Table 3-13. Summary of Key Changes in Modeled Delta Standards 

B160-93 1990 Base Yr (D-1485) to B160-98 1995 Base Yr (WR 95-6) 3-63 

Table 3-14 Estimated 1995 Level Applied Groundwater Supplies 

by Hydrologic Region (taf per year) 3-65 

Table 3-15. Estimated Overdraft by Hydrologic Region 3-68 

Table 3-16. California Adjudicated Groundwater Basins and Watermasters 3-72 

Table 3-17. California Drought Water Banks Purchases 3-77 

Table 3-18. CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program 3-78 

Table 3-19. Recently Completed Long-Term Water Transfer Agreements 3-79 

Table 3-20. Base Year (1995) Reuse by Hydrologic Region 3-82 

Table 3-21. Base Year (1995) Use of Total Recycled Water by Category 3-83 

Table 3-22. Projections of Future Water Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply 3-83 

Table 3-23. Significant Cryptosporidium Outbreaks 3-86 

Table 3-24. Some Waterbome Diseases of Concern in the United States 3-87 

Table 3-25. Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products 3-88 

Table 3-26. Major Waste Water Treatment Plants Discharging into the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers 3-92 

Table 3-27. A Partial List of Potential Beneficial Uses of Water 3-94 

Table 3-28. A Partial List of Existing Water Quality Limits 3-95 

Table 3-29. A Partial List of Water Quality Constituents or Characteristics 

for Which Water Quality Objectives May Be Established 3-95 

Table 3-30. Constituents Regulated Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act 3-96 

Table 3-31. Potential Sources and Causes of Water Quality Impairment 3-98 

Table 3-32. State Water Project Sanitary Survey Update (1996) Recommendations 3-99 

Table 3-33. CALFED Bay-Delta Water Quality Parameters of Concern 3-101 

Table 3-34. Waterbome-Disease Outbreaks Associated with Groundwater 

Used as a Drinking Water Source, 1993-1994 3-103 

Table 3-35. California Average Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region 3-105 



XVI 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Table 3-36. California Drought Year Water Supplies by Hydrologic Region 3-106 

Table 4-1 . California Population by Hydrologic Region 4-11 

Table 4-2. Comparison Between Department of Finance Special Interim and Councils of Governments 

Projections 4-12 

Table 4-3. Summary of California and Federal Plumbing Fixture Requirements 4-14 

Table 4-4. 1995 Urban Water Management Plans 4-19 

Table 4-5. Urban Water Use Study Input Variables 4-22 

Table 4-6. Urban Water Use Study Data Sources 4-22 

Table 4-7. Per Capita Water Use With Economic Growth and Conservation Measures 4-24 

Table 4-8. Per Capita Water Use by Hydrologic Region, 1995 and 2020 4-25 

Table 4-9. Percent Change in Per Capita Use by Hydrologic Region 4-25 

Table 4-10. Urban Applied Water Use by Region 4-26 

Table 4-11. Annual Reductions in Applied Water and Depletions Due to EWMP Implementation 

by 2020 4-35 

Table 4-12. 1995 Irrigated Acreage by Crop and Crop Type 4-42 

Table 4-13. California Crop and Irrigated Acreage by Hydrologic Region, 2020 Forecast 4-50 

Table 4-14. Agricultural Demands by Hydrologic Region 4-51 

Table 4-15. Wild and Scenic Flows by Hydrologic Region 4-55 

Table 4-16. Proposed Instream Flows, CVPIA PEIS 4-59 

Table 4-17. Instream Flows by Hydrologic Region 4-60 

Table 4-18. Wetlands Water Demands by Region 4-74 

Table 4-19. Summary of Environmental Water Demands by Hydrologic Region 4-74 

Table 5-1 . Potential Estimated Annual Water & Energy Use and Potential Savings for 

Horizontal Axis Washers 5-3 

Table 5-2. Reclamation Plants with a Capacity of at least 10 mgd 5-27 

Table 5-3 Reverse Osmosis Membranes 1970-1995 5-29 

Table 5-4. Wellhead Treatment Sites Examples 5-31 

Ir 
Table 6-1 . 1991 Urban Water Shortage Management 6-8 

Table 6-2. Statewide Urban Water Conservation Options Beyond BMPs 6-14 

Table 6-3. Statewide Agricultural Water Conservation Options Beyond EWMPs 6-18 

Table 6-4. Land Retirement Options 6-21 

Table 6-5. Costs of Land Retirement Options 6-22 

Table 6-6. Land Retirement Analysis — Option 1 Economic Impacts 6-23 

xvii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Table 6-7. Land Retirement Analysis -- Option 2 Economic Impacts 6-24 

Table 6-8. CALFED Agencies 6-26 

Table 6-9. Comprehensive List of Onstream Surface Storage Options Upstream of the Delta 6-36 

Table 6-10. Summary of Retained Onstream Reservoirs and Environmental Issues 6-38 

Table 6-11. Comprehensive List of Offstream Surface Storage Options Upstream of the 

Delta 6-41 

Table 6-12. Summary of Retained Offstream Options and Environmental Issues 6-42 

Table 6-13. Watersheds Identified for South of Delta Reservoirs 6-52 

Table 6-14. South-of-the-Delta Offstream Reservoir Size Categories 6-53 

Table 6-15. Retained Watersheds 6-55 

Table 6-16. CVP Yield Increase Plan Conjunctive Use Options 6-63 

Table 6-17. Water Transfer Proposals 6-70 

Table 6-18. Drought Water Bank 6-71 

Table 6-19. Water Recycling Options and Resulting New Water Supply 6-77 

Table 6-20. Total Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply by Hydrologic Region 6-79 

Table 6-21 . Environmental Restoration Funding 6-87 

Table 6-22. Bay-Delta Category III Projects Funded to Date 6-93 

Table 6-23. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership 6-99 

Table 6-24. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size 6-99 

Table 6-25. Major State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs 6-104 

Table 6-26. Financing Methods Available to Water Agencies by Type of Ownership 6-106 

Table 6-27. Financing Methods Available to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size 6-107 

Table 6-28. Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Type of 

Ownership 6-107 

Table 6-29. Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Water 

Agency Size 6-108 



xvui 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 



State of California 

The Resources Agency 

Department of Water Resources 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 

Daniel F. Kriege, Chair, Capitola 
Michael D. Madigan, Vice Chair, San Diego 

Stanley M. Barnes Visalia 

Kenneth S. Caldwell Camarillo 

Donald C. Cecil Willows 

George Gowgani, PhD San Luis Obispo 

Martin A. Matich San Bernardino 

Larry Zarian Glendale 

Raymond E. Barsch, 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. 



XIX 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The Department of Water Resources established an outreach advisory committee made up of 
people representing urban, agricultural, and environmental interests from various regions of the 
State to evaluate and advise DWR as to the adequacy of work in progress to update the 
California Water Plan. 

DWR is indebted to the members of the Bulletin 160-98 Advisory Committee, who provided 
critical feedback on the content and analyses required to produce this California Water Plan 
update. While this report is a product of DWR and does not necessarily reflect the specific 
viewpoint of each committee member or their organization on certain issues, the Department 
appreciates the committee's support of the balanced approach taken to develop this water plan. 



XX 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



California Water f^an 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
Pete Wilson, Governor 

THE RESOURCES AGENCY 
Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 
David N. Kennedy, Director 



Raymond D. Hart 

Deputy Director 



Robert G. Potter 

Chief Deputy Director 



L. Lucinda Chipponeri 

Assistant Director for Legislation 



Stephen L. Kashiwada 

Deputy Director 

Susan N. Weber 

Chief Counsel 



DIVISION OF PLANNING AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE 
William J. Bennett, Chief 

This Bulletin was prepared under the direction of 
Jeanine Jones Chief, Statewide Planning 

by 

Naser Bateni Former Chief, Water Resources Evaluation 

Paul Hutton Chief, Water Resources Evaluation 

Waiman Yip Senior Engineer 

Bob Zettlemoyer Senior Engineer 



Barbara Cross 
Steve Cowdin 
Dan Fua 



assisted by 
Tom Hawkins 
Ray Hoagland 
Scott Matyac 



Dick Neal 
Virginia Sajac 
Clara Silva 



The following people provided assistance on special topics or studies 



Manucher Alemi 
Linton Brown 
Randy Brown 
Ed Craddock 
Baryohay Davidoff 



Farhad Famam 
Maria Hambright 
Darryl Hayes 
Dale Hoffman-Floerke 
Steve Kasower 
John Kramer 



Richard Le 
Clair LeFlore 
Jim Rich 
Maurice Roos 
Ray Tom 



XXI 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



California Water Plan 



Data collection and regional information were provided by Department District offices 

Northern District 
Naser Bateni, Chief 



X. Tito Cervantes 
Andrew Corry 



assisted by 
Douglas Denton 
Todd Hillaire 



Glen Pearson 
Eugene Pixley 



Alan Aguilar 
Emil Calzascia 
Toccoy Dudley 



Central District 
Karl Winkler, Chief 

assisted by 
Al Lind 
Ed Morris 



Doug Osugi 
James Wieking 



Jack Ericson 
Robert Polgar 
David Scruggs 



San Joaquin District 
Lou Beck, Chief 

assisted by 
Brian Smith 
Arvey Swanson 



Ernie Taylor 
Iris Yamagata 



Glenn Berquist 
David Inouye 
Vem Knoop 



Southern District 
Charles White, Chief 

assisted by 
Kelly Lawler 
Michael Maisner 



Mark Stuart 
Garret Tam Sing 



Editorial and production services were provided by 
Nikki Blomquist Mike Miller Therese Tynan 

Chuck Lano 



XXII 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Note to Reviewers 

Here are some points to keep in mind as you read the January 1 998 public review draft of 
Bulletin 160-98: 

1 . Several key documents having statewide water management significance are now 
circulating for public review, including the draft EIR/EIS for the CALFED Bay-Delta 
program, draft CVPIA Programmatic EIS, and State Water Resources Control Board 
draft EIR for the 1 995 Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. To the extent possible, we 
have incorporated material from these draft documents into Bulletin 160-98. However, 
some of our text relating to these programs is necessarily placeholder material, pending 
decisions about the programs' outcomes. For CALFED, for example, we have shown 
operations studies results for one of the alternatives, to illustrate how the program might 
be implemented. This placeholder material will be updated to reflect the programs' status 
when the final version of Bulletin 1 60-98 is printed. 

2. S WRCB's draft EIR for the 1 995 Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan was released just 
before our draft bulletin went to printing. More discussion of the EIR will be added in 
the final version of Bulletin 160-98. Other events occurring just as this draft was going to 
print include the one-year extension of the Bay-Delta Accord, release of detailed terms 
for San Diego - Imperial Irrigation District water transfer for public review, and Inyo 
County's action on the City of Los Angeles plan for dust control in Owens Valley. 

3. The negotiations over California's plan to reduce its use of Colorado River water to the 
State's basic apportionment are continuing. Due to printing deadlines, the version of 
California's "4.4 Plan" described in this draft Bulletin 160-98 will lag the negotiations by 
about two months. 

4. Numbers shovm in data tables may not add due to rounding. 



XXIll 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



Chapter 1. Introduction 

In 1957, the Department published Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 was 
followed by the Bulletin 1 60 series, published six times between 1 966 and 1 993 to update the 
California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water Code directed the 
Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in a series of water 
plan updates. 

The Department's Bulletin 1 60 series assesses California's agricultural, environmental, 
and urban water needs and evaluates water supplies, in order to quantify the gap between existing 
and forecasted future water demands and the corresponding water supplies. The report series 
presents a statewide overview of current water management activities, and provides water 
managers and others with a framework for use in making water resources decisions. 

While the basic scope of the Department's water plan updates has remained unchanged 
over time, each plan has taken a distinct approach to water resources planning, reflecting issues 
or concerns at the time of its publication. For example, this update reviews in some detail the 
many water-related environmental restoration programs now in active implementation. On the 
other hand, this update does not cover nonconsumptive uses of water for hydropower generation, 
because there has not been significant statewide activity on this subject in recent years. (In the 
late 1970s/early 1980s, high energy prices and favorable tax treatment for renewable energy 
resources had spurred a boom in small hydropower development.) As the effects of pending 
utility deregulation actions become apparent, and as more Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission licenses become due for renewal on major Sierra Nevada rivers, this topic may 
become timely for a future water plan update. 

In response to public comments on the last water plan update. Bulletin 160-93, the 
Department has focused this 1998 update on evaluation of water management actions that could 
be implemented to improve water supply reliability in California. Bulletin 160-93 evaluated 
2020 agricultural, environmental, and urban water demands in considerable detail. These 
demands, together with water supply information, have been updated for the 1998 Bulletin, 
which also uses a 2020 planning horizon. Much of Bulletin 160-98, however, is devoted to 
identification and evaluation of options for improving water supply reliability. Water 



1-1 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



management options available to, and being considered by, local agencies form the building 
blocks of plans prepared for each of the State's ten major hydrologic regions. (Water supplies 
provided by local agencies represent about 70 percent of California's developed water supplies.) 
These potential local options are integrated with options that are statewide in scope, such as the 
recommended alternative for the CALFED Bay-Delta program, to create a statewide plan. 

The statewide plan represents a snapshot, at an appraisal level of detail, of how actions 
planned by California water managers would reduce the gap between existing supplies and 
forecasted future demands. The plan does not reduce all shortages statewide ~ in average water 
years and in drought water years ~ to zero in 2020. Although this goal would be an optimum 
solution, such an approach does not reflect economic realities and current planning by local 
agencies. Not all areas of the State and not all water users can afford, for instance, to reduce 
drought year shortages to zero. Compiling those options that appear to have a reasonable chance 
of being implemented by water agencies in each hydrologic region illustrates potential progress 
in reducing the State's future shortages. 

Bulletin 160-98 estimates that California's water shortages at a 1995 level of development 
are 1.6 maf in average water years, and 5.2 maf in drought years. The magnitude of shortages 
shown for drought conditions in the base year reflect the cutbacks in supply, experienced by 
California water users during the recent six-year drought. Bulletin 160-98 projects increased 
shortages by 2020 — 2.9 maf in an average water year, and 7 maf in drought years. The future 
water management options identified as being most likely to be implemented could reduce those 
shortages to 1.4 maf in average water years and 3.9 maf in drought water years. 

The accompanying sidebar summarizes key statistics developed later in the Bulletin. The 
material is shown here to provide the reader with an overview of California's water needs. 

California — An Overview 

Figure 1-1 shows California's size relative to that of other states in the nation. California 

is the nation's most populous state, and is also the top-ranked state in terms of dollar value of 
agricultural production. Although California's present population is over 32 million people, the 
State still has large areas of open space and lands set aside for public use and enjoyment, 
including 18 national forests, 23 units of the national park system, and 355 units of the state park 
system. California is a state of great contrasts. Population density ranges from over 16,000 



1-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1. Introduction 



people per square mile in the City and County of San Francisco to less than 2 people per square 

mile in Alpine County. The highest (Mount Whitney) and lowest (Death Valley) points in the 

contiguous United States are located in California. The State's average annual precipitation 

ranges from more than 90 inches on the North Coast to about 2 inches in Death Valley. 

«s*Photo: Half Dome at Yosemite National Park 
/ 



Summary of Key Statistics 




Shown below for quick reference are some key statistics presented 


in Chapter 4. For 


the water use information, values shown are for 


average water year conditions. The details 


behind the statistics are discussed later. 




Chang? 


1995 California population 


32.1 million 




2020 California population forecast 


47.5 million 


15.4 million 


1995 California irrigated crop acreage 


9.5 million acres 




2020 California irrigated crop acreage forecast 


9.2 million acres 


-0.3 million 


1995 urban water use 


8.8 maf 




2020 urban water use forecast 


12.0 maf 


3.4 maf 


1995 agricultural water use 


33.8 maf 




2020 agricultural water use forecast 


31.5 maf 


-2.3 maf 


1995 environmental water use 


36.1 maf 




2020 environmental water use forecast 


37.0 maf 


0.9 maf 


1995 


2020 




Urban Water Use 11% 


15% 


4% 


Agricultural Water Use 43% 


39% 


-4% 


Environmental Water Use 46% 


46% 


0% 


Total California Water Use 100% 


100% 





1-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1 Introduction 




1-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



The accompanying sidebar shows historic water deliveries to California's largest 
agricultural and urban water users. To put California's population into perspective, about one of 
every eight residents of the U.S. now lives in California. In the time period covered in this 
Bulletin (the 25 years from 1995 to 2020), California's population is forecasted to increase by 
more than 1 5 million people, an amount equivalent to adding the present populations of Arizona, 
Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah to California. Today, four of the nation's 
1 5 largest cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco) are located in California. 

California's population and abundant natural resources have helped create the State's 
trillion-dollar economy, which, according to the Trade and Commerce Agency, ranks seventh 
among world economic powers. The State's water resources have helped California be the 
nation's top agricultural state for 50 consecutive years. California is the nation's leading 
agricultural export state (and the sixth largest exporter in the world), the nation's number one 
dairy state, and the producer of 55 percent of the nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables. California 
is the primary U.S. producer (producing more than 99 percent) of crops such as almonds, 
artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, pistachios, and walnuts. Of the top 15 agricultural 
counties in the U.S., ten are in California. 

Figure 1-2 is a relief map of California illustrating the State's major geomorphic 
provinces. In roughly north to south order, our major geomorphic features are: the Klamath 
Mountains, Cascade Range, Modoc Plateau, Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, Coast Range, Great 
Basin, Transverse Ranges, Mojave Desert, Peninsular Ranges, and Colorado Desert. 



1-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



California's 


Largest Water Retailers 




Shown below are some of the largest annual retail water deliveries by local agencies, 


to illustrate the magnitude of urban and agricultural water demands. Retail delivery is the 


water supplied to an individual urban or agricultural customer. (Local agencies that wholesale 


water, such as Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or San 


Diego County Water 


Authority, have larger annual deliveries than the amounts shown here.) 




Historic IVIaximum Annuai Retail Water Deiiveries 




V\^ater Agency 


Calendar Year 


Delivery (af) 


Agricultural 






Imperial Irrigation District 


1996 


2,846,088 


Westlands Irrigation District 


1984 


1,444,199 


Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 


1984 


830,500 


Turlock Irrigation District 


1976 


686,572 


Fresno Irrigation District 


1995 


627,000 


Urban 






Los Angeles Department of Water and Power FY 1986-87 


706,000 


City of San Diego 


1989 


256,940 


East Bay Municipal Utilities District 


1976 


248,762 


Contra Costa Water District 


1988 


136,864 


San Jose Water Company 


1987 


128,439 





1^ DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1 Introduction 



Figure 1-2. Relief l\1ap of California 




1-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



The Klamath Mountains are a rugged mountain range located on the California-Oregon 
border, through which the Klamath River has cut a deep canyon. To the east, the Cascade Range 
is a chain of volcanic cones that stretches from California into Washington. Until the 1980 
eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington, Mount Lassen, the southernmost of the Cascade 
volcanos, was the most recently active volcano in the contiguous U.S. The Modoc Plateau lies to 
the east of the Cascade Range, and is the southernmost part of a broad area of lava flows and 
small volcanic cones that covers much of eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. The Pit 
River, a major Sacramento River tributary, winds through the Modoc Plateau and cuts a deep 
canyon through the Cascade Range, crossing that range between two of its large volcanos ~ 
Shasta and Lassen. 

^Photo: Mount Shasta 

The Central Valley is an alluvial basin about 50 miles wide by 200 miles long, bounded 
by the Coast Range on the west and the Sierra Nevada on the east. Except for the Tulare Lake 
drainage at the southern end of the valley (a closed drainage basin), rivers draining the Sierra 
Nevada flow onto the valley floor, join with the Sacramento or San Joaquin rivers, and flow 
through a gap in the Coast Range to San Francisco Bay. The Central Valley is California's most 
productive agricultural area, constituting about 80 percent of the State's total production. The 
Sierra Nevada, California's dominant mountain range, is a fault block structure whose western 
slopes are marked by deep river-cut canyons. Sierran rivers furnish much of California's 
developed surface water supplies. 

^ Photo: San Andreas Fault 

The Coast Ranges are bounded on the north by the Klamath Mountains and on the south 
by the Transverse Ranges. The San Andreas Fault is a prominent geologic feature of the Coast 
Ranges; its path can readily be traced in areas where faulting has controlled the direction of 
watercourses such as the Gualala River. The San Andreas Fault extends into the San Bernardino 
Mountains of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province (so called because these mountain 
ranges trend east- west). The Peninsular Ranges (which trend north-south) are a cluster of ranges 
separated by long valleys dividing, for example, the Riverside area from the Los Angeles coastal 
plain. 

The western edge of the Mojave Desert is delineated by the Garlock Fault and by a 



1-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



portion of the San Andreas Fault. The Mojave is a region of interior drainage characterized by 
large areas of alluvium with scattered area of recent volcanic features. The Mojave has 
numerous playa lakes, including Silver Lake, the terminus of the Mojave River. The Colorado 
Desert to the south, also a closed drainage basin, is a lower elevation desert whose most 
prominent feature is the Salton Sea, which occupies a structural trough. The Basin and Range 
province begins on the east side of California's Sierra Nevada and extends across Nevada and 
into Utah. Also a region of interior drainage, it is characterized by fault block mountain ranges 
separated by roughly north-south trending valleys. Owens Valley and Death Valley are 
examples of such valleys. 

«s*Photo: Owens Valley 
California's Water Geography 

Figure 1-3 shows the location of the State's major water projects. The Central Valley 
Project is the largest water project in California, and the Department's State Water Project is the 
second largest. (Descriptions of these, and of some of the larger local water projects, are 
provided in Chapter 3.) There are more than 1,200 dams in California large enough to be 
jurisdictional under the State's dam safety program, representing about 40 maf of storage 
capacity. Average annual runoff within the State is about 71 maf Unlike some other western 
states, the majority of California's surface water supply originates from within the State. The 
Colorado River is the State's largest interstate river. The accompanying sidebar highlights some 
statistics for California's largest waterbodies. 



1-9 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1. Introduction 



California Water Statistics 

California 's Largest Lakes and Reservoirs 
Natural (Undammed) Lakes 
Lake Storage Capacity (af) Comments 

Salton Sea 7,200,000 Storage based on October 1 996 water 

surface elevation. This is a saline 
lake. 



Mono Lake 



Eagle Lake 



Goose Lake 



2,475,000 



558,000 



440,000 



Storage based on October 1996 water 
surface elevation. This lake is also 
saline. 

At water surface elevation of 5, 1 00 
feet. Has no outlet, but is a 
freshwater body. 

At water surface elevation of 4,71 5 
feet. Partly in Oregon. 



California *s Largest Rivers 
Based on average annual runoff 

Sacramento River 22.4 maf 

Klamath River 11.1 maf 

San Joaquin River 6.4 maf 

Eel River 6.3 maf 

Based on watershed area 



Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Klamath River 
(California portion only) 
Amargosa River 
(California portion only) 



26,548 square miles 
15,946 square miles 

10,020 square miles 

6,442 square miles 



1-10 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1 Irttroduction 



Figure 1-3. California's l\/lajor Water Projects 




Sacram«nto« ^FolSOmLske 

North Bay KltSTcar^al 

^Aqueduct^^^ I 

Mokelumne 
Aqueduct 



San Francisco J 



South Bay ■ 
Aqueduct 



Delta-Mendota 
Canal 



San Felipe- 
Unit 



San Luis - 
Reservoir 




State Project 
Federal Project 
Local Project 



Hetch Hetchy 
Aqueduct 



Friant-Kem 
^Canal 



Fraano 



^ Coallnga Canal *i •* 

o 



Coastal Branch ■ 
Aqueduct 




West Branch 



Los Angeles \^ ) 
Aqueduct "^ 



Cross Vall9y 
Canal 

^*^ ct ^ £ast Branch 



Los 

Angeles 



Colorado 
River 
Aqueduct ] 



San Diego- 
Aqueducts 



jCoachella^ 
^Canal 



San Diego^ 



^All American 
Canal 



1-11 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



Figure 1-4 shows how the Department subdivides the State into regions for planning 
purposes. The Department uses several levels of delineation. The largest is the hydrologic 
region, a unit used extensively in this Bulletin. California has ten hydrologic regions, 
corresponding to the State's major drainage basins. These regional boundaries are also used by 
the State Water Resources Control Board. Each of S WRCB's nine Regional Water Quality 
Control Boards covers one hydrologic region. (SWRCB combines the North and South 
Lahontan regions into one region administered by the Lahontan RWQCB.) The next level of 
delineation below hydrologic regions is the planning subarea. Some of the regional water 
management plans in Chapters 7 through 9 discuss information at the PSA level. The smallest 
study imit used by the Department is the detailed analysis unit, which is too small to show in 
Figure 1-4. California is divided into 278 DAUs. Many of the Departments' Bulletin 160 
calculations are performed at the DAU level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic 
regions. 



1-12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1. Introduction 



Figure 1-4. California Planning Regions 

OREGON 



una OAMATH 



UMCR ff StMSTA IMt-m RMR 

nAUAlH - MtTM 



lAtta GROUP 



MRIIWUI X VMIEY 
VAU£Y '^^ 



CEKT1ML\ 
BASW 

.EAST 



\ 



^c 




A 




A-^s* 


^ 


NOmH 


V Xg^i 


' \ 


SBM 


^GKUP ^ 


BAY 




EASTHW^ 

VALL£Y/ 


^ F0OIHU5 




\% 


K 




. aooR 


V 


EASTSDE ^ 


MNO-OWBS S 


w 


soum ■> 
MY r 


n^ 


VAU£y\ 
I EASTBK N 


UPLAWB 


^L "h^ 


V 




W^ ^ 




^ < 


^«« 


1 




\\\^ 




\\ 




<^ 


^ 


^?^ 




\\ 




\ Nomew ^ 


^^ 


icwos- kaweahV 

\ lUf WVBIS I 


\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



DEATH \ 

VAUfV S 



\ 



\ 



\ 



KBW VAUfY 
RIXM 



IMDIAN VaiS 
AICA 



\ 



ANTHjOffi . 
VAUfY ^i 



VMBtn -mm 
rmm- mr*m 




UE 



Xl CO 



1-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



California's Hydrologic Regions 

North Coast Klamath River and Lost River Basins, and all basins draining into the Pacific 
Ocean from the California-Oregon state line southerly through the Russian River Basin. 

San Francisco Bay Basins draining into San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays, and into 
Sacramento River downstream from Collinsville, western Contra Costa County, and basins 
directly tributary to the Pacific Ocean below the Russian River watershed to the southern 
boundary of the Pescadero Creek Basin. 

Central Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean below the Pescadero Creek watershed 
to the southeastern boundary of Rincon Creek Basin in the western part of Ventura County. 

South Coast Basins draining into the Pacific Ocean from the southeastern boundary of 
Rincon Creek Basin to the California-Mexico boundary. 

Sacramento River Basins draining into the Sacramento River system in the Central Valley 
(including the Pit River drainage), from the Oregon border south through the American River 
drainage basin. 

San Joaquin River Basins draining into the San Joaquin River system, from the Cosumnes 
River basin on the north through the southern boundary of the San Joaquin River watershed. 

Tulare Lake The closed drainage basin at the south end of the San Joaquirf Valley, south of 
the San Joaquin River watershed, encompassing basins draining to Kern Lakebed, Tulare 
Lakebed, and Buena Vista Lakebed. 

North Lahontan Basins east of the Sierra Nevadan crest, and west of the Nevada stateline, 
from the Oregon border south to the southern boundary of the Walker River watershed. 

South Lahontan The closed drainage basins east of the Sierra Nevada crest, south of the 
Walker River watershed, northeast of the Transverse Ranges, north of the Colorado River 
region. The main basins are the Owens and the Mojave river basins. 

Colorado River Basins south and east of the South Coast and South Lahontan regions, areas 
that drain into the Colorado River, the Salton Sea, and other closed basins north of the 
Mexican border. 



M4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Cfiapter 1. Introduction 



Some Trends in California Water Management Activities 

The accompanying sidebar provides an overview of some key dates in California's water 
history. The period of the late 1940s through the 1970s was a time of significjint expansion of 
the State's infrastructure, in response to California's post- World War II population boom. During 
this time, the State significantly expanded its highway system, constructed the State Water 
Project, and established a blueprint for an ambitious higher education system. At the federal 
level, many of the Central Valley Project's major facilities were constructed. There was 
substantial State and federal government involvement in ~ and funding for ~ water resources 
development, including direct financial assistance to local governments for constructing water 
supply infrastructure (e.g., Davis-Grunsky Act and Small Reclamation Projects Act programs). 
The environmental movement in the latter part of the 1960s began to effect a change in 
society's values, resulting in a desire to preserve natural areas in an undeveloped state. With the 
enactment of a number of environmental protection statutes, the federal government's role in 
water began to shift from one of development to one of regulation. The "taxpayer revolt", 
typified by voter support for Proposition 13, reduced available funding to local agencies. (Two 
recent influences on funding sources for resources programs include deficit reduction goals for 
the federal budget and voter approval of Proposition 218, a measure to limit the ability of local 
governments to levy assessments.) There was a reduction in construction of large-scale water 
projects from the 1980s onward. One example of a water project caught up in changing political 
and social currents was water conveyance across the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 

The result of these changing circumstances was that few large-scale water management 
actions were able to move forward. Since the lead time for large water supply projects is in the 
10 to 20-year range, the consequences of inaction were not immediately felt. These 
consequences manifest themselves over time. California to date has been sustained by the future 
capacity built into the large water development projects planned in the 1950s and 1960s. 

"3-Photo: Bay-Delta Accord signing 



1-15 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



A California Water Chronology 

In 2000, California will celebrate its sesquicentennial (150 years of statehood). Within this relatively 
short (by historic standards) time period, the State's major water infrastructure and complex institutional 
framework for managing water have been developed. The following chronology highlights some key points in 
California's water history. 

1 848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago transfers California from Mexico to the U.S. 

1 848 Gold is discovered at Sutter's Mill on the American River. 

1 850 California is admitted to the Union. 

1 87 1 First reported construction of a dam on Lake Tahoe. 

1 884 Hydraulic mining is banned, because of its impacts on navigation and contribution to flooding. 

1886 Lux V. Haggin addresses competing water rights doctrines of riparianism and prior appropriation. 

1887 Legislature enacts Wright Irrigation District Act, allowing creation of special districts. 

1 887 Turlock Irrigation District becomes first irrigation district formed under the Wright Act. 

1 895 World's first long-distance transmission of electric power (22 miles), 

from a 3,000 kilowatt hydropower plant at Folsom to Sacramento. 
1 902 Congress enacts the Reclamation Act of 1 902, creating the Reclamation Service, and authorizing 

federal construction of water projects. 
1905 Salton Sea is created when the Colorado River breaches an irrigation canal and flows into the Salton 

Trough. 

1913 First barrel of Los Angeles Aqueduct completed. 

1914 California's present system of administering appropriative water rights is established by the Water 
Commission Act. 

1 922 Colorado River Compact signed. 

1928 California Constitution amended to prohibit waste of water, and to require reasonable beneficial use. 

1 928 Saint Francis Dam fails 

1929 State dam safety program goes into effect 

1929 East Bay MUD's Mokelumne River Aqueduct is completed. 

1934 San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct is completed. 

1940 All American Canal is completed. 

1941 Colorado River Aqueduct is completed. 
1945 Shasta Dam is completed. 

1 957 DWR publishes Bulletin 3, the California Water Plan. 

1968 Oroville Dam is completed. 

1969 Legislature enacts Porter-Cologne Act, the foundation of California water quality regulatory 
programs. 

1972 Legislature enacts California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

1973 California Aqueduct is completed. 

1978 California v. U.S. held that the U.S. must obtain water rights under State law for reclamation projects, 

absent clear congressional direction to the contrary. 
1978 SWRCB issues Decision 1485, requiring the CVP and SWF to meet specified Bay-Delta operating 

criteria. 
1983 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court sets forth the application of public trust concepts to 

water rights administered by SWRCB. 
1990 Congress enacts the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (PL 101-618). 

1992 Congress enacts the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(PL 102-575). 
1994 SWRCB issues Decision 1 63 1 , requiring specified protections for 

Mono Lake levels. 



1-16 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



In the last few years, there has been increasing recognition that all of the groups having 
an interest in California's water resources - agricultural water users, environmental 
organizations, urban water users ~ must work together in order to achieve their goals. 
California's hydrology, legal institutions, and water use are so sufficiently intercoimected that 
large-scale actions cannot be successfully implemented without some degree of consensus. 
Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the Delta, the hub of much of California's water 
supply. Signing of the Bay-Delta Accord in 1994 created the circumstances under which 
CALFED's Bay-Delta program could develop a proposed solution to Delta environmental 
restoration and water supply needs. The approach taken in the Bay-Delta embodies some 
hallmarks of today's water management activities ~ increased participation by local governments 
and other stakeholders in water management issues of statewide scope, and significant efforts to 
carry out ecosystem restoration actions. 

Greater local government and other stakeholder participation in statewide-level water 
management decision-making is an emerging trend. Examples include the CALFED process for 
a long-term Bay-Delta solution and stakeholder negotiating forums occurring in response to the 
State Water Resources Control Board's water rights process for the Bay-Delta. Examples outside 
the Delta include the State Water Project's Monterey Agreement contract amendments. 

Formal governance structures are being employed to coordinate and manage the 
collective actions of local agencies. For example, CVP water users formed three joint powers 
authorities to contract with USBR for operation and maintenance of CVP facilities. Those JPAs 
have been working with USBR to develop mechanisms to allow the JPAs to finance normal 
O&M activities themselves, rather than having to go through the congressional appropriations 
process. Another JPA has been formed by two county governments and two water agencies to 
implement Salton Sea restoration actions. 

In terms of water management programs themselves, a theme dominating much water 
management planning at the statewide level is ecosystem restoration (accompanied by substantial 
funding). Bay-Delta actions are an example of this trend ~ voter approval of Proposition 204 
provided $460 million for State restoration actions directly associated with the Delta, and another 
$93 million in State matching funds for USBR's CVPIA restoration actions. USBR's annual 
budget for CVPIA restoration actions covered by the Restoration Fund has been in the $40 



1-17 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



million range. Other examples of funding for environmental restoration actions are described 
later in this Bulletin. 

One emerging trend is increased reliance on water transfers, especially in average water 
years. For example, a cursory review of water agencies' plans for transfers (including transfers 
for environmental purposes) showed that plans of some larger water agencies amounted to at 
least 1 maf of transfers in average water years, and 1.8 maf in drought water years. (To put these 
figures into perspective, the maximum allocated yield of the Department's Drought Water Bank 
in 1991 was about 390 taf, although the DWB purchased over 800 taf ) Although many 
successful water transfers have been carried out in California, there remain issues to be worked 
through for larger transfers, particularly for those involving complex subjects such as third-party 
impacts or groundwater substitution. 

Changes Since the Last California Water Plan Update 

The last California Water Plan update, Bulletin 160-93, was published in 1994. At that 
time, California had recently emerged from the six-year drought and Bay-Delta issues were in a 
state of flux (the Bay-Delta Accord had not yet been signed). As we publish Bulletin 160-98, 
California has just weathered the most damaging flood event in history, and new (interim) Bay- 
Delta standards are in place. As discussed above, major ecosystem restoration actions are now 
underway for the Delta. 

Changes in Delta conditions are a difference between the two Bulletins. Bulletin 160-93 
was based on SWRCB D-1485 regulatory conditions in the Delta, and used a range of 1 to 3 maf 
for future environmental water needs, reflecting uncertainties associated with Bay-Delta water 
needs and Endangered Species Act implementation. Bulletin 160-98 uses SWRCB's Order WR 
95-6 as the base condition for Bay-Delta operations, and addresses the proposed CALFED 
actions for the Bay-Delta. 

Bulletin 160-93 was the first water plan update to examine the demand/supply balance for 
drought water years as well as for average water years. This approach, a response to water 
shortages experienced during the recent drought, has since been adopted for planning purposes 
by many local agencies. Bulletin 160-98 retains the drought analysis, but also considers the 
other end of the hydrologic spectrum — flooding. Traditionally, water supply has been the 
dominant focus of the water plan updates. In the aftermath of the devastating January 1997 



1-18 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



flooding in Northern and Central California, common areas in water supply and flood control 
planning and operations have been highlighted, and benefits of multipurpose facilities have been 
emphasized. 

Other changes between the two reports resulted from public comments on Bulletin 160- 
93. The dominant public comment on the last Bulletin was that it should show a plan for 
reducing the gap between existing supplies and forecasted future demands, in addition to making 
supply and demand forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 addresses that comment by presenting a 
compilation of local agencies' planning efforts together with potential water management options 
that are statewide in scope. Local agencies' plans form the base for this effort, since it is local 
water purveyors who have the ultimate responsibility for meeting their service area's needs. 
About 70 percent of California's developed water supply is provided by local agencies. 

Another change, in response to public comments, was the treatment of groundwater 
overdraft as a shortage in the Bulletin's base year. Bulletin 160-98 is the first water plan update 
to show an average water year shortage in its base year (1995). About 1.5 maf of the 1.6 maf 
shortage is attributable to groundwater overdraft. 

Also, Bulletin 160-98 uses applied water data, rather than the net water amounts 
historically used in the water plan series. This change was made in response to public comments 
that net water data were more difficult to understand than applied water data. This concept is 
explained in Chapter 4. 
Differences in Demand/Supply Balances 

Bulletin 160-93 used a planning period of 1990-2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses a planning 
period of 1995-2020. Bulletin 160-98 uses the same 2020 planning horizon as did the previous 
Bulletin because no major new data were generated in the interim between the two reports that 
would justify extending the planning horizon. Urban water demands depend heavily on 
population forecasts, and the next U.S. Census will not be conducted until 2000. 

Table 1-1 compares some key figures from the two Bulletins, for average water years. In 
order to compare the net water figures used in Bulletin 160-93 with the applied water amounts 
shown in Bulletin 160-98, the Bulletin 160-93 numbers were converted to applied water 
amounts. 



1-19 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



Table 1-1. 2020 Average Year Forecasts 





Bulletin 160-93 


Bulletin 160-98 


population 


48.9 million 


47.5 million 


irrigated crop acreage 


9.3 million acres 


9.2 million acres 


urban water use 


12.7 maf 


12.0 maf 


agricultural water use 


28.8 maf 


31.5 maf 


environmental water use 


29.3 maf 


37.0 maf 


average water shortage 


3.7 to 5.7 maf 


2.9 maf 



The water plan series uses Department of Finance population forecasts. DOF reduced its 
2020 forecast for California in the time period between Bulletin 160-93 and Bulletin 160-98. 
The reduction reflects the impacts of the economic recession in California in the early 1990s. 
California experienced a record negative net domestic migration then, as more people moved out 
of the State than moved in. This reduction in the population forecast translates to a reduction in 
forecasted urban water use in Bulletin 160-98. 

The 2020 agricultural water use forecast increased from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 160- 
98, even though the forecasted crop acreage decreased slightly. This increase resulted from the 
elimination of the "other" category of water use shown in Bulletin 160-93, which included 
conveyance losses. For Bulletin 160-98, water in the "other" category was reallocated back to 
the major water use categories to simplify information presentation. Most of the conveyance 
losses are associated with agricultural water use. Combining the "other" category into the major 
water use categories affected the agricultural water use forecast the most. 

The 2020 environmental water use forecast increased from Bulletin 160-93 to Bulletin 
160-98, reflecting implementation of the Bay-Delta Accord and some new instream flow 
increases, and forecasted fiiture demands for CVPIA supplemental fishery water and Level 4 
wildlife refiige water. 

The shortages shown in Bulletin 160-98 are of similar magnitude to the low end of the 
shortage ranges used in Bulletin 160-93. The range of potential fiiture environmental water 
needs of 1 to 3 maf used in Bulletin 160-93 was arithmetically added to the base of that Bulletin's 
environmental water use forec2ist, rather than being evaluated through operations studies, because 



1-20 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



Bay-Delta regulatory assumptions could not be determined then. This conservative approach 
yielded higher demands than operations studies would have provided. For this reason, the 
Bulletin 160-93 demands were higher. 

Works in Progress 

As this public review draft of Bulletin 1 60-98 is being prepared, there are several pending 
water management issues that could be characterized as works in progress, and whose outcome 
will have a near-term impact. This is a busy time in the world of California 
water, as indicated by the sidebar showing draft documents now in some stage of review. The 
note to reviewers bound at this front of the Bulletin, highlights the major activities (e.g., 
CALFED Bay-Delta program, Colorado River negotiations) for which the Bulletin uses 
placeholder text. This text will be updated to reflect the status of those activities when the final 
version of Bulletin 160-98 is printed. 

There are uncertainties associated with the possible outcomes of these works in progress, 
just as there are with any process that is evaluated in mid-course. For example, the impact of 
disagreements over management of CVPIA dedicated water (the 800 taf of water dedicated by 
CVPIA for environmental purposes) on the larger CALFED Bay-Delta program is one 
uncertainty. Other uncertainties include the outcome of SWRCB's Bay-Delta water rights 
proceeding and the reaction of other Colorado River Basin states to California's proposed plan to 
reduce its use of Colorado River water. Probably an apt summation of attempts to predict the 
outcomes of these uncertainties is the quotation from Dickens' Tale of Two Cities that "It was the 
best of times, it was the worst of times, ... we had everything before us, we had nothing before 
us". 

Colorado River interstate issues are a new addition to a statewide water picture largely 
dominated by Delta and CVPIA issues in the recent past. Achieving a solution to California's 
need to reduce its use of Colorado River water to the State's basic apportionment (a reduction of 
as much as 900 taf from historic uses) would require consensus among California's local agencies 
that use the river's water, as well as concurrence in the plan by the other basin states. The area of 
the State facing the bulk of the shortages from a reduction in Colorado River water use is 
urbanized Southern California, an area that also depends on exports from the Delta. The plan 
being prepared by California's Colorado River Board would help alleviate the South Coast 



1-21 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 1. Introduction 



Region's shortages by conservation and transfers from agricultural users of Colorado River 
water. 

The Colorado River shortages facing Southern California are symptomatic of the need for 
water purveyors throughout the State to move forward in finding solutions to California's future 
water needs, and especially to future drought year water needs. Local water agencies' increasing 
participation in statewide water management activities and greater emphasis in solving problems 
at a regional or watershed level are positive steps toward finding solutions to our future water 
needs. 



Documents Now in Public Review 


Readers of this public review draft may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of 


water-related material of statewide significance that is 


now at some stage of a public review 


process. Some of the major documents out for review 


include: 


Popument 


Author 


Public review draft, Bulletin 160-98 


Department of Water Resources 


CVPIA draft programmatic EIS 


USBR and USFWS 


Draft program EIR/EIS for Bay-Delta 


CALFED 


Draft EIR on implementation of 1995 Water 




Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta 


SWRCB 


Revised draft, Anadromous Fish Restoration 


■* 


Program (May 1997 draft) 


USFWS and USBR 



1-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 1. Introduction 



Organization of Bulletin 160-98 

Immediately following this introductory chapter is an overview of recent events in 
California water (Chapter 2). Chapter 2 summarizes significant changes in statutes and programs 
since the publication of Bulletin 160-93. An appendix for Chapter 2 (all appendices are bound 
together at the end of the draft bulletin) summarizes some of the major State and federal statutes 
dealing with water. Chapters 3 and 4 cover California water supplies and water demands. 
Chapter 5 describes the status of technology applications relating to water supply, reflecting the 
continuing public interest in topics such as potential future use of seawater desalting. Chapter 5 
also provides an overview of fish screening technology applications. 

Chapters 6 through 9 focus on plans to meet California's future water needs. Chapter 6 
covers water management actions that would be applicable at a statewide level, including actions 
such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program, State Water Project future water supply options, and 
CVPIA fish and wildlife water acquisition. Chapters 7 through 9 contain regional water 
management plans for each of the State's ten major hydrologic regions. These regional plans are 
combined in Chapter 10 into a tabulation of actions most likely to be taken to meet California's 
fixture water needs. The water budget tables in Chapter 10, shown for a 2020 level of demand 
with and v^thout fixture water management options, are the key results of the Bulletin's planning 
process. 

Following Chapter 10 are a brief glossary and list of acronyms, and technical 
appendices. 



1-23 



DRAFT 




--jipiiaiii 



s.*^.. 



-^' 






#i4' 



/^,, 



k. 



¥ 




^^ 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events In Califomia Water 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 

This chapter highlights some significant infrastructure and institutional changes that have 
occurred since the publication of Bulletin 160-93, and reviews the status of selected high-profile 
programs. In one sense, this chapter helps illustrate some success stories in Califomia water 
management, and responds to the general public's often-asked question of "What is being 
accomplished to help meet California's future water needs?" 

Infrastructure Update 

A common theme in previous editions of the Califomia Water Plan has been the need to 
respond to California's continually increasing population. Population growth brings with it the 
need for new or expanded infrastmcture. This section provides a very brief overview of the most 
significant infrastmcture projects which are now under constmction or have been completed 
recently. Some of these projects are described in more detail in later chapters. 

The most significant large dams under constmction in Califomia are listed in Table 2-1. 
Significantly, both water supply projects are offstream storage facilities, demonstrating that 
offstream facilities have a greater likelihood of successfully completing environmental 
permitting processes than on-stream facilities. 

Table 2-1. Large Dams Under Construction in California 



Dam 


Constructing 
Agency 


Reservoir 
Capacity 


Purpose 


Estimated 
Project Cosf 


Seven Oaks 


USAGE 


146 taf 


flood control 


$366 million 


Los Vasqueros 


CCWD^ 


100 taf 


offstream storage 


$450 million 


Eastside 


MWD' 


800 taf 


offstream storage 


$2 billion 



1. Project construction costs include costs for land acquisition, environmental mitigation, and associated facilities (such 
as pipelines and road relocations). 

2. CCWD = Contra Costa Water District 

3. MWD = Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califomia 



The most significant large conveyance projects that are under constmction or have been 
recently completed are shown in Table 2-2. As with the offstream storage reservoirs, these 
conveyance facilities do not by themselves develop new water supply, but allow existing 
supplies to be transported to new service areas, or a more efficient use of existing supplies. 

2-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-2. Major Water Conveyance Facilities Since 1992 
Facility ^""TgenlT^ ^^^^"^ '"^"^ M^-Cap. 



Coastal Branch Aqueduct Extension 


DWR 


1997 comp. 


102 mi. 


65cfs 


(Phase II) 








47,816 a^yr 


E&stside Reservoir Pipeline 


MWDSC 


1997 comp. 


8 mi. 


1,000 cfs 


East Branch Enlargement 


DWR 


1996 comp. 


100 mi. 


2,880 cfs 


Mojave River Pipeline 


MWA' 


1997 start 


70 mi. 


94 cfs 
55,900 afi'yr 


East Branch Extension 


DWR 


1998 start 


14 mi. new 
33 mi. total 


104 eft 


Inland Feeder Project 


MWDSC 


1997 start 


44 mi. 


1,000 eft 


Morongo Basin Pipeline 


MWA 


1994 comp. 


71 mi. 


14,500 zSlyr 


New Melones Water Conveyance 


SEWD^and 


1993 comp. 


21 mi. 


500 eft 


Project 


CSJWCD' 









1. MWA = Mojave Water Agency 

2. SEWD = Stockton East Water District 

3. CSJWCD = Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District 



«'Photo: Coastal Aqueduct constaiction. 

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 show a few of the largest or most recent desalting and water recycling 
facilities. These projects are typically much smaller in size than the storage and conveyance 
projects highlighted above, and generally supply a local service area. 



2-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



Table 2-3. Desalting Plants 



Plant 


Owner 


Capacity^ 


Comments 


Brackish Water Desalting 


Arlington 


Santa Ana Watershed 
Project Authority 


6 mgd 


Operational 


Oceanside 


city of Oceanside 


2 mgd 


Operational, being expanded 


Tustin 


city of Tustin 


3 mgd 


Operational 


West Basin 


West Basin MWD 


1 .5 mgd 


Operational 


Wastewater Desalting 


Water Factory 21 


OCWD' 


5 mgd 


Operational, being expanded 


West Basin 


West Basin MWD 


5 mgd 


Operational, being expanded to 7.5 mgd 


San Diego 


city of San Diego 


18 mgd 


Pilot testing underway, with 1 MGD 
unit 


Seawater Desalting 


Santa Barbara 


city of Santa Barbara 


6.7 mgd 


Standby as drought reserve 


Santa Catalina Island 


SCE' 


0.1 mgd 


Operational 


Morro Bay 


city of Morro Bay 


0.6 mgd 


Periodic Update (last 6/95) 


Marina 


Marina Coast Water 
District 


0.3 mgd 


Operational 


1 One mgd equals 1 , 1 20 af per year 

2 OCWD = Orange County Water District 

3 SCE = Southern Califomia Edison 



2-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-4. Water Reclamation Plants 



Plant 



Owner 



Capacity 
(mgd) 



Comments 



West Basin Water 
Recycling Facility 



North City Water 
Reclamation Plant 



Terminal Island 
Treatment Plant 



Salinas Valley 
Reclamation Plant 

City of Bakersfield 
WWTP No. 2 

City of Bakersfield 
WWTP No. 3 

Water Factory 21 



City of Barstow Water 
Reclamation Plant 

City of Burbank Water 
Reclamation Facility 

Camarillo Sanitation 
District WRF 

City of Escondido Water 
Reclamation Plant 



Pebble Beach CSD 
Reclamation Plant 

North Richmond Water 
Reclamation Plant 

Padre Dam PUD Water 
Recycling Facility 



West Basin Water District 37.0 



city of San Diego 30.0 



city of Los Angeles 30.0 



Monterey Regional Water 29.6 

Pollution Control Agency 

city of Bakersfield 19.0 



city of Bakersfield 12.0 



Orange County Water 10.0 

District 

city of Barstow 9.0 



city of Burbank 9.0 



Camarillo Sanitation 6.8 

District 

city of Escondido 6.0 



Carmel Area Wastewater 5.8 

District 

East Bay Municipal 5.4 

Utility District 

Padre Dam Public Utility 2.0 

District 



Expansion completed late 1997; 
industrial use, landscape irrigation, 
and seawater intrusion barrier 

Expansion to 30 mgd completed 9/97. 
Effluent from this plant may be used 
as influent to the proposed San Diego 
Repurification Plant 

Reclamation facility is expected to be 
operational by 1999; 17 mgd is slated 
for seawater intrusion barrier 

Completed 9/97; food crop irrigation 



Operational in 1995; agricultural 
irrigation 

Operational in 1995; agricultural 
irrigation 

Seawater intrusion barrier 



Operational in 1995; seven irrigation 
groundwater recharge 

Operational in 1995; golf course 
irrigation 

Operational in 1995; agricultural 
irrigation 

Construction of secondary facilities 
ongoing; tertiary and distribution 
facilities operational by 2002 

Latest expansion completed in 1995; 
landscape irrigation 

Operational in 1995; industrial 
cooling water 

Operational in 1995; landscape 
irrigation 



2-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-5 shows some recently completed structural environmental restoration actions, or 
those under construction. Projects listed in this table represent some of the largest examples of 
restoration actions; a number of small fish screening and spawning gravel replenishment projects 
have also been carried out. In addition to the projects shown in the table, there are a number of 
larger fish screening projects on the Sacramento River system that are expected to begin 
construction in the summer of 1998. Projects beginning construction then will be added to Table 
2-5 when the public draft of the Bulletin is finalized. 

Table 2-6 shows a sampling of completed smaller restoration projects, many of them 
dealing with spawning habitat enhancement, funded by the State Water Project's 4-Pumps 
program (described in Chapter 6). 



Table 2-5. Major Fishery Restoration Projects 



Project 



Owner 



Description 



Shasta Dam Temperature 
Control Device 



Red Bluff Diversion Dam 
Research Pumping Plant 



Butte Creek fish passage 



Parrot-Phelan Dam Fish 
Ladder 



USBR 



USBR 



Western Canal Water 
District 



M&T Ranch 



An approximately $83 million modification to 
the dam's outlet works to allow temperature- 
selective releases of water through the dam's 
powerplant 

A $40 million experimental facility to evaluate 
fishery impacts of different types of pumps 
used to divert Sacramento River water into the 
Tehama-Colusa and Coming Canals 

A multi-component project to improve fish 
passage by removing small irrigation diversion 
dams from the creek. During 1997-98, the 
district is removing two diversion dams and 
replacing them with a siphon under the creek. 
Funding for this approximately $10 million 
component is being provided by the district, 
CVPIA's anadromous fish restoration program, 
and CALFED's Category III program. 

Funds from the Wildlife Conservation Board 
and CVPIA's AFRP were used to build a pool 
and chute fish ladder at this privately-owned 
site on Butte Creek. The approximately 
$800,000 fish ladder replaced a poorly 
performing ladder at the same site. 



2-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-6. Sample Restoration Projects Funded in Part by 
the SWP's 4-Pumps Program 



Location Description 


Implementing 
Agency(s) 


Capital 
Costs 


Completion 
Date 


Suisun Marsh Fish Screening Project 


Suisun Marsh Design, construct, and install seven fish 
screens on diversions to managed 
wetlands within Suisun Marsh. 


SRCD, DFG, DWR, 
USBR 


$2 million 


6 of 7 screens 
will be installed 
October 1997 


Deer Creek Water Exchange Project 


Upper Construct up to 9 wells and improve water 
Sacramento transport facilities for Deer Creek 
River Irrigation District and Stanford Vina 
watershed, Ranch Irrigation Company to replace 
Deer Creek diversions (up to 50 cfs) bypassed to 

provide flows for spring-run and fall-run 
Chinook salmon and steelhead. 


DWR, DFG. DCID, 
SVRIC 


$1,650,000 


Construction 
scheduled to 
begin Fall 1997 
and to be 
completed in 
FY 98/99. 


Parrot-Phelan Fish Ladder, Butte Creek 


Butte Creek at Design and construct a pool-chute fish 
Parrot-Phelan ladder to provide fish passage. 
Dam, east of 
Chico 


DFG, USBR, DWR 


$800,000 


Fall 1995 


Durham Mutual Fish Screens and Ladder, Butte Creek 


Butte Creek at Install two fish screens and an improved 
Durham high volume fish ladder to eliminate 
Mutual Dam, entrainment and improve fish passage 
east of Chico 


Durham Mutual 
Water Company, 
USBR, Category III, 
DWR, DFG 


$930,000 


Summer- 
Fall 1998 


Magneson Salmon Habitat Restoration and Predator Habitat Isolation Project, Merced River 


Merced River Restore river channel and isolate 
(River Mile abandoned gravel pit. 
29-30) 


DFG, DWR 


$336,000 


September 1996 


M.J. Ruddy Spawning Habitat Project, Tuolumne River 


Tuolumne Restore stream channel and floodplain to 
River about 4 provide gravel recruitment, 
miles upstream 
ofWaterford 


DFG, DWR 


$316,000 


July 1993 


Stanislaus River Spawning Habitat Restoration, 3 Riffles (River Mile 47.4, 


50.4, and 50.9) 




Stanislaus Restore salmon spawning gravel at three 
River sites. 


DFG, DWR 


$209,000 


September 1994 



Legislative Update 

This section summarizes recent (within the last five years) major changes to State and 
federal statutes affecting water resources management. The existing statutory and regulatory 
framework for California water management is summarized in Appendix 2A. 



2-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in Calitomia Water 



State Statutes 

Local Water Supply Reliability. In 1995, the Legislature chaptered three bills dealing 
with water supply reliability and long-range planning to serve future water needs. Two of the 
bills [Statutes of 1995, Chapters 330 and 854] amend existing requirements for preparing urban 
water management plans, by requiring that local agencies make a specified assessment of the 
reliability of their water supplies. (Water agencies serving more than 3,000 customers or 3,000 
acre-feet annually are required to prepare urban water management plans and to update the plans 
at least every five years.) Local water agencies are required to evaluate the reliability of their 
supplies in varying water year types (normal, dry, and critically dry). The third bill [Statutes of 
1995, Chapter 881] requires that cities and counties making specified land use planning 
decisions, such as amending a general plan, consult with local water agencies to determine if 
water supply is available. The bill also requires that findings by the local water agencies on 
water supply availability be incorporated into cities or counties environmental documentation for 
the proposed action. 

Financing Water Programs and Environmental Restoration Programs. Proposition 
204, In November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 204~the Safe, Clean, Reliable 
Water Supply Act. The Act authorizes the issuance of $995 million in general obligation bonds 
to finance water and environmental restoration programs throughout the state. Approximately 
$600 million of these bonds provides the State share of costs for projects to benefit the Bay-Delta 
and its watershed. Three hundred ninety million dollars of this amount is to implement 
CALFED's ecosystem restoration program for the Bay-Delta. These fiinds would be available 
after a final federal and State environmental impact study/report is certified and a cost share 
agreement is executed between the federal and State governments for eligible projects. Table 2-7 
sununarizes programs authorized for Proposition 204 funding. 



2-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recer)t Evertts in California Water 



Table 2-7. Proposition 204 Funding Breakdown 
Program 



Dollars 
(In millions) 



Delta Restoration ($193 million) 



CVPIA State share $93 

Category III State share 60 

Delta levee rehabilitation 25 

South Delta barriers 10 

Delta recreation 2 

CALFED Administration 3 



Clean Water and Water Recycling ($235 million) 



State Revolving Fund Clean Water Act loans 80 

Clean Water Grants to small communities 30 

Loans for water recycling projects 60 

Loans for drainage treatment and management projects 30 

Delta tributary watershed rehabilitation grants and loans 15 

Seawater intrusion loans 10 

Lake Tahoe water quality improvements 10 



Water Supply Reliability ($117 million) 



Feasibility investigations for specified programs 10 

Water conservation and groundwater recharge loans 30 

Small water project loans and grants, rural counties 25 

Sacramento Valley Water Management and habitat improvement 25 

River parkway program 27 

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program 390 

Flood Control Subventions 60 

TOTAL $995 

Proposition 218. Voter approval of Proposition 218 in November 1996 changed the 
procedure used by local government agencies for increasing fees, charges, and benefit 
assessments; benefit assessments, fees and charges that are imposed as an "incident of property 
ownership" are subject to a majority public vote. Proposition 218 defines "assessments" as any 
levy or charge on real property for a special benefit conferred to the real property, including 
special assessments, benefit assessments, and maintenance assessments. Proposition 218 fiirther 
defines "fee" or "charge" as any levy (other than an ad valorem tax, special tax, or assessment), 
which is imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property 
ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property-related service. 



2-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Although there are many tests to determine if a fee or charge is subject to the provisions 
of Proposition 218, the most significant one is whether or not the agency has relied upon any 
parcel map for the imposition of the fee or charge. As with most new legislation, there is 
uncertainty in the interpretation of its requirements, especially as they relate to certain water- 
related fees and charges. From one point of view. Proposition 218 could be interpreted as a 
comprehensive approach to regulate all forms of agency revenue sources, and this broad 
interpretation would include all fees and charges for services provided to real property. Types of 
water-related charges and fees that may be affected by Proposition 218's requirements include 
meter charges, acreage-based irrigation charges, and standby charges. It is expected that 
additional legislation or other judicial interpretation will be needed to clarify the application of 
Proposition 218 to the types of fees and charges used by water agencies. Some possible 
implications of the proposition for water-related fees and charges include: 

• Water service charges often include a monthly or bi-monthly meter charge which is a 
fixed amount payable whether or not any water is used. Since they are usually based 
upon the size of the meter or type of building and are not related to the property, they are 
probably not affected by Proposition 218. 

• Many irrigation districts levy charges based upon the acreage of the property. For some 
of these districts, the charges are solely based upon the amount of acres irrigated with the 
water supplies and not the amount of water used. In these situations, acreage-based 
charges are likely to be subject to the provisions of Proposition 218. However, if the 
charges are based upon actuad or estimated water use, then they are less likely to be 
subject to Proposition 218. 

• Standby charges are classified as assessments by Proposition 218 and are subject to its 
provisions. 

To date, there has been one water-related legislative clarification of Proposition 218 
subsequent to its enactment by the voters. A 1997 statute clarified that assessments imposed by 
water districts and earmarked for bond repayment are not subject to the voter approval 
requirements of the proposition. 

Water Recycling. In 1995, legislation amended statutes in the Water Code, Fish and 
Game Code, Health and Safety Code, and elsewhere, to replace terms such as wastewater 



2-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review DraA Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



"reclamation" or "reclaimed water" with water "recycling" or "recycled water." The legislation 
was sponsored by wastewater recycling proponents, v^ were seeking terminolog>' that would 
enhance public acceptance of recycled water supplies. 

AfTBE. Detection of methyl tertiary butyl ether in water supplies soon after the 
compound's s^roval for use as an air pollution-reducing additive in gasoline has raised concerns 
about its mobility in the environment Legislation enacted in 1997 included several provisions 
dealing with MTBE regulation, monitoring, and studies. One provision requires the Department 
of Health Services to establish a primary (health-based) drinking water standard for MTBE by 
July 1999, and secondary (taste and odor) drinking water standard by July 1998. (MTBE can be 
detected by taste at very low concentrations; hence the early requirement for a secondary 
drinking water standard.) 
Federal Statutes 

Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act, administered by EPA in 
coordination with the states, is the chief federal regulatory legislation dealing with drinking water 
quality. The 104th Congress reauthorized and made significant changes to the SDWA, which 
had last been reauthorized in 1986. Major changes include: 

• Establishment of a drinking water state revolving loan fimd, to be administered by states 
in manna- similar to the existing Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund. Loans would 
be made available to public water systems to help them comply with national primary 
drinking water regtilations and upgrade water treatment systems. 

• The standard-setting process for drinking water contaminants established in the 1986 
amendments was changed from a requirement that EPA adopt standards for a set number 
of contaminants on a fixed schedule to a process based on risk assessment and 
cost/benefit analysis. The 1996 amendments require EPA to publish (and periodically 
update) a list of contaminants not currently subject to NPDRWs, and to periodically 
determine whether to regulate at least five contaminants from that list, based on risk and 
benefit considerations. 

• A requirement that states conduct vulnerability assessments in priority source water areas 
expanded the existing source water quality protection provisions. States are authorized to 



2-10 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



establish voluntary, incentive-based source protection partnerships with local agencies. 
This activity may be funded from the new SRP. 
• As a result of the 1996 amendments, EPA has adopted a more ambitious schedule for 

promulgating the Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule and the Enhanced Surface 
Water Treatment Rule. The first phase of the D/DBP Rule is proposed to take effect in 
late 1998, as is an interim ESWTR. More stringent versions of both rules are proposed to 
follow in 2002. This subject is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 
Clean Water Act Reauthorization. The Clean Water Act, administered by EPA in 
coordination with the states, is the chief federal regulatory statute controlling point and nonpoint 
source discharges to surface water. The CWA additionally provides federal authority for 
wetlands protection and regulation of dredging and filling activities affecting waters of the 
United States. CWA reauthorization proposals were heard in the 103rd and 104th Congresses, 
but no legislation was enacted. The act's broad scope complicates reauthorization. 

Some of the topics covered in reauthorization proposals have included funding levels for 
the SRF program; changes to the water quality standard setting process (such as special 
recognition of the wildlife/fishery benefits of discharge of reclaimed water to streams in arid 
areas which would otherwise not be able to support a fishery); recognition of the impacts of 
introduced aquatic species on species of concern in the water quality standard setting process; 
Good Samaritan liability provisions for remediation measures at abandoned mines; new 
programs for nonpoint source management and regulation of combined sanitary/stormwater 
sewers; new stormwater management requirements for municipalities; recognition of state 
primacy in water quantity allocation; and expanded statutory treatment of wetlands protection 
requirements. 

Endangered Species Act Reauthorization. As with the CWA, ESA reauthorization 
proposals were heard in past congresses, but no legislation has been enacted. Some of the 
proposed changes included amending the act to focus on preserving ecological communities 
rather than a single-species or subspecies focus, providing for stakeholder participation and peer- 
reviewed science in the species listing process, addressing management of candidate species, 
streamlining the Section 7 consultation process, quantifying recovery plan objectives, and 
providing assurances and regulatory relief for nonfederal landowners. 



2 11 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in CaUfbmia Water 



Reclamatiotif Recyclings and Water Conservation Act of 1996. This act amends Title 16 
of PL 102-575 by authorizing federal cost-sharing in additional wastewater recycling projects. 
(PL 102-575 had authorized federal cost-sharing in specified recycling projects.) The additional 
California projects are shown below, along with the nonfederal sponsors identified in the statute. 

• North San Diego County area water recycling project (San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, 
Leucadia County Water District, city of Carlsbad, Olivenhain Municipal Water District) 

• Calleguas Municipal Water District recycling project (District) 

• Watsonville area water recycling project (city of Watsonville) 

• Pasadena reclaimed water project (city of Pasadena) 

• Phase 1 of the Orange County regional water reclamation project (Orange County Water 
District) 

• Hi-Desert Water District wastewater collection and reuse facility (District) 

• Mission Basin brackish groundwater desalting demonstration project (city of Oceanside) 

• Effluent treatment for the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County with the city of 
Long Beach (Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Orange County Water 
District) 

• San Joaquin area water recycling and reuse project (San Joaquin County, city of Tracy) 
Federal cost-sharing in these projects is authorized at a maximum of 25 percent for 

project construction, and federal contributions for each project are capped at $20 million. Funds 
are not to be appropriated for project construction until after a project feasibility study and a cost- 
sharing agreement are completed. In addition, federal cost-sharing may not be used for 
operations and maintenance. 

The act also authorizes the Department of the Interior to cost-share up to 50 percent 
(planning and design) in the Long Beach desalination research and development project. Local 
sponsors are the city of Long Beach, Central Basin Municipal Water District, and MWD. 

Water Desalination Act of 1996. This act authorizes DOI to cost share in non-federal 
desalting projects at levels of 25 percent or 50 percent (for projects which are not otherwise 
feasible unless a federal contribution is provided). Cost-shared actions can be research, studies, 
demonstration projects, or development projects. The authorization provides $5 million per year 
for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for research and studies, and $25 million per year for the same 



2-12 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



period for demonstration and development projects. The act requires DOI to investigate at least 
three different types of desalting technology, and to report research findings to Congress. 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (PL 104-332). NISA reauthorized and amended 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance and Prevention and Control Act of 1990. The purpose of 
the legislation was to provide tools for the management and control of the spread of aquatic 
nuisance species, such as zebra mussels. NISA reauthorized a mandatory ballast management 
program for the Great Lakes, an area already heavily infested with zebra mussels, and created an 
enforceable national ballast management program for all U.S. coastal regions. The act requires 
detailed reporting on ballast exchange by cargo vessels. Ship ballast water has been identified as 
a likely mode of introduction for many of the nonindigenous invertebrates identified in San 
Francisco Bay-Delta, now home to at least 150 introduced plant and animal species. 

«'Photo: zebra mussel 
Federal and State Programmatic Actions 

State Water Project Monterey Agreement Contract Amendments 

The Monterey Agreement between DWR and SWP water contractors was signed in 
December 1994. This agreement set forth principles for making changes in the contractors' SWP 
water supply contracts which would then be implemented by an amendment, known as the 
Monterey Amendment, to each contractor's SWP contract. The Amendment has been offered to 
all SWP contractors. Those contractors that sign the Amendment will receive the benefits of it, 
while those that do not will have their water supply contracts administered such that they will be 
unaffected by the Amendment. As of December 1997, 26 of the 29 contractors had signed the 
Monterey Amendment. 

In general, the Monterey Amendment provides a new array of water management tools to 
the water contractors. More specifically, the Amendment changes the rules for water allocations, 
provides for permanent transfer of a portion of contract water supply entitlement and the Kern 
Water Bank property, provides operational flexibility for use of SWP facilities, and allows some 
financial restructuring for the SWP. 

Clarification of SWP Water Allocation Rules. The Amendment stated that, during 
water-short years, project supplies would be allocated proportionately on the basis of contractors' 



2-13 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



entitlements. In addition, the Amendment allocates water on an equal basis to urban and 
agricultural purposes, deleting the previous initial supply reduction to agricultural contractors. 

Permanent Sales of Entitlement. The Amendment provides for transfer of up to 
175,000 acre-feet of entitlement away from agricultural use. The first transfer made was the 
relinquishing of 45,000 acre-feet of entitlement (40,670 acre-feet from Kern County Water 
Agency, 4,330 acre-feet from Dudley Ridge Water District) back to the SWP. This 
relinquishment reduces the total SWP entitlement commitment. In addition, the Amendment 
provides an additional 130,000 acre-feet of agricultural entitlements to be sold on a permanent 
basis to urban contractors (on a willing buyer-willing seller basis). As of April 1997, 25,000 
acre-feet of Kern County Water Agency entitlement had been purchased by Mojave Water 
Agency for recharge in Mojave's groundwater basin. In addition, some 9,000 acre-feet per year 
of KCWA entitlement was in the process of being permanently transferred to Castaic Lake Water 
Agency. Other potential permanent transfers are being discussed. 

Storing Water Outside a Contractor's Service Area; Transfers of Non-Project Water. 
While some of the Amendment's benefits help the larger SWP contractors, the ability to store 
water outside a contractor's service area either directly or through exchanges is a significant 
benefit to the smaller contractors as well. Many SWP urban contractors do not have significant 
water storage opportunities in their service areas. This provision of the Monterey Amendment 
allows a contractor to store water in another agency's reservoir or groundwater basin. Examples 
include water storage programs with Semitropic Water Storage District (a member agency of 
Kern Coimty Water Agency) involving MWD, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Alameda 
County Water District. A number of water exchanges are also moving forward following 
approval of the Monterey Amendment. Dudley Ridge Water District has entered into an 
exchange agreement with San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Solano County Water 
Agency is developing an exchange program with Mojave Water Agency whereby Solano 
provides a portion of its entitlement in wetter years in return for a lesser amount of water in dry 
years. This firms up the supplies of both agencies. While exchanges cannot be directly 
attributed to the Amendment, the Amendment facilitates their implementation. 

Finally, the Amendment provides a mechanism for using SWP facilities to transport non- 
Project water for SWP water contractors. (DWR uses other contractual arrangements for 



2-14 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



wheeling water for the CVP and for other non-SWP water users.) In addition, power for the 
transport of this non-Project water in SWP facilities will be charged at the same rate as for 
entitlement water. 

Annual Turnback Pool. Prior to the Amendment, water allocated to contractors that was 
not used during the year would revert to the SWP at the end of the year. No compensation was 
provided to the contractor for this water, and no other contractors could make use of these 
supplies during that year. The Turnback Pool is an internal SWP mechanism which provides for 
pooling potentially unused supplies early in the year for purchase by other SWP contractors at a 
set price. The Pool was not intended as a water market, but rather as an incentive to return 
unneeded water early in the year for re-allocation among SWP contractors on a voluntary 
willing-buyer basis. The Turnback Pool operated successfully on a trial basis during 1 996, when 
more than 200,000 acre-feet were reallocated. 

Other Operational Changes. One of the changes brought about by the Amendment is 
the transfer of DWR's Kern Water Bank property to the agricultural contractors. Participants in 
the Kern Water Bank include farmers within Kern County Water Agency and Dudley Ridge 
Water District. It is expected that the Kern Water Bank will be a central water management 
feature for agriculture in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Another operational change is that the contractors repaying the costs of constructing the 
Castaic and Perris terminal reservoirs will be permitted to increase their control and management 
of a portion of the storage capacity of each reservoir to optimize the operation of both local and 
SWP facilities. This is expected, for example, to firm up dry year supplies for MWDSC, Castaic 
Lake Water Agency and Ventura County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 
CVPIA Implementation 

USBR and USFWS have been extensively involved in CVPIA implementation since the 
act's passage in 1992. The act created a number of new federal programs, some of which will 
take many years to fully implement. Some key areas of CVPIA implementation are summarized 
below. A more detailed summary of the act is provided in Appendix 2 A. 

Renewal of CVP Water Service Contracts. CVPIA prohibited execution of new water 
service contracts (with minor exceptions), except for fish and wildlife purposes, until all of the 
numerous environmental restoration actions specified in the statute had been completed. The act 



2-15 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



also provided that existing long-term water service contracts are to be renewed for a 25-year term 
(as opposed to their previous 40-year term). However, only interim renewals (not more than 
three years) are allowed until the programmatic EIS required by the act is completed. Beginning 
October 1997, most existing contracts are subject to a monetary hammer clause to encourage 
early renewal. Renewed contracts would incorporate new provisions created by CVPIA, such as 
tiered water pricing. 

USBR released its draft PEIS in November 1997. All contract renewals to date have thus 
been interim renewals. USBR has had over 60 interim contract renewals from the date of 
enactment through 1996, representing more than 1 maf per year of supply. 

Transfers of Project Water. CVPIA authorized transfer of project water outside the CVP 
service area, subject to numerous specified conditions, including a right of first refusal by 
existing CVP water users within the service area. Transfers must be consistent with state law, be 
approved by USBR, and be approved by the contracting water district if the transfer involves 
more than 20 percent of its long-term contract supply. 

USBR has published interim guidelines for administration of this provision, pending 
formal promulgation of rules and regulations. As of this writing, no off-project transfers have 
either been approved or implemented under this provision. 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Actions. One of the most controversial elements of 
CVPIA implementation has been how to manage the 800 taf of CVP yield (see sidebar) 
dedicated by the act for fishery restoration purposes. This water is available for use on CVP 
controlled streams (river reaches downstream from the project's major storage facilities on the 
Sacramento River, American River, and Stanislaus River) and in the Bay-Delta. 



2-16 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



CVPIA's Dedicated Water 

Section 3406(b)(2) describes the dedicated water as follows: 

Upon enactment of this title dedicate and manage annually 800, 000 acre-feet of Central 
Valley Project yield for the primary purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat 
restoration purposes and measures authorized by this title; to assist the State of California in 
its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and to 
help meet such obligations as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under 
State or Federal law following the date of enactment of this title, including but not limited to 
additional obligations under the federal Endangered Species Act. For the purpose of this 
section, the term "Central Valley Project yield" means the delivery capability of the Central 
Valley Project during the 1928-1934 drought period after fishery, water quality, and other 
flow and operational requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing in licenses, 
permits, and other agreement pertaining to the Central Valley Project under applicable State 
or Federal law existing at the time of enactment of this title have been met. 



There has been considerable disagreement over how this water is to be managed and 
accounted for, in part due to the ambiguity of the statutory language. Use of the dedicated water 
has also been complicated by its incorporation in the Bay-Delta Accord. Questions have 
included whether or not the water can be exported from the Delta (especially after the water has 
been used for instream flow needs in upstream rivers), and if the water may be used for Bay- 
Delta purposes above Bay-Delta Accord requirements. Initially, USBR and USFWS attempted 
to develop guidelines or criteria for its management. Subsequent to CALFED's creation, the 
CALFED Operations Group became one of several forums for attempting to resolve issues about 
use of the dedicated water. In November 1997, the Department of Interior released its final 
administrative proposal on management of the dedicated water. The administrative proposal's 
release was followed by filing of a notice of intent to sue by some of the CVP's agricultural 
water contractors. 

A main purpose of the dedicated water is to meet the act's stated goal of doubling natural 
production of Central Valley anadromous fish populations (from their average 1967-1991 levels) 
by year 2002. (Release of water to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam is excluded from this 
program.) CVPIA authorizes USBR and USFWS to acquire additional, supplemental water from 
willing sellers to help achieve the doubling goal. Details of supplemental water acquisition are 
shown in Chapter 6. The act further allocates additional CVP water supply (in the sense that it 

2-17 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



reduces the quantity of water which the project could otherwise divert) for instream use in the 
Trinity River, by requiring that an instream flow of 340 taf per year be maintained through water 
year 1996 while USFWS finishes a long-term instream flow study. 

The act enumerates specific physical restoration measures that the federal government is 
to complete for fishery and waterfowl habitat restoration. The largest completed measures are a 
temperature control device at Shasta Dam, at a cost of over $83 million, and a research pumping 
plant at Red Bluff Diversion Dam. CVPIA allocated part of the costs of some restoration 
measures to the State of California; the remaining costs are being paid by federal taxpayers and 
by CVP water and power contractors. 

Some of the smaller restoration actions include individual fish-screening projects that 
USBR and USFWS are cost-sharing with local agencies under the anadromous fish screening 
program. Examples of these projects are described in Chapter 8. 

"s^Photo: Shasta Dam TOD 

CVPIA required USBR to impose a surcharge on CVP water and power contracts for 
deposit into a Restoration Fund created by the act. Monies collected into the fund are 
appropriated by Congress to help fund the many environmental restoration actions required by 
CVPIA. The act authorizes appropriation of up to $50 million (1992 dollars) per year for the 
restoration actions. Annual collections into the fund vary with water and power sales. Once 
appropriated by Congress, the funds can be carried over into subsequent fiscal years. In federal 
fiscal year 1996, the enacted Restoration Fund budget was $43.5 million, while an additional 
$38 million was included in the President's FY 1997 budget request to Congress. CVPIA 
environmental restoration actions can be funded from the general federal treasury, as well as by 
the Restoration Fund. 

"S'Photo: duck 



2-18 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



CVPIA Waterfowl Habitat Provisions 

Most CVPIA environmental restoration measures are focused on fishery needs. 
However, several provisions specifically address restoring and enhancing waterfowl habitat. 
The act authorizes a 1 0-year voluntary incentive program for farmers to flood their fields to 
create waterfowl habitat, and directs USBR and USFWS to prepare reports on the water 
supply reliability of private wildlife refuges and on water needs for 120,000 acres of 
additional wetlands identified in a plan by the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture (see 
Chapter 7 for more information). CVPIA's major waterfowl habitat provision is a 
requirement that, by 2002, USBR and USFWS are to provide specified levels of water supply 
for the federal, State, and private refuges listed below. Part of this water supply is to come 
from reallocating of existing CVP supplies, and part from acquisition from willing sellers. 

National Wildlife Refuges Wildlife Management Areas Resource Conservation District 



Sacramento 


Volta 


Grasslands 


Colusa 


Los Bancs 




San Luis 


North Grasslands 




Merced 


Gray Lodge 




Pixley 


Mendota 




Delevan 






Sutter 






Kesterson 






Kem 







The act also authorizes DOI to construct or acquire the conveyance facilities or wells 
needed to supply water to the refuges. USBR has begun an interim water acquisition program 
for the wetlands supplies, which to date has been focused on year-to-year purchases on the 
spot market, as described in Chapter 6. 



Land Retirement Program. CVPIA authorized the U.S. Department of the Interior to 
carry out an agricultural land retirement program for lands receiving CVP water. The statute 
specifies that targeted lands be lands that "are no longer suitable for sustained agricultural 
production because of permanent damage resulting fi'om severe drainage or agricultural 
wastewater management problems, groundwater withdrawals, or other causes;" whose retirement 
would result in improved water conservation in a contracting district; or would help implement 
recommendations of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program's 1990 report. USBR has 

2-19 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



published interim giiidelines for administration of a pilot program, pending formal promulgation 
of rules and regulations. The federal guidelines were developed in coordination with a state land 
retirement program established in 1992 under Water Code Section 14902 et seq. The State 
statute limited the retirement program to drainage-impaired lands. The state land retirement 
program has never been funded, and thus no state acquisitions have been made. As of November 
1997, the federal land retirement program had made one purchase~600 acres of drainage- 
impaired land in Westlands Water District. (This land will be managed for wildlife habitat.) 
Recently, the federal program solicited proposals from landowners wishing to participate in the 
retirement program, and received 3 1 offers to sell lands amounting to 27,500 acres. 
CVP Reform Act and CVPIA Administration 

In 1995, the CVP Water Association sponsored introduction of HR 1906, the Central 
Valley Project Reform Act of 1995, a bill which would have made extensive amendments to 
CVPIA. That bill, which was opposed by the federal administration, did not pass out of the 
House. CVPIA implementation issues raised by the water users were taken up by the DOI in a 
1996 administrative process that has produced a number of concept papers outlining issues with 
federal implementation of CVPIA. 

USBR initially prepared interim guidelines on many provisions of the act, with the intent 
that the guidelines would remain in place until rules and regulations could be promulgated for 
those sections of CVPIA involving discretionary actions by the federal government. In some 
cases, the concept papers produced in the administrative process attempt to clarify or augment 
the interim guidelines. To date, USBR has not formally promulgated rules and regulations for 
any CVPIA provision. 

Other Administrative Actions and Reports. CVPIA directed the DOI to carry out several 
other administrative programs and to conduct specified studies. For example, the DOI was 
directed to conduct a comprehensive assessment and monitoring program for Central Valley fish 
and wildlife resources, and has been developing a plan to coordinate that program with the real- 
time Bay Delta monitoring described in the following section. USBR has developed criteria for 
evaluating the water conservation plans of CVP contractors, as required by the act, and has been 
reviewing contractors' plans for compliance with the criteria. DWR, DFG, USBR, and USFWS 
have negotiated a master State-federal cost-sharing agreement for those environmental 



2-20 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



restoration actions whose costs the act allocated, in part, to California. Funding for the State's 
share of those costs was provided by voter approval of Proposition 204. 

From a water supply standpoint, three CVPIA-mandated reports are of particular interest. 
In November 1997, USBR released a public review draft of the programmatic EIS required by 
the act. The PEIS evaluates the impacts of federal implementation of the act, including water 
supply impacts to the CVP and the impacts of acquiring various levels of supplemental water 
supply for the anadromous fish restoration program. USFWS has prepared several draft 
documents relating to estimated Central Valley water needs and water management actions for 
the AFRP. The most recent draft of the AFRP was published in May 1997. In 1995, USBR 
released its appraisal-level least-cost CVP yield increase plan, required by the act to identify 
options for replacing the CVP water supply dedicated for environmental purposes. Although the 
act directed that the plan be prepared, no statutory authorization was provided for USBR to 
implement the plan. 
FERC Relicensing 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, among other things, administers a program 
of licensing non-federal hydroelectric power plants. FERC licenses contain conditions upon the 
owners' operation of the plants; typical conditions include instream flow requirements and other 
fishery protection measures. Licenses for many California hydropower plants will be coming up 
for renewal in the near future, and FERC has begun to schedule regulatory activities for plants 
with licenses expiring in 2000 to 2010 (Table 2-7). The relicensing process affords resource 
agencies and individuals the opportunity to seek higher instream flow requirements, such as 
those suggested in CVPIA's draft AFRP, when a new license is issued. Use of water for 
hydropower generation is a nonconsumptive water use. However, changes in the amount and 
timing of water diverted for power generation can affect other uses downstream. At this time it 
is not clear what impact deregulation of the electric power industry will have on the plants 
coming up for relicensing. It appears that current owners of some generating facilities 
(especially smaller plants) may sell their generation assets as part of deregulation. 



2-21 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-8. California Hydropower Projects - License Years 2000 - 2010 

(projects over 1 ,000 KW) 



License 

Expiration 

Date 



Project Name 



Stream 



Licensee 



Capacity 
(KW) 



6-14-2000 
9-30-2000 



Lower Tule 

Hat Creek 
No. 1 & 2 



Middle Fork 
Tule River 
Hat Creek & 
Pit River 



S. Calif. Edison 

(SCE) 

Pacific Gas & Electric 

(PG&E) 



2,000 
20,000 



2-23-2002 



El Dorado 



South Fork 
American River 



PG&E 



20,000 



4-26-2003 
8-31-2003 
9-30-2003 
10-31-2003 



San Gorgon io 
No. 1 & 2 
Vermillion Valley 

Poe 

Pit 



San Gorgonio Creek 

Mono Creek 
North Fork 
Feather River 
Pit River 



SCE 
SCE 
PG&E 
PG&E 



2,250 

N/A 

142,830 

317,000 



4-30-2004 

10-31-2004 

12-31-2004 

12-31-2004 

12-31-2004 



Santa Felicia 
Reservoir 
U N Fork 
Feather River 
Donnells & 
Beardsley 

Tulloch 

Stanislaus - 
Spring Gap 



Piru Creek 
Santa Clara River 
North Fork 
Feather River 
Middle Fork 
Stanislaus River 

Stanislaus River 

South Fork 
Stanislaus River 



United Water Conserv. 
District 

PG&E 

Oakdale & South San 
Joaquin Irrigation Districts 
Oakdale & South San 
Joaquin Irrigation Districts 

PG&E 



1,434 

342,000 

63,990 

17,100 

175,800 



2-28-2005 
3-31-2005 
4-30-2005 



Bore! 
Portal 
Kern Canyon 



Kern River 
Rancheria Creek 
Big Creek 
Kern River 



SCE 
SCE 
PG&E 



9,200 
10,000 
11,500 



2-28-2006 



Klamath 



Klamath River 



Pacificorp 



231,000 



1-31-2007 

3-27-2007 

7-31-2007 

7-31-2007 
11-30-2007 



Feather River 

Kilarc & Cow Creek 

Upper American River 

Chili Bar 
Mammoth Pool 



Off Stream 
Feather River 
Old Cow Creek & 
Cow Creek 
South Fork 
American River 
South Fork 
American River 
San Joaquin River 



DWR 

PG&E 

Sacramento Municipal 
Utility District 

PG&E 

SCE 



2,165,750 

8,880 

722,259 

7,020 
181,000 



2-28-2009 
2-28-2009 
2-28-2009 

3-31-2009 
4-30-2009 



Big Creek 
No. 2A & 8 
Big Creek 3 
Big Creek 
No. 1 & 2 

South Fork 

Santa Ana No. 3 



South Fork San Joaquin 

River 

San Joaquin River 

Big Creek & San Joaquin 

River 

Kelly Ridge Canal 

Santa Ana River 



SCE 

SCE 

SCE 

Oroville- Wyandotte 
Irrigation District 
SCE 



480,070 
177,450 
225,900 

104,100 
1,500 



2-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



New ESA Listings 

Since Bulletin 160-93, there has been action on federal listing of several fish species 
having statewide water management significance. In August 1 997, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service listed two coastal steelhead populations as threatened (from the Russian River south to 
Soquel Creek, and from the Pajaro River south to the Santa Maria River), and one population as 
endangered (fi-om the Santa Maria River south to Malibu Creek). NMFS deferred listing 
decisions for six months for other California populations~from the Elk River in Oregon to the 
Trinity River in California, from Redwood Creek to the Gualala River, and in the Central Valley- 
-due to scientific disagreement about the sufficiency and accuracy of the data available for listing 
determinations. 

Also in 1997, NMFS listed the Southern Oregon/Northern California coast evolutionarily 
significant unit of coho salmon as threatened. In 1996, NMFS had listed coho salmon in the 
central coast unit (from Punta Gorda in Humboldt County south to the San Lorenzo River) as 
threatened. 

NMFS has received a petition to list spring-run chinook salmon, and is conducting a 
review of that species' status. (The spring-run chinook salmon has been listed as a candidate 
species under the California ESA.) USFWS is currently reviewing the proposed listing of a 
resident Delta fish species, the Sacramento River splittail. (USFWS had proposed to list splittail 
in 1994, but a congressional moratorium on listing of new species prevented USFWS fi"om 
working on the proposal until 1996.) 

San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta 
Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED 

Representatives fi-om the California Water Policy Council, created to coordinate activities 
related to the State's long-term water policy, and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate, created to 
coordinate actions of federal agencies involved in Delta programs, signed a Framework 
Agreement for the Bay-Delta Estuary in June of 1994. Working together, these agencies have 
become known as CALFED. The Framework Agreement provides improved coordination and 
communication between State and federal agencies with resource management responsibilities in 
the estuary. It covers the water quality standards setting process; coordinates water supply 
project operations with requirements of water quality standards, endangered species laws, and the 



2-23 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Central Valley Project Improvement Act; and provides cooperation in planning and developing 
long-term solutions to the problems affecting the estuary's major public values. 

In December 1994, State and federal agencies, working with stakeholders, reached 
agreement on water quality standards and related provisions that would remain in effect for three 
years. This "Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California 
and the Federal Government" (commonly referred to as the Bay-Delta Accord) was based on a 
proposal developed by urban and agricultural water agencies, and environmental interests. 
Provisions of the Bay-Delta Accord are intended to (1) establish water quality standards and 
water project operational constraints; (2) define parameters of ESA implementation and 
emphasize use of real-time monitoring data in making project operational decisions; and (3) 
improve conditions in the Bay-Delta Estuary that are not directly related to Delta outflow, such 
as screening diversions, restoring habitat, or controlling waste discharges. The parties to the 
agreement made a financial commitment to fund these "non-flow Category III" measures at $60 
million per year for the agreement's three-year term. As its expiration in December 1997, the 
three-year Accord was extended for a fourth year. 

To carry out the coordination functions of the Accord, an Operations Group (the 
"CALFED Ops Group"), composed of representatives from the State and federal water projects 
and the other CALFED agencies, meets regularly to coordinate project operations. Stakeholders 
from water agencies, and environmental and fishery groups participate in Ops Group meetings. 

Water Quality Standard Setting. SWRCB issued a Draft Water Quality Control Plan for 
the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin Delta Estuary in May 1995, incorporating the agreements 
reached in the Accord. In June 1995, SWRCB approved changes to D-1485 to resolve, on an 
interim basis, inconsistencies with the Accord and with the SWP's and CVP's voluntary 
implementation of the standards in the Accord. In 1995, the SWRCB adopted an interim order 
(WR 95-6) which modified most of the terms and conditions of D-1485 to be consistent with the 
Bay-Delta Accord. The interim order will expire when a comprehensive water right decision is 
adopted that allocates final responsibilities for meeting the 1995 Bay-Delta objectives or on 
December 31, 1998, whichever comes first. 

In July 1995, the SWRCB released a Notice of Preparation of an EIR for a water right 
decision to implement the requirements in the 1995 Bay-Delta Plan, and in December 1995 



2-24 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



released a revised NOP describing a preliminary set of alternative approaches to achieve the 
requirements of the plan. In September 1996, the Board released "Bay-Delta Draft EIR 
Alternatives Under Consideration," a report summarizing both the alternatives under analysis that 
may be included in the draft EIR and the assumptions the SWRCB will make to model the 
alternatives. 

The SWRCB intends to issue a water right decision, under CEQA, which will implement 
the 1995 Bay-Delta Plan by December 1998. SWRCB staff are evaluating seven alternate 
methods of allocating responsibility to meet flow objectives contained in the 1995 Bay-Delta 
Plan. These alternatives include: 

(1 ) SWP and CVP Responsible for Water Right Decision 1485 Flow Objectives 

(2) SWP and CVP Responsible for 1995 Bay/Delta Water Quality Control Plan Flow 
Objectives 

(3) Water Right Priority Alternative (The Friant Project is assumed to be an inbasin project.) 

(4) Water Right Priority Alternative (The Friant Project is assumed to be an export project.) 

(5) Watershed Alternative - Monthly average flow requirements are established for major 
watersheds based on Delta outflow and Vemalis flow objectives and the watersheds' 
average unimpaired flow. The parties responsible for providing the required flows are: 
(1) water users with storage in foothill reservoirs that control downstream flow to the 
Delta, and (2) water users with upstream reservoirs that have a cumulative capacity of at 
least 100 taf and who use water primarily for consumptive uses. 

(6) Recirculation Alternative - The USBR is required to make releases from the Delta- 
Mendota Canal to meet the Vemalis flow objectives. 

(7) San Joaquin Basin Negotiated Agreement - The San Joaquin Basin water right holders' 
responsibility to meet the Bay/Delta Plan objectives is based on an agreement titled 
"Letter of Intent among Export Interest and San Joaquin River Interests to Resolve San 
Joaquin River Issues Related to Protection of Bay/Delta Environmental Resources." 
Long-Term Solutions - Finding Process for Bay-Delta. The Framework Agreement 

called for a joint State-federal process to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay- 
Delta estuary related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water 
quality. This CALFED Bay-Delta Program is managed by an interagency staff team with the 



2-25 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



assistance of technical experts from State and federal agencies. It is being carried out under the 
policy direction of CALFED, with public input being coordinated by the Bay-Delta Advisory 
Council (BDAC). BDAC is a 31-member advisory panel representing California's agricultural, 
environmental, urban, business, fishing, and other interests who have a stake in the long term 
solution of the Bay-Delta Estuary's problems. 

The first phase of the CALFED program was to identify problems and goals for the Bay- 
Delta, and develop a range of alternatives for long-term solutions utilizing an extensive public 
input process that includes workshops and NEPA/CEQA scoping sessions. This phase 
concluded with a final report in September 1 996 that identified three broad solutions, each of 
which included a range of water storage options, a system for conveying water, and some 
programs that are virtually the same in all alternatives. The second phase will conduct a broad- 
based environmental review of the three alternative solutions and will identify one preferred 
alternative, and is scheduled to be completed in September 1998. (The draft programmatic 
EIR/EIS for this phase is scheduled to be released in January 1998.) The final phase involves 
staged implementation of the preferred alternative, over a time period perhaps as long as 30 
years, and will require project-level compliance with NEPA and CEQA. 

ESA Administration. The December 1994 Bay-Delta Accord established several 
principles governing ESA administration in the Bay-Delta during the agreement's term: 

• The Accord is intended to improve habitat conditions in the Bay-Delta to avoid the need 
for additional species listings during the agreement's term. If additional listings do 
become necessary, the federal government will acquire any additional water supply 
needed for those species by buying water from willing sellers. 

• There is intended to be no additional water cost to the CVP and SWP due to compliance 
with biological opinion incidental take provisions for presently listed species. The 
CALFED Operations Group is to develop operational flexibility by adjusting export 
limits. 

• Real-time monitoring is to be used to the extent possible to make decisions regarding 
operational flexibility. CALFED commits to devote significant resources to implement 
real-time monitoring. 



2-26 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Suisun Marsh 

Decision 1485 ordered USBR and DWR to develop a plan to protect the Suisun Marsh. 
The Suisun Marsh Preservation and Restoration Act of 1979 authorized the Secretary of the 
Interior to enter into a Suisun Marsh cooperative agreement with the State of California. This 
agreement will help mitigate adverse effects of the CVP on fish and wildlife resources of the 
marsh and to share in the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance activities to protect 
these resources. The Plan of Protection was subsequently developed by DWR and other 
interested parties, and initial facilities (water supply distribution systems) were completed in 
1981. 

In 1986, Congress enacted Public Law 99-546 which authorized the federal goveniment 
to execute, implement and fund a cooperative agreement among the Suisun Resource 
Conservation District, DFG, DWR, and USBR that would mitigate the adverse effects of the 
SWP, CVP, and other upstream diversions on the water quality in the marsh. The agreement, 
along with a monitoring agreement and a mitigation agreement, was approved in March 1987 
and described proposed facilities to be constructed, a construction schedule, cost-sharing 
responsibilities of the state and federal governments, water quality standards, soil salinity, water 
quality monitoring, and the purchase of land to mitigate the impacts of the Suisun Marsh 
facilities themselves. As provided by the agreement, a salinity control structure on Montezuma 
Slough was completed in 1989. The salinity control gates have effectively reduced salinity in 
Montezuma Slough and eastern regions of the marsh, and to a lesser degree, in most of the 
western regions of the marsh. 

i^Photo: salinity control gates 

Because of the effectiveness of the salinity control gates and increased Delta outflows 
called for by the State Water Resources Control Board in its 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, 
the parties to the 1987 Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement amended the agreement in 1997 to 
provide for funding of water management activities on the marsh's managed wetlands. Activities 
such as improving discharge facilities, providing portable pumps with fish screens, employing a 
water manager, and constructing joint-use water management facilities among landowners will 
enable landowners to effectively use water from marsh sloughs. The parties decided to maintain 
the agreement's objectives to improve marsh wildlife habitat, but changed the agreement actions 



2-27 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



to focus on funding water management activities instead of constructing the large-scale facilities 
described in the Plan of Protection. 
Delta Protection Commission 

The Delta Protection Act of 1992 established the Delta Protection Commission to prepare 
a comprehensive resource management plan for land uses within the Primary Zone of the Delta. 
On February 23, 1995, the commission adopted the Land Use and Resource Management Plan 
for the Primary Zone of the Delta (Delta Plan). The Commission was created as a regional 
agency charged with the task of preparing a regional land use and resource management plan and 
working closely with local governments to ensure that their general plans are brought into 
conformance with the Commission's plan. Delta counties-including Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, 
San Joaquin, and Contra Costa—are required to comply with findings of the Delta Plan. 

The major goals of the Delta Plan include the following: 

• Preserve and protect the natural resources of the Delta, including soils. 

• Promote protection of remnants of riparian habitat. 

• Promote seasonal flooding and agriculture practices to maximize wildlife use. 

• Promote levee maintenance and rehabilitation to preserve the land areas and channel 
configurations in the Delta; 

• Protect the Delta from excessive construction of utilities and other infrastructure, 
including infrastructure that supports uses and development outside the Delta. Where 
construction of new infrastructure is appropriate, minimize the impacts of new 
construction on the integrity of levees, wildlife, and agriculture; 

• Protect the imique character and qualities of the Primary Zone by preserving the cultural 
heritage and strong agricultural base of the Primary Zone. Encourage residential, 
commercial, and industrial development in existing developed areas. 

• Support long-term viability of commercial agriculture and discourage inappropriate 
development of agricultural lands; 

• Protect long-term water quality in the Delta for agriculture, municipal, industrial, water- 
contact recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat uses, as well as other designated 
beneficial uses; 



2-28 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in Califomia Water 



• Promote continued recreational use of the land and waters of the Delta; ensure that 
needed facilities that allow such uses are constructed and maintained; protect landowners 
from unauthorized recreational uses on private lands; and maximize dwindling public 
funds for recreation by promoting public-private partnerships and multiple use of Delta 
lands; and 

• Support the improvement and long-term maintenance of Delta levees by coordinating 
permit reviews and guidelines for levee maintenance; develop a long-term funding 
program for levee maintenance; protect levees in emergency situations; and give levee 
rehabilitation and maintenance priority over other uses of levee areas. 

As originally authorized, the Delta Protection Commission was to sunset in January 1997. 
Its sunset date was extended to January 1, 1999. The Commission is participating in the 
CALFED planning process and in other regional programs such as the San Francisco Estuary 
Project. The Commission is currently studying existing recreational uses in the Delta in 
conjunction with the Department of Boating and Waterways and the Department of Parks and 
Recreation. The Commission continues to monitor proposed land use changes in the Delta. 
San Francisco Estuary Project 

The San Francisco Estuary Project, established in 1987, is a federal-state partnership 
established under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act that brought together over 100 
government, private, and community interests to develop a plan for protecting and restoring the 
San Francisco estuary while maintaining its beneficial uses. The Project, jointly sponsored by 
the EPA and the State of Califomia, is financed by federal appropriations under the C WA and 
matching funds from state and local agencies. 

In 1993, the SFEP's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan was completed 
and signed by the Governor and the EPA. The CCMP contained 145 specific action items to 
protect and restore the estuary. These action items were classified into the following programs: 
aquatic resources, wildlife, wetlands management, water use, pollution prevention and reduction, 
dredging and waterway modification, land use, public involvement and education, and research 
and monitoring. Since no specific ftinding existed for implementing these action items, progress 
has continued under existing federal, state, and local programs. In 1996, the SFEP published a 



2-29 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recertt Events in California Water 



progress report on CCMP implementation which listed ten priorities to be implemented over the 
next five years. The ten priorities were: 

(1) Expand, restore, and protect Bay-Delta wetlands. 

(2) Integrate and improve regulatory and scientific monitoring programs. 

(3) Create economic incentives that encourage local government to take action to implement 
measures to protect and enhance the estuary. 

(4) Improve the management and control of urban runoff. 

(5) Prepare and implement watershed management plans throughout the estuary. 

(6) Reduce and control exotic species introductions and spread in the estuary via ship ballast 
and other means. 

(7) Build awareness about CCMP implementation. 

(8) Increase public awareness about the estuary's natural resources and the need to protect 
them. 

(9) Implement the Regional Monitoring Program. 

(10) Work with CALFED and others (such as CVPIA) to address San Francisco Bay and 
CCMP considerations in planning efforts and restoration funding decision making. 
In July 1997, the Association of Bay Area Governments submitted two CALFED 

Category III proposals on behalf of SFEP. One proposal was for an educational/outreach 
program to prevent new introductions of exotic species and the second was for a demonstration 
project to protect and enhance Delta in-channel islands. 
Coordinated Operation Agreement Renegotiation 

In 1986, DWR and the USBR signed a Coordinated Operation Agreement obligating the 
CVP and the SWP to coordinate their operations to meet Decision 1485 standards, in order to 
address overlapping concerns and interests in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The agreement 
authorizes the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to operate the CVP in coordination 
with the SWP to meet State water quality standards for the San Francisco Bay and the Delta 
(unless the Secretary determines such operation to be inconsistent with Congressional 
directives); and provides a formula for sharing the obligation to provide water to meet water 
quality standards and other in-basin uses. It sets forth the basis for CVP and SWP operation to 
ensure that each project receives an equitable share of the Central Valley's available water and 



2-30 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



guarantees that the two systems will operate more efficiently during periods of drought than they 
would if operated independently. Under the CO A, the USBR also agreed to meet its share of 
future water quality standards established by the SWRCB, unless the Secretary of the Interior 
determines that the standards are inconsistent with Congressional intent. 

Article 14 of the COA provided for periodic review of project operation and the COA, 
and for future adjustments to the sharing formula should assumed conditions used to calculate 
the sharing formula change. Since the COA was executed, biological opinions for winter-run 
Chinook salmon and Delta smelt have imposed new operational constraints on both the CVP and 
the SWP. In addition, the Bay-Delta Accord has established standards the two projects are 
voluntarily meeting, pending implementation of the standards through the SWRCB water rights 
proceedings and other processes. As a result of these significant changes, DWR and USBR have 
begun a review of the sharing formula. 

Interstate Issues 

California receives most of its water supply from intrastate rivers and groundwater 
basins. The Colorado River, shared among seven states, is California's largest interstate river. 
The status of apportionment actions on rivers with long-standing interstate issues is discussed 
below. Currently, there is no significant activity on interstate groundwater basins. Within the 
last decade, there had been concerns in California about proposed large-scale groundwater 
development projects in northern Nevada that could affect interstate basins, but these projects 
have not been implemented. 

^Photo: Lake Tahoe Dam 
Truckee-Carson River System 

The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Title II of Public Law 
No. 101-618) settles several water rights disputes affecting the waters of Lake Tahoe, the 
Truckee River, and the Carson River. Among other things, the act makes an interstate 
apportionment of these waters between the States of California and Nevada. It is the first 
Congressional apportionment since the Boulder Canyon Project act of 1928. The act addresses 
several other issues, including settlement of certain water supply disputes between the Pyramid 
Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians and other users of the Truckee and Carson Rivers. The act also 



2-31 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



deals with several environmental concerns, including recovery of Pyramid Lake species offish 
listed imder the federal ES A. 

Many of the act's provisions will not enter into effect until several conditions have been 
satisfied, including dismissal of specified lawsuits (two of which involve California) and 
negotiation and adoption of a Truckee River Operating Agreement. The act requires that the 
TROA be negotiated among the DOI, the states of California and Nevada, the Pyramid Lake 
Paiute Tribe, and the Sierra Pacific Power Company. The TROA addresses implementing the 
interstate allocation between the two states and implementing an agreement between the Power 
Company, the Tribe, and the United States which provides for credit storage of water for the 
listed fish in Pyramid Lake, instream flows, and emergency drought water supplies for the Reno- 
Sparks area. Negotiation of the TROA has been ongoing since 1991. A draft TROA has been 
completed and is being analyzed in an EIS/EIR prepared by the DOI. DWR is the lead agency 
for compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The draft EIS/EIR has been scheduled to be 
released for public review in 1 998. 
Walker River 

There are currently no significant interstate actions pending on the Walker River as part 
of the California-Nevada Interstate Compact. A proposed interstate allocation of Walker River 
waters was negotiated at one time but was not implemented because the Compact was never 
ratified by Congress, and the Walker River was not included in the settlement legislation for the 
adjoining Tnickee-Carson river basin. In the recent past, interstate activities on the Walker River 
have involved water quality and fishery issues associated with river operations, rather than 
interstate water allocation issues. 
Klamath River 

An interstate compact which provides for the orderly and coordinated interstate 
administration of the Klamath River was adopted by California and Oregon and ratified by the 
federal government in 1957. The Compact is administered by a Commission consisting of the 
Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department and the Director of the California 
Department of Water Resources. It is chaired by a non-voting federal representative. 

For the first 39 years of the Compact, there was little controversy concerning the Upper 
Klamath River Basin. New issues include recent concerns for endangered species of fish in 



2-32 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Klamath Lake, as well as listed species and candidate species of anadromous fish in the Lower 
Klamath River; tribal water right claims; preparation of a USSR operating plan for the federal 
Klamath Project; water shortages during the recent drought; and a comprehensive water rights 
adjudication in Oregon. 

The Klamath River Compact Commission has begun a voluntary consensus process to 
identify and pursue solutions to water shortages affecting the Upper Klamath River Basin. The 
effort is focused on getting the parties to agree on ways to secure sufficient water for all needs, 
rather than asserting claims. The Commission will continue to act as a facilitator as long as there 
is a possibility of working toward a consensus solution with regard to the waters of the Upper 
Klamath Basin. The USBR has been cooperating with these efforts. 
Colorado River 

Colorado River water management activities are described at length in Chapter 9. The 
major issue facing California is the State's use of Colorado River water in excess of the basic 
amount allocated to it under the existing body of statutes, court decisions, and agreements 
controlling the river's water supply among the seven basin states. California's basic 
apportionment of river water is 4.4 maf of consumptive use per year, as compared to its present 
consumptive use of about 5.3 maf per year. California's use has historically exceeded its basic 
apportionment because California has been able to divert and use Arizona's and Nevada's unused 
apportionments, and to use surplus water. With completion of the Central Arizona Project and 
the 1996 enactment of a state groundwater banking act, Arizona projects that it will use almost 
all of its entitlement for the first time in 1998. 

California is working with the other basin states to develop a plan to reduce its use to the 
basic apportionment, as described in Chapter 9. 

•s'Photo: Hoover Dam 

Discussions among the seven basin states and ten Colorado River Indian tribes about 
changes to Colorado River operating criteria and ways for California to reduce its use of river 
water began as early as 1991, when the drought in Northern California prompted California to 
request that USBR declare surplus conditions, so that Southern California could make maximum 
use of Colorado River water. Discussions about changes to reservoir operations and how surplus 
and shortage conditions could be established continued, for a time, in a forum known as the 



2-33 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



"7/10" (7 states and 10 Indian tribes) process; there has been no recent activity in that forum. 
Discussions have been underway among the local agencies in California that use Colorado River 
water to develop a unified position on water allocation and reservoir operations issues. 

California has been meeting with the other basin states to outline a plan for California to 
reduce its use of Colorado River water to the state's basic apportionment. As described in 
Chapter 9, the plan outline contains actions such as water transfers from agricultural users of 
river water to urban users in the South Coast region, and lining of, or seepage recovery from, 
portions of the Ail-American and Coachella Canals. The urban agencies would provide 
agricultural water users with funding to implement water conservation measures in exchange for 
receiving conserved water. As presently envisioned, implementing California's plan could occur 
in two phases, with projects that are presently well-defmed (e.g., canal lining) being 
implemented in the first phase. 

Regional and Local Programs 
Local Agency Groundwater Management Programs 

In most western states, the use of surface water and groundwater resources is managed by 
the states. California administers rights to surface water at the state level, but does not 
administer groundwater resources at a statewide level. Groundwater may be managed under a 
variety of authorities, ranging from statutory or judicial adjudication of individual basins to 
several forms of local agency management. Some local agencies have specific statutory 
authority to manage groundwater resources in their service areas. Other local agencies may 
manage groundwater under authority provided by general enabling legislation, such as Water 
Code section 10750 et seq. A few counties have also adopted local ordinances dealing with 
groundwater management. 

The 1992 enactment of AB 3030 (section 10750 et seq. of the California Water Code) 
provided broad general authority for local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans 
pursuant to specified procedures, and to impose assessments to cover the cost of implementing 
the plans. To date, over 60 local agencies (listed in Table A-1 in Appendix A) have adopted 
AB 3030 groundwater management plans. 



2-34 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Watershed-Based Planning 

There has been increased interest in watershed-based planning within recent years, often 
prompted by water quality regulatory programs. Watersheds and sub-watersheds are logical 
units for implementing SDWA source water protection programs and CWA nonpoint source 
pollution control programs. "Watershed plarming" can have a range of meanings ~ some people 
associate watershed planning with small, community-based watershed restoration efforts, often 
carried out under the aegis of a coordinated resources management plan. Others think of larger- 
scale efforts that focus on nonpoint source pollution control, such as the SWRCB's watershed 
management initiative. The largest-scale watershed plaiming is exemplified by the federal river 
basin commission efforts attempted in the 1970s, as well as by more recent efforts to integrate 
river restoration and water management actions within a river basin. The CALFED Bay-Delta 
program could be considered an example of a large-scale watershed process, one encompassing 
plaiming for both water quantity and water quality. Some specific watershed-based planning 
activities are reviewed below. 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Watershed Planning. The State Water Resources 
Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are implementing an integrated 
watershed management approach to administering water pollution control programs. This 
approach addresses both point and nonpoint pollution sources, and is based on the premise that 
water pollution control problems may be best solved at the watershed level, rather than at the 
level of the waterbody or the individual discharger. The SWRCB's approach includes extensive 
stakeholder involvement in identifying and prioritizing water quality issues targeted for action on 
a watershed scale. Each of the regional boards is currently developing a watershed management 
strategy for its region. 

In 1997, the SWRCB, RWQCBs, and EPA undertook a new program known as the 
watershed management initiative. Through WMI implementation, resources would be focused 
on targeted watersheds and would be available through a modified administrative process for 
EPA Clean Water Act grant ftmding. 

To encourage WMI participation, the modified federal grant program will stress new 
incentives, including seed money, and partnerships with other agencies and local entities. 
Targeted watersheds and watershed priorities or activities were identified in each of California's 



2-35 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



nine RWQCB regions. Targeted watersheds and watershed priorities or activities are listed in 
Table 2-8. 

«'Photo: Iron Mountain Mine 
One example of a watershed-based water pollution control effort is the Sacramento River 
Watershed Program which was initiated in 1996 by stakeholders representing federal, State, and 
local governments; interest groups representing agriculture, mining, and industry; private 
consulting firms and educational institutions; and private citizens. The program's goal is to 
ensure that current and potential uses promote the long term social and economic vitality of the 
region. The SRWP serves as a framework for stakeholders to control the management of their 
watershed as a whole. It will address all water quality issues the stakeholders believe to be 
important, beginning with monitoring. Activities in 1996 included organizing the stakeholder 
group, conducting educational workshops, adopting program goals and objectives, initiating 
toxicity monitoring in the watershed, and completing a draft comprehensive watershed 
monitoring plan. Tasks planned for 1997 and 1998 include starting implementation of the 
comprehensive watershed monitoring plan, identifying impaired waters, identifying priority 
water quality issues, and formulating water quality management strategies. 



2-36 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-9. Partial List of Targeted Watersheds and Watershed Activities 
Identified for the Watershed Management Initiative 



Region 



Targeted Watershed Targeted Watershed Priorities/Activities 



Region 1 
North Coast 



Russian/Bodega 

Lost River and the Klamath River 
upstream of Iron Gate Dam 

Shasta River and tributaries 

Scott River and tributaries 

Other Klamath River tributaries 
upstream of Scott River confluence 

Garcia Watershed 

Humboldt Bay 



Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control, riparian enhancement 
Stream restoration on Clear Lake tributaries (Modoc County) 

Irrigation return, nutrient and temperature reductions, and irrigation 
water conservation 

Temperature reductions, irrigation water conservation, 
erosion/sedimentation control 

Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control 

Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control, temperature reductions 
Fish restoration, erosion/sedimentation control 



Region 2 
San Francisco Bay 



Napa River 

Petal uma River 

Tomales Bay 

San Francisquito Creek 

Walnut Creek 

Suisun Marsh 

Alameda Creek 



Riparian and wetland restoration, sediment control, volunteer 
monitoring 

Riparian and wetland restoration, sediment control, animal waste 
control, volunteer monitoring 

Riparian restoration, sediment control, mine waste restoration, on-site 
disposal, volunteer monitoring 

Riparian and wetland restoration, sediment control, urban runoff 
prevention and control, volunteer monitoring 

Riparian restoration, sediment control, urban runoff prevention and 
control, volunteer monitoring 

Riparian and wetland restoration, sediment control, construction and 
agricultural activities, volunteer monitoring and education 

Riparian and wetland restoration, sediment control, construction and 
agricultural activities, groundwater protection, volunteer monitoring and 
education 



Region 3 
San Luis Obispo 



Salinas River 
Morro Bay 
San Lorenzo 
Pajaro River 
Santa Maria River 



Agricultural activities, erosion/sedimentation control, riparian and 
wetland enhancement and restoration 

Erosion/sedimentation control, abandoned mines, road construction, 
agricultural activities, riparian and wetland enhancement and restoration 

Erosion/sedimentation control, road construction and maintenance, 
riparian and wetland enhancement and restoration 

Nonpoint source pollution control, riparian and wetland enhancement 
and restoration 

Nonpoint source pollution control, riparian and wetland enhancement 
and restoration 



Region 4 
Los Angeles 



Calleguas Creek 
Ventura River Watershed 
Los Angeles River 
Santa Monica Bay 



Reduce nutrients, pesticides, and sediments in irrigation water; restore 
aquatic and riparian habitats; flood control; enhance recreational uses 

Restore aquatic habitats; implement flood control; enhance recreational 
uses 

Restore aquatic and riparian habitats; enhance recreational uses; reduce 
pollutants, including trash in urban runoff 

Reduce pollutants from boatyards and marinas; enhance recreational 
uses; restore wetlands 



2-37 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Table 2-9. Partial List of Targeted Watersheds and Watershed Activities 
Identified for the Watershed Management Initiative 



Region 



Targeted Watershed Targeted Watershed Priorities/Activities 



Region 5 
Central Valley 



Lower San Joaquin River Watershed 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

Lower Sacramento River Watershed 



Cache Creeic Watershed and Clear 
Laice 

Pit River 



Tulare Lake 



Selenium, agriculture, dairies, temperature, urban runoff 

Agriculture, sediments, bacteria, dredged material, dissolved oxygen, 
urban runoff 

Agriculture, urban runoff, mercury, heavy metals, nitrates, septic 
systems, fisheries 

Nutrients (algal blooms), mercury 



Hydromodification, nutrients (algal blooms), dissolved oxygen, 
turbidity/sediments, temperature, agriculture, grazing, silverculture 

Salts, pesticides, boron, chloride, molybdenum, sulfate, dissolved 
oxygen, bacteria, used oil 



Region 6 
Lahontan 



Lower Truckee River 



Upper Truckee River 



Roadside drainage, erosion control, urban runoff, fisheries habitat 
improvement, wetlands enhancement, stream restoration 

Sediment control, nutrients from watershed disturbances; watershed 
education; restoration of wetland function, riparian areas, and/or river 
morphology and function 





Carson River 


Erosion control, disposal of livestock waste, watershed education, 
wetland/riparian restoration 


Region 7 


Imperial Valley Watershed 


Agricultural pollution control 


Colorado River 


Coachella Valley Watershed 


Agricultural pollution control, groundwater protection 


Region 8 


Chino Basin Watershed 


Agricultural runoff, groundwater salt building 


Santa Ana 


Newport Bay Watershed 


Toxics, nutrients, pathogenic organisms, sediments 



Region 9 
San Diego 



San Diego Bay - All Tributaries 
San Diego Bay 
Otay River Valley 
Sweetwater River 

Aliso Creek 

Santa Margarita River 



Urban runoff, public education 

Copper leaching from boat hulls, oil spills 

Urban runoff, public education, pollutant loadings 

Heavy metals, petroleum products, public education, nutrient transport, 
sediment transport 

Coliform contamination 

Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from agriculture 



Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Plan. In 1 986, State 
legislation (SB 1086) was enacted that called for preparation of a management plan to protect, 
restore, and enhance the fish and riparian habitat and associated wildlife of the Upper 
Sacramento River. The plan, published in 1989, was prepared by an advisory council working 
closely with a wide range of agency representatives and stakeholders. The plan recommended 



2-38 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draff Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



implementation of 20 fishery improvement items, several of which (for example, constructing a 
temperature control device at Shasta Dam and improving fish passage at USBR's Red Bluff 
Diversion Dam) were subsequently included in CVPIA. Other action items, such as habitat 
restoration at Mill Creek, are being implemented largely under State authorities and by 
stakeholder activities. 

Bs-Photo: RBDD Research Pumping Plant 

In 1 992, the Upper Sacramento River Advisory Council was reconvened by the Secretary 
for Resources to "complete its earlier work concerning riparian habitat protection and 
management, including the development of a specific implementation program." The Advisory 
Council in turn established a Riparian Committee to define the inner and outer zones of a 
proposed conservation area, provide the basic framework of the riparian plan, and evaluate and 
recommend a suitable organizational structure to implement the riparian plan. Detailed mapping 
of the riparian corridor continues, and the committee is refining mechanisms to manage the 
proposed conservation area. 

San Joaquin River Management Program. The San Joaquin River Management 
Program was initially authorized by 1 990 State legislation. This legislation established a SJRMP 
advisory council and action team, and directed the Secretary for Resources to coordinate their 
activities in preparation of a management program to develop solutions to water supply, water 
quality, flood protection, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation needs on a specified segment 
of the San Joaquin River. Members of the advisory council and action team included State, 
federal, and local agencies; and stakeholders representing a variety of interests. The members 
worked together to develop a consensus-based plan addressing the categories of resource issues 
listed in the authorizing legislation, and the plan was published in 1995. Subsequent State 
legislation extended the original 1995 sunset date of the program and further directed SJRMP to 
work with agencies and programs such as CVPIA and CALFED to seek funding for the 
individual actions recommended in the 1995 plan. 

The plan recommended specific projects that could be implemented, as well as further 
study of other potential projects. Examples of projects in this latter category would be the 
enlargement of Friant Dam for flood control and other purposes, and the construction of the 
Montgomery off-stream storage reservoir for fishery water supply. Some of the projects 



2-39 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recer)t Events in California Water 



recommended for direct implementation have already been undertaken, including a pilot program 
for real-time management of agricultural drainage discharge to the San Joaquin River. Prospects 
appear good for funding other recommended projects through CVPIA's AFRP or the CALFED 
Category III program. 

Conservancies. Other mechanisms for watershed-based planning are conservancies 
created by special enabling legislation. These conservancies are usually focused on land 
acquisition or management activities, as typified by the Coastal Commission, or San Francisco 
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. There are two conservancies, however, with a 
water-related orientation. The Tahoe Conservancy was created in 1984 to acquire and manage 
property in the Lake Tahoe Basin for the primary purpose of maintaining the lake's water quality. 
Other authorized purposes of the conservancy are to provide access to public lands, preserve 
wildlife habitat, and perform environmental restoration projects. The conservancy is governed 
by a seven-member board, with members from the city of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, 
Placer County, the Resources Agency, Department of Finance, and two members appointed by 
the Legislature. A representative of the U.S. Forest Service is a non- voting board member. 
Since voter enactment of the 1982 Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act, the Conservancy has 
spent about $85 million in land acquisition and erosion control projects in the basin. 

The San Joaquin River Conservancy was created by 1992 legislation to acquire and 
manage lands along the river in Fresno and Madera counties for recreational and wildlife habitat. 
As established in the enabling legislation, the conservancy is governed by a board of six voting 
members and seven non-voting ex-officio members. 

Non-Governmental Organizations. Some watershed-based planning activities are being 
carried out by voluntary non-governmental organizations, often in the form of non-profit 
corporations. These NGOs are typically focused on resource issues in small watersheds, where 
they may partner with a resource conservation district to carry out specific projects. Examples of 
such NGOs are found on Mill Creek and Deer Creek in the Sacramento Valley, where local 
landowners banded together to improve fishery habitat on the creeks. Faced with the potential 
listing of spring-run chinook salmon under the federal ES A, the landowners decided to 
implement restoration measures designed to help the fishery recover. Some actions taken or 
being considered by the NGOs include addressing fish passage problems at water diversion 



2-40 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



Structures, using groundwater for irrigation instead of surface water during times critical to fish 

passage, and fencing riparian habitat to exclude livestock. 

Update on Implementation of Urban Water Conservation MOU 

The 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in 
California defined a set of 1 6 urban best management practices and procedures for their 
implementation, and established the California Urban Water Conservation Council composed of 
MOU signatories (local water agencies, public interest groups, and other interested parties). 
More than 200 entities have signed the MOU. 

The CUWCC has focused its efforts on monitoring the implementation of BMPs and 
reporting its progress annually to the SWRCB. In the process, the Council developed a plan 
which provides for an ongoing review process for BMPs and potential BMPs. In late 1996, the 
Council initiated a systematic review of the BMPs and their definitions. The purpose of this 
review is to clarify expectations for implementation and to develop a rigorous implementation 
evaluation methodology. (This review also corresponds with interest in the CALFED Bay-Delta 
program for developing a water use efficiency common program as part of the Bay-Delta 
solution.) A list of revised BMPs was adopted in 1997, as described in Chapter 4. 
Implementation of Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices 

The Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices Act of 1990 (AB 3616) required 
the Department to establish an advisory committee to develop EWMPs for agricultural water use. 
Negotiations among agricultural water users, environmental interests, and governmental agencies 
on a memorandum of understanding to implement EWMPs were completed in 1996. The MOU 
establishes an Agricultural Water Management Council to oversee EWMP implementation, 
much like the organizational structure that exists for urban BMPs, and also provides a 
mechanism by which its signatories evaluate and endorse water management plans. By 
November 1 997, the MOU had been signed by more than 29 agricultural water suppliers 
irrigating about 2.8 million acres of land. 

Title Transfer of Reclamation Projects 

In the 1990s, there was increasing interest in title transfer of federal water projects 
constructed under Reclamation law authorities to nonfederal ownership. Generally, these 
transfer proposals can be divided into three broad categories ~ USBR's westside program for 



2-41 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



small uncomplicated projects, general congressional action dealing with principles for transfer of 
certain types of projects, and water user-initiated transfers of specific projects. There was 
additionally a brief period of State-federal negotiations on title transfer of the Central Valley 
Project. Any transfer of a federal project to nonfederal ownership would require congressional 
authorization. 

In 1995, USBR announced that it was initiating a west- wide program to transfer title of 
uncomplicated Reclamation projects. Uncomplicated projects were defined as small, single- 
purpose projects (without hydropower or conservation storage components) which could easily 
be transferred to project beneficiaries ~ typically distribution and conveyance systems. 
However, transfer of a distribution system would not necessarily "defederalize" a project's 
service area. For example, a local agency could acquire title to a distribution system but still 
hold a water service contract with USBR for the water supply made available for diversion. In 
this instance, the service area would still be held to existing federal requirements such as 
Reclamation Reform Act acreage limitations and water conservation regulations. USBR has 
indicated that it will not entertain transfers of several large projects in their entirety under this 
program, including the CVP. However, the transfer of isolated elements of such projects can be 
considered under the program. One transfer actively being negotiated under the administrative 
program is that of the Contra Costa Canal, a facility of the CVP, to Contra Costa Water District. 
If USBR and CCWD can successfiiUy negotiate terms and conditions for the canal and 
appurtenant facilities, they would then seek congressional authorization for the transfer. Other 
California reclamation facilities considered for transfer under the administrative program 
included two small Sacramento Valley distribution systems associated with the CVP, and the San 
Diego Aqueduct. 

ra'Photo: Contra Costa Canal 

Legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress that would have directed the DOI to 
transfer title of reclamation projects whose construction costs have been repaid to the project 
beneficiaries. This legislation was not enacted. There were several proposals for transfers of 
individual projects during the 104th Congress, (none located in California) none of which were 
approved. 



2-42 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 2. Recent Events in California Water 



In 1992, California and the United States had signed a memorandum of agreement on a 
process to transfer title of the CVP to the State of California. The federal government 
subsequently declined to pursue transfer negotiations due to change in the federal administration 
and the 1992 enactment of CVPIA. In 1995, local agencies that provide operations and 
maintenance services for much of the CVP system formed a joint powers authority to explore 
transferring title of the CVP to the local agencies. The CVP Authority proposed to introduce title 
transfer legislation in the 104th Congress, but legislation was not actually introduced. Solano 
Project water users also pursued transfer legislation in the 104th Congress. That effort was put 
on hold while an adjudication of Putah Creek water rights proceeded. At issue were instream 
flows in the creek. Streamflow in lower Putah Creek is sustained primarily by releases from the 
Solano Project's Lake Berryessa and by agricultural return flows. 



2-43 



DRAFT 




5jgg*,^a»fc- . 



"" j S M g' r 'a mf 





Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3 Water Supplies 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 

This chapter reviews existing water supplies and updates information presented in the 
1993 California Water Plan update. Beginning with a brief overview of California's climate and 
hydrology, this chapter describes how water supplies are calculated and summarized within a 
water budget framework. A description of California's existing supplies ~ surface water, 
groundwater, and recycled water ~ and how these supplies are reallocated through transfers, 
exchanges, and banking follows. Chapter 3 concludes with a review of water quality 
considerations that influence how the State's water supplies are used. 

Climate and Hydrology 

Much of California enjoys a Mediterranean-like climate ~ with cool, wet winters and 
warm, dry summers ~ because an atmospheric high pressure belt brings fair weather for most of 
the year and little precipitation during the summer. During the winter, the storm belt shifts 
southward, placing the State under the influence of Pacific storms which bring vitally needed 
rain and snow. Most of California's moisture originates in the Pacific Ocean. As moisture-laden 
air is transported over mountain barriers, such as the Sierra Nevada, the air is lifted and drops 
rain or snow on the western slopes. This mountain-induced (orographic) precipitation is very 
important for the State's water supply. 

Average annual statewide precipitation is about 23 inches, corresponding to a volume of 
200 maf, over California's land surface. About 65 percent of this precipitation is consumed 
through evaporation and transpiration by trees, plants, and other vegetation. The remaining 35 
percent comprises the State's average annual runoff of about 71 maf Not all of this runoff can be 
developed for urban or agricultural use. Much of it maintains healthy ecosystems in California's 
rivers, estuarine systems, and wetlands. Available surface water supply totals 78 maf when out- 
of-state supplies from the Colorado and Klamath Rivers are added. Distribution of the State's 
water supplies varies geographically aiid seasonally; water supplies also vary climatically 
through cycles of drought and flood. 



3-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Geographic Variability 

Uneven distribution of water resources is part of the State's geography. More than 70 
percent of California's 71 maf average annual runoff occurs in the northern part of the state; the 
North Coast hydrologic region accounts for 40 percent and the Sacramento River hydrologic 
region accounts for 32 percent. Figure 3-1 shows average annual rainfall and runoff in California 
by hydrologic region. About 75 percent of the State's urban and agricultural demands for water 
is south of Sacramento. The largest urban water use is in the South Coast hydrologic region 
where roughly half of California's population resides and the largest agricultural water use is in 
the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions. Fertile soils, a long, dry growing season, and 
water availability have combined to make the regions among the most agriculturally productive 
in the world. Flows in wild and scenic rivers in the North Coast Region provide the largest 
environmental water use. Statewide water use is described in Chapter 4. 

In response to the uneven distribution of California's water resources, facilities have been 
constructed to convey water from one watershed or hydrologic region to another. Figure 3-2 
shows larger exports and imports among the State's hydrologic regions. 
Seasonal Variability 

On average, 75 percent of the State's average annual precipitation of ^3 inches falls 
between November and March, with half of it occurring between December and February. A 
shortfall of a few major storms during the winter causes a dry year; conversely, a few extra 
storms or an extended stormy period produces a wet year. An unusually persistent Pacific high 
pressure zone over California during December through February predisposes the year toward a 
dry year. Figure 3-3 compares average monthly precipitation in the Sacramento River region 
with precipitation during extremely wet (1982-83) and dry (1923-24) years. 



3-2 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-1. Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation and Runoff 



Hydrologic Regions 



NC 
SF 
CC 
SC 
SR 
SJ 
TL 
NL 
SL 
CR 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 



LEGEND 



Average 

Precipitation 

(Inches) 



Average 

Runoff 

(maf) 




Region 


Average 

Precipitation 

(Inches) 


Average 
Runoff 
(maf) 


NC 


51.0 


28.9 


SF 


25.8 


1.2 


CC 


19.8 


2.4 


8C 


18.4 


1.2 


8R 


36.0 


22.4 


SJ 


27.3 


7.9 


TL 


15.4 


3.3 


NL 


22.1 


1.8 


SL 


7.9 


1.3 


CR 


5.5 


0.2 


Entire State 


22.9 


70.8 



3-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-2. Regional Imports and Exports 



a. South Bay Aqueduct 153 

b. Contra Coata Canal 72 

c Mokalumna Aqueduct 237 

d. Hatch Hetchy Aqueduct 275 

•. San Felipe Unit 85 



Hydrologlc Regions 

NC - North Coast 
SF - San Francisco Bay 
CC - Central Coast 
SC - South Coast 
SR - Sacramento River 
SJ - San Joaquin River 
TL - Tulare Lake 
NL - North Lahontan 
SL - South Lahontan 
CR - Colorado River 




^ Expom from the Sacramanto-San Jouquin Data ara taken from comtnglad 
ofginating In both the Sacramanto and San Joaquin Rivw Raglona. 



' Exchange 



3-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-3. Northern Sierra Eight Station Precipitation Index 



u 

c 

c 

1 



o 



o> 
m 




Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 



3-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Climatic Variability 

While average annual runoff volumes are of interest, California's water development has 
generally been dictated by the extremes of droughts and floods. For example, the average yearly 
statewide runoff of 71 maf includes the all-time annual low of 15 maf in 1977 and the all-time 
annual high, exceeding 135 maf, in 1983. Stable and reliable supplies are required to sustain all 
water uses within the State. 

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the estimated annual natural runoff from the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin river basins. Because the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins provide much of the 
State's water supply, their hydrologies are often used as indices of water year classification 
systems. (See sidebar.) Runoff from both basins is subject to substantial climatic variability, 
such as two 6-year periods of drought in 1929-34 and 1987-92. 



3-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-4. Sacramento Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff 



40 



35 



30 



25 



20 



15 



10 



E 



1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



3-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-5. San Joaquin Four Rivers Unimpaired Runoff 



16 



14 



12 



10 



1 

c 

3 



__.__.__ lllllllllll l lllllllllllllllll lllllllilil"iill^J*^li'i^JJ**"iJ«ii^'»*iJJiliJiiJJ""*li"""» 



1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



3-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Water Year Classifications 

Water year classification systems provide relative estimates of the amount of water originating in a 
basin. Because water year classification systems are useful in water planning and regulation, they have been 
developed for several hydrologic basins throughout California. The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index and 
the San Joaquin Valley 60-20-20 Index were developed by the SWRCB for the Sacramento and San Joaquin 
hydrologic basins as part of the Board's Bay-Delta regulatory activities. Both systems include one "wet" 
classification, two "normal" classifications (above and below normal), and two "dry" classifications (dry and 
critical), for a total of five water year types. 

The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index is computed as a weighted average of the current water year's 
April- July unimpaired runoff forecast (40 percent), the current water year's October-March unimpaired runoff 
forecast (30 percent), and the previous water year's index (30 percent). A cap of 10 MAF is put on the 
previous year's index to account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Unimpaired 
runoff (calculated in the 40-30-30 Index as the sum of Sacramento River flow above Bend Bridge near Red 
Bluff, Feather River inflow to Oroville, Yuba River flow at Smartville, and American River inflow to 
Folsom) is the natural stream production unaltered by water diversions, storage, exports, or imports. A water 
year with a 40-30-30 index equal to or greater than 9.2 maf is classified as "wet." A water year with an index 
equal to or less than 5.4 maf is classified as "critical." Unimpaired runoff from the Sacramento Valley, often 
referred to as the Sacramento River Index or the Four River Index, was the dominant water supply index used 
in the SWRCB's 1978 Delta Plan and in Water Right Decision 1485. The SRI, while still used in the May 
1995 Bay-Delta WQCP as a water supply index, is not employed to classify water years. By considering 
water availability from storage facilities as well as from seasonal runoff, the 40-30-30 Index provides a more 
representative characterization of water year types than does the SRI. 

The San Joaquin Valley 60-20-20 Index is computed as a weighted average of the current water year's 
April-July unimpaired runoff forecast (60 percent), the current water year's October-March unimpaired runoff 
forecast (20 percent), and the previous water year's index (20 percent). A cap of 4.5 maf is placed on the 
previous year's index to account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. San Joaquin 
Valley unimpaired runoff is defined as the sum of inflows to New Melones Reservoir (from the Stanislaus 
River), Don Pedro Reservoir (from the Tuolumne River), Exchequer Reservoir (from the Merced River), and 
Millerton Lake (from the San Joaquin River). A water year with a 60-20-20 index equal to or greater than 3.8 
maf is classified as "wet." A water year with an index equal to or less than 2.1 maf is classified as "critical." 

Although not used to classify water years, the Eight River Index is another important water supply index 
employed in the May 1995 WQCP. The Eight River Index, defined as the sum of the forecasted unimpaired 
runoff from the four Sacramento Valley Index rivers and the four San Joaquin Valley Index rivers, is used 
primarily to define Delta outflow (X2) requirements and export restrictions. Key index months for triggering 
Delta requirements are December, January, and February. Figure 3-6 shows the Eight River Index computed 
for January from 1906-1996. 

Existing water year classification systems have been useful in planning and managing water supplies; 
however, they have also shown shortcomings during unusual hydrologic periods. The 1997 water year is one 
such example. Because of wet antecedent conditions and unusually high precipitation runoff in December and 
January, the water year was classified as "wet" in spite of a string of dry months that followed this unusually 
wet period. Water project operators were compelled to meet stringent instream flow and Delta requirements 
during the subsequent dry months to comply with the "wet" water year classification. Compliance was met 
through reservoir storage releases, as spring and summer runoff was significantly lower than is in typical wet 
years. Reservoir levels benefitted only marginally from the wet December and January, as flood control 
criteria limited the amount of water that could be stored. 



3-9 DRAFT 



■■BBsaanHB 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-6. Eight-River Index Computed for January 1906-96 



12 



10 



« 6 

c 
























II 


jIIiU il in 111 


111 lUiil 



1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



3-10 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Droughts of Recent Record. Since the turn of the century there have been numerous 
multi-year droughts in California, such as 1912-13, 1918-20, 1929-34, 1947-50, 1959-61, 1976- 
77, and 1987-92. Major reservoirs must be designed to maintain and deliver carryover storage 
through several years of drought. The seven-year period of 1928-34 established the criteria 
commonly used to design the storage capacity and water yield of large northern California 
reservoirs. Many reservoirs built since this drought were sized to maintain a reliable level of 
deliveries should a repeat of the 1928-34 hydrology occur. Table 3-1 compares the severity of 
recent droughts with the 1929-34 drought in the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley. 
While extended droughts can be costly, a single critical runoff year such as 1977 can also be 
devastating to a community depending on annual runoff. 



Table 3-1. Severity of Extreme Droughts in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys 



Drought 


Sacramento Valley Runoff 


San Joaquin Valley Runoff 


Period 


(maf/yr) 


(% Average 
1906-96) 


(maf/yr) 


(% Average 
1901-96) 


1929-34 
1976-77 
1987-92 


9.8 
6.6 
10.0 


55 
37 
56 


3.3 
1.5 
2.8 


57 
26 

47 



Groundwater generally supplies about 30 percent of California's urban and agricultural 
applied water use. In drought years, when surface water supplies are reduced, groundwater can 
provide an even larger percentage of use. As a result of increased groundwater pumping during 
droughts, groundwater levels may decline significantly in many areas. For example, during the 
first five years of the 1987-92 drought, groundwater extractions exceeded groundwater recharge 
by 1 1 maf in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Floods of Recent Record, Climatic variability results in floods as well as droughts. Wet 
water years are not necessarily indicative of flood conditions. Water year 1 983 was the wettest 
in California this century. However, major flooding did not occur during this period. Floods 
may occur as the result of: (1) an extended period (usually in the winter) of high precipitation 
and runoff over a large area, (2) spring and early summer snowmelt floods, unique to high 

3-11 DRAFT 



/ 

Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water SuppHes 



elevation central and southern Sierra Nevada basins, and (3) local area thunderstorms originating 
from moist tropical or subtropical air. Local area thunderstorms, sometimes caused by remnants 
of eastern Pacific hurricanes crossing the State, produce flash floods in the desert regions and in 
other areas of southern California. 

The most damaging flooding comes from extended-period regional winter storms which 
can sweep across all of northern California. These storms are slow moving, with a long 
southwesterly fetch extending toward Hawaii. The frontal zone can ripple back and forth several 
hundred miles, producing almost continuous rain up to fairly high elevations in northern or 
central California (less commonly in southern California). 

Several major flood events have occurred in California since the disastrous floods of the 
1950s, which were an impetus for development of several major flood protection facilities. In 
January 1 997, California was confronted with the largest and most extensive flood disaster in its 
history. Rivers across the State from the Oregon border to the southern Sierra reached flood 
stages. Flood volumes of some rivers exceeded channel capacities by as much as seven times. 
In many major river systems, flood control dams reduced peak flows by half or more. However, 
in some areas, leveed flood control systems were overwhelmed, and flood damage costs in those 
areas plus the costs to replace, restore, and rehabilitate facilities are nearing $2'billion. These 
floods not only tested the Sacramento-San Joaquin flood control system, but left many of the 
State's citizens apprehensive about how much protection they can expect from the current leveed 
flood control system. Table 3-2 shows estimated unregulated runoff from a few of the State's 
larger floods since the 1950s. 



3-12 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supf^ies 



Table 3-2. Major Floods Since the 1950s 



River 



Location 



Date 



Unregulated Runoff 
Estimates 









Max 1-Day 
(cfs) 


Ave 3-day 
(taf) 


Sacramento 


Shasta Dam 


Jan-74 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


196,000 
126,000 
216,000 


779 

681 

1,000 


Feather 


Oroville Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


179,000 
217,000 
298,000 


984 
1,113 
1,392 


Yuba 


New BuUards Bar Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


64,000 
69,000 
88,000 


306 
327 
398 


American 


Folsom Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


183,000 
171,000 
249,000 


835 
988 

977 


Mokelumne 


Camanche Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


36,000 
28,000 
76,000 


171 
149 

233 


Stanislaus 


New Melones Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


44,000 
40,000 
73,000 


198 
246 
298 


Tuolumne 


New Don Pedro Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


72,000 

53,000 

120,000 


306 
294 

548 


Merced 


New Exchequer Dam 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


33,000 
30,000 
67,000 


136 

164 

262 


San Joaquin 


Friant Dam 


Mar-95 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


39,000 
33,000 
77,000 


156 
176 
313 


Truckee 


Reno 


Oct-63 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


25,000 
22,000 
37,000 


79 
112 
148 


Cosumnes 


Michigan Bar 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 
Jan-97 


29,000 
34,000 
60,000 


115 
196 

N/A 


Eel 


Scotia 


Dec-64 
Feb-86 


648,000 
304,000 


2,936 
1,515 


Santa Ynez 


Lompoc' 


Jan-69 


38,000 


175 


Salinas 


Spreckles' 


Feb-69 
Mar-86 
Feb-80 


70,000 
13,300 
36,200 


90 
66 

100 


Santa Clara 


Saticoy 


Feb-69 


92,000 


270 


' Regulated flows 



3-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. VV^fer Supplies 



Water Supply Calculation 

This update of the California Water Plan calculates existing water supply and demand, 
then balances forecasted future demand against existing supply and future water management 
options. The balance, or water budget, is shown on a regional basis in Chapters 7-9 and on a 
statewide basis in Chapter 10. The following section describes the method for calculating water 
supplies within a water budget framework. Two water supply scenarios, an average year and a 
drought year, are presented to illustrate overall supply reliability. 
Water Budgets 

Water supplies are classified into three groups to develop Bulletin 160 water budgets: 
surface water, groundwater, and recycled/desalted water. Table 3-3 shows California's estimated 
water supply for 1995 and 2020 levels of development with existing facilities and programs. 
Facility operations are assumed to be in accordance with the State Water Resources Control 
Board's Order WR95-6 for Delta supplies. 



Table 3-3. California Water Supplies with Existing Facilities and Programs^ 

(taf per year) 

1995 _ .^ 2020 „ .^ 

Supply . Drought . Drought 

'^'^ * Average ^ Average - " 

Surface 

CVP 

SWP 

Other Federal Projects 

Colorado River 

Local 

Req. Environmental Flow 

Incidental Reuse 
Groundwater^ 
Recycled & Desalted 

TOTALS (rounded) 77,060 59,138 77,638 59,403 

' Bulletin 160-98 presents water supply data as applied water, rather than net water. This distinction is 
explained in the following section. Past editions of Bulletin 160 presented water supply data in terms 
of net supplies. 

^ Excludes groundwater overdraft 



7,004 


4,821 


7,347 


4,889 


3,126 


2,000 


3,439 


2,115 


910 


694 


912 


683 


5,176 


5,227 


4,400 


4,400 


11,054 


8,484 


11,073 


8,703 


30,532 


16,200 


30,532 


16,200 


6,441 


5,596 


6,876 


6,039 


12,493 


15,784 


12,591 


15,906 


324 


333 


469 


470 



3-14 DRAFT 



BulleUn 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Surface water sources include developed supplies from the Central Valley Project, the 
State Water Project, the Colorado River, other federal projects, and local projects. (As described 
in the sidebar, operations studies are used to evaluate the delivery capabilities of the CVP and 
SWP.) Surface water also includes the supplies for required environmental flows. Required 
environmental flows include undeveloped supplies used for designated wild and scenic rivers, as 
well as developed supplies used for instream flow requirements and Bay-Delta salinity and 
outflow requirements. Finally, surface water includes supplies available for incidental reuse. 
Urban wastewater discharges and agricultural return flows, if available and of acceptable quality 
to downstream users, are examples of incidental reuse water. 

Groundwater includes developed subsurface water and incidental water reuse through 
deep percolation. Groundwater excludes long-term basin extractions in excess of long-term 
basin inflows. This long-term annual average difference between extraction and recharge, 
defined in Bulletin 160 as overdraft, is treated as a shortage in water budget calculations. 

Water supplies from recycling and desalting do not include all water that is reclaimed and 
reused through treatment technologies. The Bulletin 160-98 recycled/desalted category includes 
only the new supplies that, if not recycled, would have discharged from a wastewater treatment 
plant to the ocean or to a salt sink. Treated water that would otherwise be available for incidental 
reuse, at a quality acceptable for beneficial use downstream, is not considered a new supply. 

The State's 1995 level annual average year supply is about 77.1 maf, including about 
30.5 maf of dedicated flows for environmental uses. Even with a reduction in Colorado River 
supplies to California's 4.4 maf basic apportionment, average annual statewide supply is 
projected to increase 0.58 maf by 2020 without additional water supply options. While the 
projected increase in water supply is due mainly to higher CVP and SWP deliveries (in response 
to higher 2020 level demands), new water production will also result from groundwater and 
recycling facilities currently under construction. 

The State's 1995 level annual drought year supply is about 59.1 maf, of which about 
16.2 maf is dedicated for environmental uses. Annual drought year supply is projected to 
increase 0.27 maf by 2020 without additional water supply options. The projected increase could 
come from higher CVP and SWP deliveries and new production from surface, groundwater, and 
recycling facilities currently under construction. 

3-15 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Operations Studies 

Computer simulations, also known as operations studies, are performed to estimate the 
delivery capabilities of the CVP and SWP under average year and drought year conditions. 
Two widely used computer models for conducting CVP/SWP operations studies are the 
Department's DWRSIM and USSR's PROSIM. Most Bulletin 160-98 studies were 
performed with DWRSIM. 

DWRSIM is designed to simulate the monthly operation of the CVP and SWP system 
of reservoirs and conveyance facilities under different hydrologic sequences. These 
hydrologic sequences are typically based on a 73 -year record of historic hydrology from 1922 
through 1994. DWRSIM simulates the availability, storage, release, use, and export of water 
in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems, the Delta, and the aqueduct and reservoir 
systems south of the Delta. The model provides numerical output on parameters such as 
reservoir storage, releases, Delta inflows, exports, and outflows. The model operates the CVP 
and SWP system to provide the maximum water withdrawal from the Delta allowed by 
regulatory constraints, up to the total water demand. Additional system operational objectives 
(e.g., reservoir carryover storage), physical constraints (e.g., reservoir and pumping plant 
capacities), and institutional agreements (e.g., Coordinated Operations Agreement) also affect 
the simulated operation. 

In considering the results of a project operations study, it is important to note that 
conditions in a specific model year do not match those observed in the actual year. Simulated 
hydrology deviates from historic hydrology because the 73 -year sequence is normalized to 
reflect existing or forecasted future land development and consumptive use conditions. 
Project deliveries and reservoir operations deviate from historic conditions because they are 
optimized for a specific level of demand over the entire hydrologic sequence.,The results 
should be interpreted as average project delivery capability over a 73 -year sequence of 
hydrology rather than in water years 1922 through 1994. Project deliveries over this long 
sequence of hydrology provide an indication of the system's average performance, as well as 
the performance over a wide range of wet and dry years. 

An example of the use of operations studies is provided later in this chapter when we 
describe how operations studies were used to evaluate CVP/SWP delivery impacts associated 
with the SWRCB's Order WR 95-6 Delta standards. 



Bulletin 1 60-98 water budgets are computed using applied water data. Applied water 
refers to the amount of water from any source employed to meet the demand of the user. It is the 
quantity of water delivered to the intake of a city water system or factory, a farm headgate or 
similar measuring point, a marsh or wetland either directly or indirectly by incidental drainage 
flows, or the portion of stream flow dedicated or reserved to instream uses. 

Previous Bulletin 160 updates used net water data in their water budgets. Bulletin 160-98 
switched from a net water methodology to an applied water methodology in response to public 

3-16 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



comments on Bulletin 160-93. Because applied water data are analogous to agency water 
delivery data, water budgets based on an applied water methodology are easier for local water 
agencies to review. Applied water supply values are greater than net water supply values 
because they include incidental reuse of surface and groundwater supplies. 

A second water budget modification adopted for Bulletin 160-98 was the elimination of 
groundwater overdraft as a base year supply component. While groundwater overdraft does 
provide a temporary water supply, the practice does not provide a sustainable water supply over 
the long term. Bulletin 1 60-98 now counts base year demand that is met by groundwater 
overdraft as a shortage and not as a supply. And as in previous updates, Bulletin 160-98 does 
not show groundwater overdraft as a ftiture year supply. 
Water Supply Scenarios 

As discussed at the beginning of Chapter 3, California is subject to a wide range of 
hydrologic conditions and, therefore, experiences annual variability in its water supplies. 
Knowledge of water supplies under a range of hydrologic conditions is necessary to evaluate the 
needs that water managers must meet. Two water supply scenarios ~ average year conditions 
and drought year conditions — were selected from among a spectrum of possible water supply 
conditions to represent variability in the regional and statewide water budgets. 

Average Year Scenario. The average year supply scenario represents the average annual 
supply of a system over a long plarming horizon. Historic data fi^om water supply projects are 
normalized to represent average water year conditions. Average year supplies from the CVP and 
SWP are defined by operations studies as the average annual delivery capability of each project 
over a 73 -year hydrologic sequence. For required environmental flow, average year supply is 
estimated differently for each of its components. Wild and scenic river flow is represented by the 
long-term average natural flow. Instream flow requirements are defined for an average year 
under specific agreements, water rights, court decisions, and congressional directives. Bay-Delta 
outflow requirements are estimated from operations studies. 

Drought Year Scenario, For many local water agencies, and especially urban agencies, 
drought water year supply is the critical factor in planning for water supply reliability. 
Traditional drought planning often uses a design drought hydrology to characterize project 
operations under future conditions. For a planning region with the size and hydrologic 

3-17 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



complexity of California, selection of an appropriate statewide design drought is not a trivial 
task. Based on several criteria, water years 1990 and 1991 were selected to represent the drought 
year scenario for Bulletin 160-98. (The 1990-91 drought was also used to represent drought year 
conditions in Bulletin 160-93.) This period was selected for the regional and statewide water 
budgets because it was a recent statewide event and water demand and supply data were readily 
available. The 1990-91 drought year scenario has a recurrence interval of about 20 years, a 5 
percent probability of occurring in any given year. This is typical of the level of drought used by 
many local agencies for routine water supply planning. For extreme events such as 1976 and 
1977, many agencies would implement shortage contingency measures such as mandatory 
rationing. 

The statewide occurrence of dry conditions during 1990-91 was another consideration in 
selecting it as a representative drought. Because of the size of California, droughts may or may 
not occur simultaneously throughout the entire state. For example, the most significant 
prolonged drought on the Sacramento and Feather Rivers in northern California occurred in 
1929-34. But on the Santa Ynez River in southern California, the driest prolonged period was 
from 1946 to 1951. See Figure 3-7. 

Defining a representative drought in southern California is complicated l^y the region's 
access to imported supplies from the Colorado River. The Colorado River watershed is large 
(about 244,000 square miles) and experiences hydrologic conditions different than California's. 
As a result, southern California's water supply is less affected by severe drought in northern 
California. Figure 3-8 presents Colorado River flow at the Lee Ferry stream gage to illustrate 
historic river basin hydrology. 



3-18 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-7. Sacramento River and Santa Ynez River Runoff 



700% 



600% 



500% 



< 400% 



300% 



200% 



100% 



0% 



1 



Jl 



I Santa Ynez ■ Sacramento 



1j 



I 



1918 1923 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 



3-19 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-8. Colorado River Unimpaired Runoff at Lee Ferry 



25 



20 



_ 15 

(0 

E 



% 

c 

3 

2 

3 
♦^ 
(0 



10 



1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



3-20 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Other Drought-Related Considerations. During low runoff years, carryover storage in 
surface water reservoirs is an important source of water supply. At the beginning of an extended 
dry period, the drought's duration is unknown. Therefore, to manage deficiencies, water may be 
released from storage according to some risk analysis procedure. As the drought continues, the 
procedure may impose progressively larger deficiencies. 

Carryover storage was used to supplement water deliveries during the low runoff years of 
1987-92, thereby minimizing the initial impacts of the drought on many water users. Figure 3-9 
shows SWP and CVP deliveries during this period. Although the drought lasted six years, 
deficiencies were not imposed on deliveries by either project during the first three years of the 
drought. During the final three years both projects imposed significant deficiencies. 
Figures 3-10 through 3-13 show how Shasta, Oroville, New Melones, and Cachuma reservoirs 
were operated during the 1987-92 drought. 

Surface water supplies were developed in California to balance the uneven distribution of 
water supply and water demand. The following section describes the State's major surface water 
development projects. (In response to public comments on Bulletin 160-93, we have expanded 
the description of surface water projects to provide more detail on the larger local agency 
projects.) A discussion on reservoir and river operations follows. The section concludes by 
addressing surface water supply impacts associated with recent events and reservoir reoperation. 



321 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-9. CVP and SWP Deliveries During 1987- 92 Drought 




1987 1988 1989 1990 



1991 1992 



3-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-10. Maximum/Minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: Shasta 




1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 



3-23 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-11. Maximum/Minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: Oroville 




1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 



3-24 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-12. Maximum/Minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: New Melones 




1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 



3-25 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-13. Maximum/Minimum Storage During 1987-92 Drought: Cachuma 



200 




1986 1967 1988 



3-26 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Surface Water Supplies 
Surface Water Development Projects 

This section describes California's largest surface water development projects, including 
the CVP, SWF, Colorado River facilities, and Los Angeles Aqueduct. Descriptions of smaller 
surface water development projects are provided in Chapters 7-9. See Chapter 1 for a location 
map of these larger facilities. 

«-photo: San Luis Reservoir 

Central Valley Project In 1921, California began planning a water project to serve the 
Central Valley. The Legislature authorized the State Central Valley Project in 1933. Because 
California was unable to sell the bonds needed to finance the project during the Great 
Depression, USBR stepped in to begin project construction. Initial congressional authorization 
for the CVP covered facilities such as Shasta and Friant dams, Tracy Pumping Plant, and the 
Contra Costa, Delta-Mendota, and Friant-Kem Canals. Later authorizations included Folsom 
Dam (1949), Trinity River Division (1955), San Luis Unit (1960), and New Melones Dam 
(1962). 

The USER'S Central Valley Project is the largest water storage and delivery system in 
California, covering 29 of the state's 58 counties. The project's features include 18 federal 
reservoirs and 4 additional reservoirs jointly owned with the State Water Project. The keystone 
of the CVP is the 4.55 maf Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir in California. CVP reservoirs 
provide a total storage capacity of over 12 maf, nearly 30 percent of the total surface storage in 
California, and deliver about 7.3 maf annually for agricultural, urban, and wildlife uses. 
Table 3-4 shows major CVP reservoirs. 



327 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-4. Major Central Valley Project Reservoirs 



Reservoir Name 



Capacity 
(taf) 



Year Built 



Owner 



River/Stream 



Shasta 


4,552 


1945 


USBR 


Sacramento R. 


Clair Engle 


2,448 


1962 


USBR 


Trinity R, 


Whiskeytown 


241 


1963 


USBR 


Clear Cr. 


Folsom Lake 


977 


1956 


USBR 


American R. 


New Melones 


2,420 


1979 


USBR 


Stanislaus R. 


Millerton Lake 


520 


1947 


USBR 


San Joaquin R. 


San Luis (Federal Share) 


971 


1967 


USBR/DWR 


Offstream Storage 



Shasta and Keswick reservoirs regulate CVP releases into the Sacramento River. Red 
Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River supplies water to the Tehama-Colusa and Coming 
Canals. At the Delta, CVP water is exported at Rock Slough on the Contra Costa Canal and at 
Tracy Pumping Plant on the Delta-Mendota Canal. During the winter, water is conveyed via the 
Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir for delivery to the San Luis and San Felipe units of 
the project. A portion of the Delta-Mendota Canal export is placed back into the San Joaquin 
River at Mendota Pool to serve, by exchange, water users with long-standing historical rights to 
the use of San Joaquin River flow. This exchange enabled the CVP to build Friant Dam, 
northeast of Fresno, which diverts a major portion of San Joaquin River flows through the Friant- 
Kem and Madera Canals. A map of CVP facilities is presented in Figure 3-14. 

K^photo: Friant Dam 

CVP reservoirs also provide flood control.. Shasta and Folsom reservoirs have 1 .3 maf 
and 0.4 maf of federally authorized flood space. Millerton Lake, impounded by Friant Dam, has 
170,000 af of rain flood space and up to 520,000 af of snowmelt reservation. New Melones 
Reservoir has 450,000 af of flood control space. : 



3-28 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-14. Major CVP Facilities 




SiB Felipe 
Ml ^ 



Federal Wakr Project Facttet 



3-29 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Auburn Dam -- Planned, But Not Constructed 

The proposed Auburn Dam was authorized by Congress in 1 965 as an addition to the CVP to 
provide flood control and water supply on the American River. Foundation preparation and related 
earthwork for a dam to impound 2.3 maf were halted by seismic safety concerns after the 1975 
Oroville earthquake. The dam's design was changed in 1980 from a concrete arch to a gravity 
structure. The proposed dam has been a source of controversy between proponents of downstream 
flood control and water supply benefits and those who wish to preserve the American River Canyon. 
As originally planned, a multi-purpose Auburn Reservoir could have provided more than 0.3 maf per 
year of new water supply to the CVP, as well as substantial flood control and power benefits. Recent 
reviews of American River hydrology have emphasized the flood control potential of a dam at 
Auburn. 

Much of the Sacramento metropolitan area is threatened by flooding from the American and 
Sacramento rivers. The 100-year floodplain covers over 100,000 acres and contains over 400,000 
residents, 160,000 homes and structures, and over $37 billion in developed property. When Folsom 
Dam was completed in 1955, the facility was estimated to provide Sacramento with 250-year level of 
flood protection. This estimate was revised downward to a 63-year level of protection (85-year level 
with Folsom reoperation for additional flood control space) after the storms of 1986. 

Given the area's low level of flood protection (one of the lowest in the nation for a 
metropolitan area of its size), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been evaluating many 
alternatives to providing additional flood protection. Three alternatives that were studied in depth 
include: (1) the Folsom Modification Plan, (2) the Folsom Stepped Release Plan, and 
(3) the Detention Dam Plan. The Folsom Modification Plan would increase the maximum 
flood storage in Folsom from 475,000 to 720,000 af, lower the main spillway by 15 feet, enlarge 8 
river outlets, and make levee improvements along the American and Sacramento rivers. The Folsom 
Stepped Release Plan would increase Folsom's flood storage from 400,000 to 670,000 acre-feet, lower 
the main spillway by 15 feet, enlarge 8 river outlets, and make necessary levee improvements to 
increase maximum reservoir releases to 180,000 cfs. The Detention Dam Plan would construct a 508- 
foot-high flood detention facility on the North Fork of the American River near Auburn, make levee 
improvements along the American and Sacramento rivers, and return the maximum flood storage in 
Folsom Reservoir to 400,000 acre-feet. 

The USACE completed an EIR/EIS in 1992 and a Supplemental EIR/EIS in March 1996 to 
address flood control alternatives for the Sacramento area. Both identify the Detention Dam Plan as 
the National Economic Development plan, i.e. the plan that maximizes the net national economic 
benefit. In October 1995, the Reclamation Board voted for a preferred plan from among the three 
alternatives and endorsed the Detention Dam Plan. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency also 
voted for the Detention Dam Plan as the locally preferred plan. 

In its Resolution No. 95-17, the Reclamation Board states that it "... believes the Folsom 
Modification Plan provides an inadequate level of flood protection for the Sacramento area, and would 
reduce water-supply capacity and hydropower benefits at Folsom Reservoir..." and that "...the Board 
believes the Stepped Release Plan would place undue reliance on the levees of the lower American 
River, would reduce water supply capacity and hydropower benefits at Folsom Reservoir, and ... 
would be significantly more expensive for State and local interests..." Regarding the Detention Dam 
Plan, the resolution states "... the Board believes that the Detention Dam Plan ... represents the NED 
Plan for the American River flood plain. The Board recommends that the Corps pursue Congressional 
authorization of this plan." In spite of support from USACE, the Reclamation Board and SAFCA, the 
Detention Dam was not authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 



3-30 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



«*photo: temporary coffer dam failure in 1 986 flood 
The CVP supplies water to more than 250 long-term water contractors in the service areas 
shown in Figure 3-15. The majority of CVP water goes to agricultural water users. Urban 
centers receiving CVP water include Redding, Sacramento, Folsom, Tracy, most of Santa Clara 
County, northeastern Contra Costa County, and Fresno. Collectively, the contracts call for 
annual delivery of 9.3 maf, including delivery of 1.4 maf of Friant Division supply available in 
wet years. Of the 9.3 maf total annual contractual delivery, 6.1 maf is classified as project water 
and 3.2 maf is classified as water right settlement water. About 90 percent of south-of-Delta 
contractual delivery is for agricultural uses; the remaining 10 percent is for wildlife refuges. 
Figure 3-16 shows actual CVP water deliveries since 1960. 

Water right settlement water is water covered in agreements with water rights holders 
whose diversions existed before the project was constructed. Project reservoirs altered natural 
river flow upon which these pre-project diverters had relied, so contracts were negotiated to 
provide stored water to these users. CVP water right settlement contractors on the upper 
Sacramento River receive their supply (about 2.2 maf per year) from natural flow and storage 
regulated at Shasta Dam. Settlement contractors on the San Joaquin River (called exchange 
contractors) receive Delta water via the Delta-Mendota Canal. 

Thanks to the substantial generation capacity of its Shasta-Trinity complex, the CVP has 
been the State's largest net producer of electric power. The project's average annual electric 
power generation is 5.0 billion kWh and its average annual energy usage is 1.3 billion kWh. 
Figure 3-17 shows CVP hydroelectric energy production since 1960. Power generated by the 
CVP is marketed by the Western Area Power Administration. 

The capability of the CVP to deliver full water supply requests by its south-of-Delta 
contractors in a given year depends on rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water in storage, pumping 
capacity from the Delta, and regulatory constraints on CVP operation. Figure 3-18 shows 
existing (1995 level) and future (2020 level) CVP south-of-Delta delivery capability, as 
estimated by operations studies, under SWRCB Order WR 95-6. The figure shows that existing 
CVP facilities have a 20 percent chance of making full deliveries under both demand levels. 



331 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-15. Central Valley Project Service Areas 




3-32 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-16. CVP Deliveries 1960-96 




1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



3-33 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-17. CVP Power Generation 



IV 

9 
8 
7 

w 6 

z 

i 

c 

c 5 

o 

O 4 

3 
2 
1 







-- 


-- 


-- 


■ 








- 


-- 


-- 


■- 


■- 


-- 


- 


- 


■ 


•• 


■• 


• 




- 


- 


... 


- 


- 


-- 


■ 


- 


•- 


•• 


'- 


-- 


-- 





1960 



1965 



1970 



1975 



1980 



1985 



1990 1995 



3-34 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-18. 1995 and 2020 Level CVP Delivery Capability South of Delta with 

Existing Facilities 



3.5 



3.0 



2.5 



E 2.0 



> 

=5 1.5 

Q 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 



100 90 80 



2020 Level 




1995 Level 



70 60 50 40 30 

Percent Time at or Above 



20 10 



3.5 



3.0 



2.5 



2.0 



1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 



3-35 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



The State Water Project. It was evident soon after World War II that local and federal 
water development could not keep pace with California's rapidly growing population. Planning 
for the multipurpose SWP began in the late 1940s, and accelerated in the early 1950s. Voters 
authorized SWP construction in 1960 by ratifying the Bums-Porter Act. The majority of 
existing project facilities were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Future SWP facilities were to 
be added as water demands increased, to meet the project's initial contracted entitlement of 4.2 
maf per year. 

SWP facilities include 20 dams, 662 miles of aqueduct (both canal and pipeline sections), 
and 26 power and pumping plants. SWP reservoirs are listed in Table 3-5. Major facilities 
include the multipurpose Oroville Dam and Reservoir on the Feather River, the Edmund G. 
Brown California Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, North Bay Aqueduct, and a share of the State- 
federal San Luis Reservoir. With a storage capacity of 3.5 maf, Lake Oroville is the second 
largest reservoir in California after Lake Shasta. Oroville stores winter and spring flows of the 
upper Feather River. Water released from Oroville travels down the Feather and Sacramento 
rivers to the Delta. There, water is pumped into the California Aqueduct for delivery to the San 
Joaquin Valley and Southem California. 

Water is also diverted into the South Bay Aqueduct, which extends into Santa Clara 
County. A separate Delta diversion supplies the North Bay Aqueduct, which serves areas in 
Napa and Solano counties. Maximum capacity of the California Aqueduct is 10,300 cfs at the 
Delta and 4,480 cfs over the Tehachapis to the South Coast Region. The Department has just 
completed construction of the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct, which extends about 
115 miles from the main aqueduct to serve parts of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. 
A map of SWP facilities is presented in Figure 3-19. 



3-36 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public R&vlew Draft 



Chapters Water Supplies 



Figure 3-19. Major SWP Faclities 




South Bay 
Aqueduct 



San Luis 
Reservoir 



San Diegdl 



3-37 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-5. Major State Water Project Reservoirs 



ResBrvoir Name 



Capacity 
(taf) 



Year Built 



Owner 



River/Stream 



Oroville 


3,538 


1968 


DWR 


Feather R. 


Del Valle 


77 


1968 


DWR 


Arroyo Valle Cr. 


Silverwood 


73 


1971 


DWR 


Regulatory Terminal Storage 


Castaic 


324 


1973 


DWR 


Terminal Storage 


Frenchman 


55 


1961 


DWR 


Last Chance Cr. 


Davis 


84 


1966 


DWR 


Big Grizzly Cr. 


Perris 


131 


1973 


DWR 


Terminal Storage 


Pyramid Lake 


171 


1973 


DWR 


Piru Cr. 


San Luis (State Share) 


1,068 


1967 


DWR/USBR 


Offstream Storage 



The project's average annual electric power generation is 7.6 billion kWh, and its average 
annual energy usage is 12.2 billion kWh. The SWP is the single largest power user in California, 
and is the state's fourth largest generator of electrical energy. 

«^photo: Bluestone PP 

The service area of the 29 SWP contracting agencies is shown in Figure 3-20. Initial 
project contracts were signed for an eventual annual delivery of 4.2 maf. Of this annual 
entitlement, about 2.5 maf was to serve southern California and about 1.3 maf was to serve the 
San Joaquin Valley. The remaining 0.4 maf annual entitlement was to serve the Feather River 
area, and the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast regions. (As discussed in Chapter 2, 45,000 
af of annual entitlement belonging to two project contractors was subsequently retired as part of 
the Monterey Agreement.) Figure 3-21 depicts a history of SWP water deliveries since 1967. 
Generally, San Joaquin Valley use of SWP supply has been near full contract amounts since 
about 1980 (except during very wet years and during deficient-supply years), whereas southern 
California use has reached about 60 percent of fiill entitlement. 

The ability of the SWP to deliver full water supply requests by its contractors in a given 
year depends on rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water in storage, pumping capacity from the Delta, 
and regulatory constraints on SWP operation. The calculated average annual delivery during a 
repeat of the 1928-34 drought is about 2.1 maf per year. About half of this water comes from 
Lake Oroville and the rest from surplus flow in the Delta, some of which is stored in San Luis 



3-38 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Reservoir. Figure 3-22 shows existing (1995 level) and future (2020 level) SWP delivery 
capability, as estimated by operations studies, under SWRCB Order WR 95-6. The figure shows 
that existing SWP facilities have a 65 percent chance of making fiill deliveries under 1995 level 
demands and have an 85 percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf to project contractors in any given 
year. The figure also shows that under a more stringent 2020 level demand scenario, existing 
SWP facilities have a decreased chance of making full deliveries. 



3-39 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3 Water Supplies 



Figure 3-20. State Water Project Service Areas 




Plumas County Flood Control & 
Water Conservation District 



County of Butte 



r City of Yuba City 

- Napa County Flood Control 
& Water Conservation District 

Solano County Water Agency 



■ Alameda County Water District 

■ Alameda County Flood Control & 
Water Conservation District, Zone 7 

■ Oak Flat Water District 

■ Santa Clara Valley 
Water District 



Tulare Lake Basin — 
Water Storage District 

San Luis Obispo County 

Flood Control & Water 

Conservation District 

Santa Barbara County 

Flood Control & Water 

Conservation District 



Ventura County ' 

Flood Control District 



• County of Kings 



r 



Empire West Side Irrigation District 



Dudley Ridge Water District 




Kern County 
Water Agency 

Antelope Valley-East Kern 
Water Agency 

— Mojave Water Agency 

— Castaic Lake Water Agency 

Littlerock Creek Irrigation District 
Palmdale Water District 



Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency 



-San Bernardino Valley 
Municipal Water Dist. 
-Desert Water Agency] 

San Gregorio Pass | 
^ater Agency 



The Metropolitan Water District 
of Southern California 



Coachella 
Valley Water 

San Gabriel District 

Valley Municipal 

Water District 



3-40 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-21. SWP Deliveries 



3.0 



2.5 



2.0 



E 



c 

4) 1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 



-^■L_JH__HL_JiL_ __ _ _ ^ -^ ^_H_^ -^ -^ -^ -L. ^_ .^ .^, .1. i.^ i,BL-i_iH_Lj ^_iL.i-H.^. „^ _JL^. 



1967 1972 



1977 



1982 1987 



1992 



3-41 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-22. 1995 and 2020 Level SWP Delivery Capability with Existing Facilities 



4.5 



4.0 



3.5 



3.0 



i 2.5 

c 



I 2.0 

o 



1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 




J 



2020 LEVEL 




1995 LEVEL 



100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 

Percent Time at or Above 



4.5 



4.0 



3.5 



3.0 



2.5 



2.0 



1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 



3-42 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Klamath Project The USBR's Klamath project straddles the California-Oregon state line 
near Klamath Falls, Oregon. The project, authorized in 1905 by the Reclamation Act of 1902, 
transfers water between the Lost River (which naturally flowed into Tule Lake) and the Klamath 
River. The Klamath Project transformed about 225,000 acres of rangeland, including a portion 
of the former Tule Lake, into irrigated farmland. Major storage facilities on the Klamath River 
are given in Table 3-6. 



Table 3-6. Major Storage Facilities on the Klamath River 



Reservoir Name 



Capacity 
(taf) 



Year Buiit 



Owner 



River/Stream 



Clear 
Gerber 
Upper Klamath 



527 

94 

873 



1910 USBR LostR. 

1925 USBR Miller Cr. 

1 92 1 Pacific Power & Light Klamath R. 



The Klamath project includes 185 miles of main canal, 532 miles of laterals, 37 pumping 
plants, and 728 miles of drains. Estimated project agricultural water use has historically been 
about 400,000 af/year. The project furnishes water to the Lower Klamath, Clear Creek, and Tule 
Lake national wildlife refuges. Water deliveries remained relatively constant until project 
operational changes were recently made to protect ESA-listed fish species. 

Table 3-7. Storage Facilities of Other Federally Owned Water Projects 



Reservoir Name H ^ Year Built 

(taf) 



Owner 



River/Stream 



Sonoma 


381 


1982 


USAGE 


DryGr. 


New Hogan 


317 


1963 


USAGE 


Galaveras R. 


Berryessa 


1,600 


1957 


USBR 


PutahGr. 


Cachuma 


205 


1953 


USBR 


Santa Ynez R. 


Casitas 


254 


1959 


USBR 


Ventura R. 


East Park 


51 


1910 


USBR 


Stony Gr. 


Stony Gorge 


50 


1928 


USBR 


Stony Gr. 


Lake Tahoe' 


745 


1913 


Sierra Pacific Power Gompany^ 


Truckee R. 


Prosser Creek' 


30 


1962 


USBR 


Prosser Gr. 


Stampede Reservoir' 


227 


1970 


USBR 


Little Truckee R 


Boca Reservoir' 


41 


1937 


USBR 


Little Truckee R. 



Lands served by the reservoir as located in Nevada. 

USBR controls the dam under easement from Sierra Pacific Power Company. 



3-43 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Colorado River. The Colorado River is an interstate and international river. Its mean 
annual unimpaired flow is about 14 maf. The river, which has its headwaters in Wyoming's 
Green River basin, crosses seven states before flowing into Mexico and terminating at the Gulf 
of California. The Colorado River watershed is depicted in Figure 3-23. 

Nearly 60 maf of surface water storage has been developed on the river and its 
tributaries upstream of Hoover Dam, resulting in a ratio of storage to average annual river flow 
of about 4 to 1 ~ much higher than the ratio found on most of California's intrastate rivers. The 
two largest reservoirs are the 27 maf Lake Powell (impounded by Glen Canyon Dam) and the 
almost 30 maf Lake Mead (impounded by Hoover Dam). Three dams divert water from the 
Colorado River to California. Parker Dam, which impounds Lake Havasu, supplies water for 
MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct and for Arizona's Central Arizona Project. Palo Verde 
Diversion Dam supplies water to Palo Verde Irrigation District's canal system. Imperial Dam 
supplies water for the Ail-American Canal, Bard Water District, and Quechan Indian Tribe's 
reservation. An off-stream storage reservoir, Senator Wash Reservoir, is used to adjust releases 
between Parker Dam and downstream demands. The Colorado River service area is shown in 
Figure 3-24. 

is^photo: All American Canal 



3-44 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-23. Colorado River Watershed 




COLORADO 



N£ll MEXICO 



MEXICO 



3-45 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-24. Colorado River Service Areas 




3-46 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Two major facilities, USBR's All American Canal and MWDSC's Colorado River 
Aqueduct, convey Colorado River water. Construction of the All American Canal was 
authorized in the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act. Work on the canal began in the 1930s, with 
first water deliveries occurring in 1940. Colorado River water diverted at Imperial Dam flows by 
gravity through the All American Canal and the Coachella Canal to agricultural areas in the 
Imperial and Coachella valleys. The All American Canal has a maximum capacity of 15,200 cfs 
in the reach immediately downstream from Imperial Dam. The main branch of the All American 
Canal extends 82 miles fix)m Imperial Dam to the western portion of Imperial Irrigation District's 
distribution system. The Coachella Canal branches off from the main canal and extends 122 
miles northward, to terminate in Coachella Valley Water District's Lake Cahuilla. 

In 1933, MWDSC started constructing an aqueduct to divert Colorado River water from 
Lake Havasu to the South Coast Region. Completed in 1941, the 242-mile long aqueduct had a 
design capacity of 1 .2 maf per year, although MWDSC has been able to deliver as much as 1 .3 
maf per year. Facilities associated with the aqueduct include five major pumping plants and 
Lake Matthews, the aqueduct's terminal reservoir in Riverside County. The San Diego 
Aqueduct, constructed by the federal government, interconnects with the Colorado River 
Aqueduct in Riverside County. Delivery of Colorado River Aqueduct water to San Diego 
Coimty began in 1947. 

California's basic apportionment of Colorado River supplies is a consimiptive use of 4.4 
maf per year, plus half of any excess or surplus water. Apportionment of the Colorado River 
supplies is discussed in detail in Chapter 9 and Colorado River operations are described in the 
following sidebar. California has been able to use up to 5.3 maf of Colorado River supplies 
annually because several wet winters occurred in the 1 980s and 1 990s, Arizona and Nevada were 
not yet using their fiill apportionment, and surplus water was available. Since 1 980, the highest 
and the lowest recorded annual natural runoffs were recorded on the Colorado River, with the 
highest occurring in 1984 and the lowest occurring in 1990. 



3-17 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Colorado River Operations 

Operations of the Colorado River are controlled by the USBR, which in effect serves 
as the watermaster for the river. USBR maintains an accounting of consumptive use of the 
basin states' allocations, and ensures that Mexican treaty requirements are met with respect to 
the quantity and salinity concentration of water delivered to Mexico. 

The 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act directed DOI to develop criteria for long- 
range operation of the major federal reservoirs on the river and its tributaries. USBR conducts 
a formal review of the long-range operating criteria every five years. The Act further requires 
DOI to prepare an annual operating plan for the river, in consultation with representatives 
from the basin states. Some river operating criteria have already been established in the 
statutes comprising the law of the river (see Chapter 9 for more detail). For example, USBR 
is required to equalize, to the extent practicable, storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. 
(Lake Powell in essence serves as the bank account that guarantees annual delivery of 7.5 maf 
from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin, plus water to satisfy Mexican treaty obligations. 
The actual statutory guarantee is 75 maf every 10 years, plus one-half of any deficiency in 
Colorado River supplies, to permit the U.S. to satisfy its treaty obligation to Mexico.) 

Current federal operating criteria for the river have focused on avoiding flood control 
releases, in response to the wet hydrologic conditions experienced on the river in the 1980s. 
As consumptive use of water in the Lower Basin approaches the 7.5 maf basic apportionment, 
there has been increasing interest in operating the river more efficiently from a water supply 
standpoint. Proposals discussed among Colorado River water users have included a variety of 
surplus and shortage operating criteria, banking programs, and augmentation of the river's 
base flow. 

USBR declared a surplus condition on the river in 1996 and 1997, allowing California 
to continue diverting more than its basic apportionment without penalty. In 1997, flood 
control releases were made from Lake Mead. Flood control releases are forecasted for 1998. 



Other Federal Projects, In addition to the CVP and Klamath Project, USACE, and 
USBR have constructed numerous other federal water projects in California (see Table 3-7). 
These projects provide important flood control and recreation benefits and deliver about 0.9 maf 
(including Klamath Project deliveries) of water supply annually. 

Los Angeles Aqueduct In 1913, the city of Los Angeles began importing water from the 
Owens Valley through the first pipeline of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. An engineering landmark, 
the original aqueduct reach is 233 miles long, has 142 tunnels, and crosses nine major canyons to 
deliver water to Los Angeles using only the force of gravity. In 1940, the first pipeline of the 
aqueduct was extended north to tap the water of the Mono Basin at Lee Vining Creek, increasing 

3-48 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



the length of the first barrel to 338 miles. The extension includes an 1 l-mile tunnel that was 
drilled through the Mono Craters. 

To keep pace with the city's growing population, the second pipeline of the Los Angeles 
Aqueduct was completed in 1970 to import additional water from the southern Owens Valley at 
Haiwee Reservoir. The second barrel increased the Aqueduct's delivery capacity from 330 taf 
per year to 480 taf per year. In dry years, the Aqueduct was to be maintained at full capacity 
through groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley. In addition to the two aqueduct pipelines, 
the system includes seven reservoirs and eleven powerplants. The largest reservoirs are shown in 
Table 3-8. 



Table 3-8. Larger Reservoirs in Los Angeles Aqueduct System 

Capacity 
(taf) 



Reservoir Name 



Year Built 



Owner 



River/Stream 



Grant Lake 


48 


1940 


LADWP 


Rush Cr. 


Crowley Lake 


184 


1941 


LADWP 


Owens R. 


Tinemaha 


16 


1928 


LADWP 


Owens R. 


Haiwee 


39 


1913 


LADWP 


Rose Valley Cr. 


Bouquet 


34 


1934 


LADWP 


Bouquet Cr. 



The delivery capability of LADWP's aqueduct system has been affected by judicial and 
regulatory actions intended to restore environmental resources in the Mono Lake basin and in the 
Owens River Valley. In 1979, the National Audubon Society, the Mono Lake Committee, and 
others filed the first in a series of lawsuits which challenged the project's water diversions from 
the Mono Basin. In 1989 and 1990, the El Dorado County Superior Court entered preliminary 
injunctions which required the project to reduce diversions to restore and maintain the water 
level of Mono Lake at 6,377 feet, and established minimum fishery flows in all four Mono Basin 
streams from which project diversions are made. 

In 1994, SWRCB's Decision 163 1 specified minimum fishery flows on the four Mono 
Basin streams. The order also established water diversion criteria to protect wildlife and other 
environmental resources in the Mono Basin. The water diversion criteria prohibited export of 
water from the Mono Basin until the water level of Mono Lake reaches 6,377 feet, and restricted 
Basin exports to allow the water level of Mono Lake to rise to an elevation of 6,391 feet in 



3-49 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



approximately 20 years. Once the water level of 6,391 feet is reached, the Los Angeles 
Aqueduct will be able to export approximately 3 1 taf per year from the Mono Basin. 

ra*photo: Mono Lake(with tufa towers) 

Longstanding litigation between Inyo County and the city of Los Angeles over 
environmental effects of Owens Valley groundwater pumping ended in June 1997, allowing 
implementation of water management and environmental mitigation actions that had been 
planned for the valley. (See Chapter 9 for additional details.) A key environmental restoration 
effort is rewatering the lower Owens River in a 60 mile stretch from the aqueduct intake south of 
Big Pine to just north of Owens Dry Lake. The effort calls for providing continuous river flows 
of about 40 cfs (with seasonal habitat flows up to about 200 cfs), establishing 1,825 acres of 
wetlands, and establishing and maintaining off-river lakes and ponds. (Most of the instream 
flows will be pumped back out of the river and into the Los Angeles aqueduct from a point just 
north of Owens Dry Lake. Between 6 and 9 cfs will be allowed to flow past the pumpback 
station to sustain a 325 acre wetland in the Owens Lake delta.) Providing the base flow of 40 cfs 
and river channel restoration must begin no later than 2003. 

As discussed in Chapter 9, the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District issued 
an order to LADWP in July 1997 that would require 50 taf of water per year ta control dust from 
the Owens Dry Lake. Two potential sources of water identified by the GBUAPCD include 
aquifers under the lake bed and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. It is expected that LADWP will 
appeal the order, which has not yet been adopted by the Air Resources Board. 

Tuolumne River Development. The Tuolumne River, which begins at Lyell Glacier in 
Yosemite National Park and extends 1 63 miles to the confluence with the San Joaquin River 
west of Modesto, is the largest of the San Joaquin River tributaries. It produces an average 
annual runoff of about 1.9 maf of which 1.2 maf comes fi-om snowmelt runoff between April and 
July. Total reservoir capacity on the river is 2.8 maf, almost 1 .5 times its average annual runoff. 
Of this total, over 0.34 maf is reserved for control of winter rain floods. Table 3-9 lists major 
reservoirs on the Tuolumne River. 



3-50 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-9. Larger Reservoirs in the Tuolumne River Basin 



Reservoir Name ^^^f ^ Year Built 

(tar) 



Owner 



River/Stream 



New Don Pedro 


2,030 


1971 


Turlock ID 


Tuolumne R. 


Hetch Hetchy 


360 


1923 


San Francisco 


Tuolumne R. 


Lake Lloyd 


269 


1956 


San Francisco 


Cherry Cr. 


Eleanor 


28 


1918 


San Francisco 


Eleanor Cr. 


Turlock 


49 


1915 


Turlock ID 


Offstream 


Dallas Warner 


29 


1911 


Modesto ID 


Offstream 



"spphoto: New Don Pedro spilling In 1997 

The oldest dam on the Tuolumne River is La Grange Dam about 2.5 miles downstream of 
New Don Pedro Dam. The 1 3 1 feet high La Grange Dam was completed in 1 894; it serves as a 
diversion dam to divert river flows into Modesto ID's and Turlock ID's canals. In 1923, 
Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts completed the old Don Pedro concrete dam with a 
capacity of around 0.29 maf The New Don Pedro Dam, capacity 2.03 maf, was completed in 
1971 as a joint project of the two irrigation districts and the city and county of San Francisco. 

ns'photo: SF water temple 

In its early years, the City of San Francisco's water supply came from local creeks and 
springs. This was soon inadequate and water from the peninsula was drawn from Pilarcitos 
Creek in San Mateo County in 1862, via a tunnel and redwood flume. In the 1870s, San Andreas 
and Crystal Springs reservoirs were added and, with later improvements, increased the city's 
water supply greatly. About the turn of the century, the Spring Valley Water Company, the city's 
main water purveyor, turned its attention to the East Bay area and Alameda Creek. It constructed 
the Sunol Aqueduct in 1900 and completed Calaveras dam in 1925. (The 215 feet high dam was 
the highest earth-fill dam in the world at the time.) 

Concern about adequate water supply led to a series of studies and the choice in 1901 of 
the Tuolumne River as the major source of supply. The centerpiece was to be a dam at Hetch 
Hetchy Valley in northern Yosemite Park. Authorization was secured in the 1913 Raker Act and 
work soon began on the construction of O'Shaughnessy Dam and the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. A 
dam at Lake Eleanor was built in 1917 to supply hydroelectric power for Hetch Hetchy 
construction. O'Shaughnessy Dam was completed in 1 923 and the San Joaquin Valley pipeline 



3-51 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



and Coast Range tunnel were finished and delivered the first water to the San Francisco 
peninsula in 1934. Cherry Valley Dam (Lake Lloyd Reservoir) was completed in 1956, which 
added further regulated storage to help satisfy irrigation district prior water rights below Hetch 
Hetchy. 

The capacity of the current Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct system's San Joaquin pipeline is 
around 0.33 maf per year. Current diversions are around 0.25 maf. A reevaluation of 
dependable supply based on the capability during the 1987-92 drought has lowered firm yield to 
around 0.27 maf per year. 

Two major San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts, Turlock and Modesto irrigation 
districts, have water rights on the Tuolimme River that are senior to those of San Francisco. 
Annual diversions by these irrigation districts have averaged about 0.90 maf. As shown in Table 
3-9, each of the irrigation districts uses an offstream regulatory reservoir to manage the 
distribution of the water diverted from the river. 

Mokelumne Aqueduct The Mokelumne River, one of the smaller Sierra Nevada rivers, 
has an average annual runoff of 0.74 maf. It is a snowmelt stream, with over 60 percent of its 
runoff occurring during April through July. The Mokelumne River has about 0.84 maf of storage 
capacity, approximately 1.1 times its average annual runoff. The largest reservoir is Camanche, 
which can hold 417,000 af. Total flood control space on the Mokelumne River system is 
200,000 af. In addition to EBMUD's facilities on the river (see Table 3-10), there are storage and 
diversion works for two irrigation districts — Jackson Valley and Woodbridge Irrigation 
Districts. 

Table 3-10. Mokelumne River Aqueduct System Reservoirs 

Reservoir Name /tan Y^^r Built Owner River/Stream 

Camanche 431 1963 EBMUD Mokelumne R. 

Pardee 210 1929 EBMUD Mokelumne R. 

In the 1920s, as the Hetch Hetchy Project for the San Francisco peninsula was underway, 
the East Bay cities of the San Francisco Bay region also turned to the Sierra Nevada for more 

3-52 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



water, specifically to the Mokelumne River. EBMUD completed Pardee Dam and the 
Mokelumne Aqueduct from Pardee Reservoir to the East Bay in 1929. The downstream 
Camanche Reservoir was completed in 1963. With the addition of a third barrel, Mokelunme 
Aqueduct capacity was increased from 224,000 af per year to 364,000 af per year in 1965. 
Drought year supplies are not always adequate to sustain full aqueduct capacity diversions. 

Yuba and Bear Rivers Development. The Yuba and Bear rivers drain the west slope of 
the Sierra Nevada between the Feather River basin on the north and the American River basin on 
the south. The Yuba and Bear river basins include portions of Yuba, Sutter, Placer, Nevada, 
Sierra, Butte, and Plumas counties. Elevations range from 60 feet near Marysville to over 9,000 
feet along the Sierra Nevada crest. The basins produce an average annual runoff of about 2.4 
maf, 45 percent of which is derived from snowmelt from April through July. Runoff from the 
1 ,700 square mile area drains westerly to the confluence with the Feather River, south of 
Marysville. Total reservoir capacity on the rivers is more than 1 .6 maf, or approximately two- 
thirds of the average annual runoff. Surface water development provides municipal, irrigation, 
power generation, and environmental supplies to more than one dozen water purveyors, the cities 
of Marysville, Grass Valley, Nevada City, and many smaller communities. 

The basins contain numerous lakes and reservoirs, including many small mountain lakes 
in the headwaters area. The larger reservoirs are listed in Table 3-11. New Bullards Bar, a 
concrete arch dam 645 feet high impounding a 970,000 af reservoir, is located on the North Fork 
Yuba River about 30 miles northeast of Marysville. The facility was built for irrigation, power 
generation, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and flood control. Seasonal flood control 
storage capacity is 1 70,000 af. Englebright Dam (also known as Narrows Reservoir) was 
constructed in 1941 by the California Debris Commission as a debris storage project. The dam, 
along with Daguerre Point Dam and channel training walls farther downstream, was designed to 
control movement of hydraulic mining debris along the lower Yuba River. Up to that time, 
mining debris was filling the downstream channels, creating flooding and navigation problems. 
Currently, PG&E and YCWA pay the federal government to use Englebright' s storage to 
generate hydroelectric power at two power plants. 



3-53 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-11. Larger Reservoirs along the Yuba and Bear Rivers 



Reservoir Name 



Capacity 
(taf) 



Year Buiit 



Owner 



River/Stream 



New Bullards Bar 


970 


1970 


YCWA 


NF Yuba R. 


Camp Far West 


103 


1963 


South Sutter WD 


BearR. 


Lake Spaulding 


75 


1913 


PG&E 


SF Yuba R. 


Jackson Meadows 


69 


1965 


Nevada ID 


MF Yuba R. 


Rollins 


66 


1965 


Nevada ID 


BearR. 


Englebright 


70 


1941 


USAGE 


Yuba R. 


Scotts Flat 


49 


1948 


Nevada ID 


Deer Gr. 


Bowman 


69 


1927 


Nevada ID 


Ganyon Gr. 



ra^photo: hydraulic mining 

Water in the Yuba and Bear rivers is transferred to both the Feather and American river 
basins via diversion works. Water is transferred to the Feather River basin (from Slate Creek to 
Sly Creek Reservoir) by Oroville- Wyandotte Irrigation District. Water is transferred to the 
American River basin (from Rollins Reservoir to Folsom Lake) by PG&E and Nevada Irrigation 
District. PG&E also diverts water for power generation from the American River basin to the 
Bear River, which is subsequently returned to the North Fork American River and Folsom Lake. 
Reservoir and River Operations 

Most large reservoirs in California are multipurpose impoundments designed to provide 
water supply storage, electric power, flood control, recreation, water quality, and downstream 
fishery needs. Often the large reservoirs would not exist as single purpose projects; the cost 
would be too great. Multipurpose designs maximize the beneficial uses large reservoir sites. 

Water Supply Operations. Water supply needs dictate many operating criteria of 
multipurpose reservoirs. Sufficient water must be provided for existing water rights, in-stream 
requirements for fish and water quality (including temperature control), downstream water 
demands, and, in the case of Shasta Reservoir, minimum flows or depths in the Sacramento 
River for navigation. The generation of hydroelectric power is, for the most part, an ancillary 
purpose. However, where there is capacity and an afterbay to re-regulate flow, reservoirs may be 
operated to meet peaking power needs. Lake recreation is an important element of the local 



3-54 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



economy at many reservoirs. High reservoir levels often are maintained into the summer to 
meiximize local recreation. 

Urban and agricultural water demands are highest during the summer and lowest during 
winter, the inverse of natural runoff patterns. Environmental water demands can follow a 
different pattern. Water needs for flooding refuge and duck club lands tend to peak in the late 
fall. Anadromous fishery (primarily salmon) demands are highest in the fall to attract spawning 
fish and again in the spring to move the newly hatched smolts and fry downstream to the ocean. 
Demands for groundwater recharge can be scheduled any time of the year when water spreading 
capacity is available. Reservoir operators must balance these varying water demands against 
other considerations that affect reservoir and river use, such as flood control operating criteria 
and fishery temperature needs. 

Flood Control Operations. For any reservoir designed to provide flood control benefits, 
USAGE rules control reservoir levels during the flood season to maintain safe storage 
reservations. Flood control storage in major Central Valley reservoirs is listed in Table 3-12. 
Operating rules set by USAGE guide how water is stored in the reservoir during the flood control 
season and how flood control releases are handled, as described in the following sidebar. 



3-55 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-12. Federal Flood Control Storage in Major Central Valley Reservoirs 



Project Name 


Stream 


Storage 
(taf) 


Maximum Flood 

Control Space 

(taf) 


Owner 


Shasta Lake 


Sacramento River 


4,552 


1,300 


USBR 


Lake Oroville 


Feather River 


3,538 


750 


DWR 


Black Butte Lake 


Stony Creek 


144 


137' 


USACE 


New Bullards Bar Res. 


Yuba River 


966 


170 


YCWA 


Indian Valley Res. 


Cache Creek 


301 


40 


YCFCWCD 


Folsom Lake 


American River 


977 


400^ 


USBR 


Camanche Res. 


Mokelumne River 


417 


200' 


EBMUD 


New Hogan Lake 


Calaveras River 


317 


165 


USACE 


Farmington Dam 


Littlejohns Creek 


52 


52 


USACE 


New Melones Lake 


Stanislaus River 


2,420 


450 


USBR 


Don Pedro Reservoir 


Tuolumne River 


2,030 


340 


TID/MID 


New Exchequer Dam 
(Lake McClure) 


Merced River 


1,025 


350' 


Merced ID 


Buchanan Dam 
(Eastman Lake) 


Chowchilla River 


150 


45 


USACE 


Hidden Dam 
(Hensley Lake) 


Fresno River 


90 


65 


USACE 


Friant Dam 
(Millerton Lake) 


San Joaquin River 


521 


170' 


USBR 


Pine Flat Lake 


Kings River 


1,000 


475' 


USACE 


Terminus Dam 
(Lake Kaweah) 


Kaweah River 


143 


136 


USACE 


Success Lake 


Tule River 


82 


75 


USACE 


Isabella Lake 


Kern River 


568 


400' 


USACE 


Notes: 1 - Maximum flood control space may vary depending on 
2 - Does not include 270 taf reoperation for SAFCA 


upstream storage 


and/or snow pack 





Project Owners: 

USBR: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

DWR: California Department of Water Resources 
USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
YCWA: Yuba County Water Agency 



YCFCWCD: Yolo County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District 

EBMUD: East Bay Municipal Utility District 

TID: Turlock Irrigation District 

MID: Modesto Irrigation District 



3-56 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



USAGE Operating Rules for Flood Control 

USAGE develops operating rules for all reservoirs providing flood control as a 
federally authorized purpose. These operating rules, as defined in each project's water control 
plan, are a compilation of regulating criteria, operating guidelines, guide curves, and 
specifications that govern the storage and release of water throughout the flood season. In 
California, coordination with project operators generally begins in the fall, prior to the flood 
season, when compliance with the water control plan is discussed. Factors that might cause 
operations to deviate from the water control plan are identified. These factors might include 
channel or levee conditions downstream, release limitations for fish and wildlife, construction 
activities, and other operational constraints. During the flood season, USAGE may consult 
with the operating agency or local watermaster on project operation if deviations from the 
operating rules are noted. However, USAGE'S authority is limited to serving notice to the 
operating agency of any noncompliance to the water control plan. The ultimate responsibility 
for operation of the dam lies with the dam owner. 

Flood control operations at Lake Oroville provide an illustration of USAGE rules. 
Lake Oroville has a capacity of 3.5 maf and federally-purchased flood reservation of 0.75 
maf. During the maximum flood reservation period of October 1 5 through March 3 1 , 
detailed USAGE operating criteria specify flood releases (during rainy periods) such that 
flows do not exceed channel capacity of 150,000 cfs from the dam downstream to Honcut 
Greek. Releases are also limited to not exceed 180,000 cfs above the mouth of the Yuba 
River, 300,000 cfs below the Yuba, and 320,000 cfs below the mouth of the Bear River. 



Generally, flood control needs are greatest during the midwinter rainy season and 
diminish through the summer. Excessive inflows are temporarily stored in the flood control 
operating space while releases are held below the downstream channel capacity. After a storm, 
water wdthin the flood pool is released gradually to prepare for the next possible storm. The 
actual storage requirement depends on how saturated the watershed is. However, the full amount 
of space is usually needed during a major storm event, so operators seldom encroach early in the 
flood season. The risk of having to spill excess water is too great; it is better to generate 
hydroelectric power with gradual releases if there are early season gains in storage, than to have a 
likely spill and potential damage downstream if a storm event occurs. Flood control storage 
requirements can be gradually eased during the spring to permit filling from snowmelt runoff. 

Temperature Control Operations, Downstream water temperature has become an 
important criterion in establishing river and reservoir operations for the protection of salmon £ind 
other anadromous fish. For example, in 1990 and 1991 SWRGB established temperature 

357 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Standards in a portion of the Sacramento River through its Orders WR 90-5 and 91-01 . These 
orders include a daily average water temperature objective of 56° F below Keswick Dam during 
critical periods when high temperatures could be detrimental to survival of eggs and pre- 
emergent fiy. Through reservoir releases, the CVP attempts to maintain this temperature wdthin 
the winter-run chinook salmon spawning grounds below Keswick Dam during April through 
September. 

As another example of temperature control operations, NMFS issued a long-term winter- 
run chinook salmon biological opinion in 1993 that required the CVP to maintain a minimum 
Shasta Lake September storage of at least 1 .9 maf, except in the driest years. Higher storage 
levels are required in Shasta Reservoir to ensure that cold water is available for reservoir 
releases. Before USSR constructed the temperature control device, water of sufficiently low 
temperature could be provided during critical periods only by bypassing Shasta Dam's power 
plant, causing an annual revenue loss to the CVP of $10 to $20 million. The TCD, constructed 
at a cost of about $83 million, has multi-level intakes, allowing temperature selective reservoir 
releases without having to bypass the power plant. Other dams, such as The Department's 
Oroville Dam, were constructed with the ability to make temperature-selective reservoir releases, 
as shown in the photo. 

"S'photo: Oroville intake structure 

In certain cases, temperature control capability can be provided by a temperature control 
curtain. This technology has been used successfully to provide selective withdrawal and to 
control reservoir mixing at USBR's Lewiston and Whiskeytown reservoirs. The four curtains 
constructed at the two reservoirs have reduced temperature gains of Trinity River water by about 
5° F. See Chapter 5 for more detailed discussion of temperature control technology. 

Delta Operations, Because both the CVP and SWP export water from the Delta, a need 
for coordinated project operations exists. The Coordinated Operation Agreement between the 
Department and USBR classifies water in the Delta into two groups: storage withdrawals and 
surplus flows. Storage withdrawals belong to the project that makes the reservoir release. 
Surplus flows that are available for export are shared among the projects — 55 percent to the CVP 
and 45 percent to the SWP. The COA also specifies how the projects are to share the 
responsibility of satisfying Sacramento River in-basin demands and Delta requirements when 

3-58 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



surplus flows are not available. Under such "balanced" conditions, responsibility is allocated 75 
percent to the CVP and 25 percent to the SWP. The sharing of responsibility for satisfying new 
Delta requirements under Order WR 95-6 is not specified under the present CO A. 

Environmental needs in the Delta, especially for threatened and endangered fisheries, 
exert a strong influence on water project operation, particularly export pumping. Starting in the 
1970s, project exports were reduced during May and June to improve juvenile striped bass 
survival in the Delta. In the last decade, requirements to protect ESA listed fish species have led 
to new Delta environmental criteria and more export constraints. Travel time to the Delta is a 
consideration in operating SWP and CVP reservoirs to meet regulatory requirements. 
Sometimes, a rapid change in salinity conditions calls for additional release of water. Of the 
major Sacramento River region reservoirs, Folsom gives the quickest response (about a day) 
while it takes 3 days for Oroville releases and 5 days for Shasta releases (or Trinity River water 
at Keswick Dam) to reach the Delta. Reservoir releases from New Melones reach the Delta 
through the San Joaquin River in about 1 .5 days. 

Stanislaus River releases from USBR's New Melones Reservoir must meet prior water 
rights and provide CVP water supply. Also, some water is dedicated to maintaining dissolved 
oxygen levels in the Stanislaus River and to diluting salts in the lower San Joaquin River. New 
Melones also must make spring pulse flow releases to meet Delta fishery requirements. Except 
during flood control operations, releases are maintained below 1,500 cfs to avoid seepage effects 
on adjacent orchard lands. 
Impacts of Recent Events on Surface Water Supplies 

As discussed in Chapter 2, several key events in California water have occurred since the 
last update of Bulletin 160. Events of particular importance to surface water supply availability 
include C VPIA implementation, the 1 993 winter-run chinook salmon biological opinion, the 
Monterey Agreement, and the Bay-Delta Accord. The Department's DWRSIM computer model 
was used to evaluate the Bay-Delta Accord's impact on CVP and SWP operations under base 
year (1995) and future year (2020) conditions. A similar operations study, assuming D-1485 
Delta standards and base year conditions, was conducted to compare delivery capability of the 
projects with the new Delta criteria. The 73-year simulations (1922-94) show how the CVP and 

359 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



SWP would operate at current and future levels of demand and upstream development if the 
historic hydrology sequence were to repeat. 

Based on these operations studies, Figures 3-25 and 3-26 show that delivery capabilities 
of the CVP (south of the Delta) and SWP were significantly reduced from the prior Delta 
operating criteria to the current criteria. Under D-1485 and 1995 level demands, the CVP had a 
40 percent chance of making full deliveries and has a 95 percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in 
any given year. Under WR 95-6 with identical demands, the CVP has a 20 percent chance of 
making full deliveries and has an 80 percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year. 
Under D-1485 and 1995 level demands, the SWP had a 70 percent chance of making fiill 
deliveries and a 95 percent chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year. Under WR 95-6 with 
identical demands, the SWP has a 65 percent chance of making full deliveries and an 85 percent 
chance of delivering 2.0 maf in any given year. 

The operations studies also show significant impacts to the Delta export capability of the 
CVP and the SWP, especially in dry years. The combined 1995 level export of the CVP and 
SWP declined by about 300 taf per year on average and declined by about 850 taf per year during 
the 1928-34 drought. (Operation studies do not account for the Delta export curtailment 
resulting from take limits of listed species. The reduction in exports due to take limits could be 
significant, especially during drought periods, when the projects are unable to export significant 
unstored flows or reservoir releases providing required instream flows.) Table 3-13 summarizes 
key changes in Delta standards, as modeled in operations studies, from the Bulletin 160-93 base 
year to the Bulletin 160-98 base year. 



3^50 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3 Water Supplies 



Figure 3-25. 1995 Level CVP Delivery Capability South of the Delta 

Under D-1485 and WR 95-6 




0.0 4 



100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 

Percent Time at or Above 



0.5 



10 



3-61 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-26. 1995 Level SWP Delivery Capability Under D-1485 and WR 95-6 




100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 

Percent Time at or Above 



3-62 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-13. Summary of Key Changes in Modeled Delta Standards 
B160-93 1990 Base Year (D-1485) to B160-98 1995 Base Year (WR 95-6) 
Criteria Change 

Water Year Classification from SRI to 40-30-30 Index 

Sacramento River Flows higher Sept.-Dec. Rio Vista flows 

San Joaquin River Flows new minimum and pulse flows 

Vemalis Salinity Requirement more restrictive during irrigation season, less restrictive other months 

Delta Outflow outflow required to maintain 2 ppt salinity during Feb.-June 

Export Limits 35%-65% export-to-Delta inflow ratio, Apr.-May export-to-SJR inflow ratio 

Delta Cross Channel Operations additional closures required 

Impacts of Reservoir Reoperation on Surface Water Supplies 

California's large multipurpose reservoirs have been constructed to provide a certain mix 
of project benefits established during their planning periods. A change in a reservoir's operation 
rules (to increase one type of benefit) requires careful analysis of how the change may affect the 
project's ability to accomplish other purposes. 

Providing additional winter flood control in a reservoir, for example, results in a higher 
probability of operators not being able to refill the reservoir after the flood season. Temporary 
increases in winter flood control space have been suggested at some of the San Joaquin River 
region foothill reservoirs in the wake of the 1997 flood. However, the value of water supply in 
this region is high, and these proposals would have significant costs and water supply impacts. 
At user's Folsom Reservoir, the local flood control agency has negotiated an agreement with 
USER for an additional 270 taf of winter flood control space. The agreement requires the flood 
control agency to provide a substitute water supply, under specified conditions, if the flood 
control reservation results in a loss of supply to USER. 

Conversely, Chapters 7-9 discuss several flood control reservoirs being studied for 
reoperation to provide some water supply benefits. Many of these reservoirs are smaller, single- 
purpose flood detention impoundments on streams with relatively low average annual runoff. In 
many cases, physical changes to the existing dams, such as raising their spillways, would be 
needed as part of a reoperation for water supply. Often the goal at existing detention dams is to 
operate the reservoir to enhance groundwater recharge, because maintaining year-round 
conservation storage on a stream with relatively low average runoff would not be economical. 

3-63 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Providing higher reservoir carryover storage requirements, another example of reservoir 
reoperation, results in lower delivery potential during dry periods. The increase in required 
Shasta Reservoir storage to maintain cool water for the winter run salmon has reduced CVP 
water supply potential during dry periods. Current minimum storage target levels are about 1 .9 
maf, except in critical years when the target is allowed to drop to 1 .2 maf (Shasta storage 
dropped under 0.6 maf in the 1976-77 drought and dropped to 1.3 maf during the 1987-92 
drought.) 

Groundwater Supplies 

In an average year, about 30 percent of California's urban and agricultural applied water 
use is provided by groundwater extraction. In drought years when surface supplies are reduced, 
groundwater can provide an even larger percentage of applied water. The amount of water stored 
in California's aquifers is far greater than that stored in the state's surface water reservoirs, 
although only a portion of California's groimdwater resources can be economically and 
practically extracted for use. 

In evaluating California water supplies, an important difference between surface water 
and groundwater must be accounted for ~ the availability of data quantifying the resource. 
Surface water reservoirs are constructed to provide known storage capacities, reservoir inflows 
and releases can be measured, and stream gages provide direct measurements of flows in surface 
water systems. Groundwater basins have relatively indeterminate dimensions, inflow (e.g., 
recharge) to an entire basin cannot be directly measured, and total basin extractions and natural 
outflow can very seldom be directly measured. In addition to physical differences between 
surface water and groundwater systems, statutory differences in the administration of the 
resources also affect data availability. Entities who construct surface water reservoirs are 
required to have state water rights for the facility, and all but the smallest dams are regulated by 
the state's dam safety program. These requirements help define and quantify the resource. In 
contrast, groundwater may be managed by local agencies (as described later in this section), but 
there are no statewide requirements that require quantification of resource. Much of California's 
groundwater production is self-supplied, and is not managed or quantified by local agencies. 



3^ DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Readers will find that the following description of groundwater supplies is presented in a 
more general manner than was used for surface water supplies, reflecting the difference in data 
availability. Much of the groundwater information in this section is based on calculations, rather 
than on direct measurement. Estimating overdraft in a basin, for example, does rely on 
interpretation of measured data (water levels in wells), but also entails interpretation of 
calculated information (extractions from the basin). 
Base Year Supplies 

Table 3-14 provides estimated 1995 level groundwater supplies. The data include 

incidental reuse of water through deep percolation and exclude groundwater overdraft. 

Table 3-14 Estimated 1995 Level Groundwater Supplies 

by Hydrologic Region (taf per year) 

Hydrologic Region Average Drought 

North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 

TOTAL 

To help put this information in perspective, the following sidebar illustrates typical 
groundwater production conditions in three hydrologic regions that rely heavily on groundwater 
because their local surface water supplies do not support existing development. These regions ~ 
the San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, and Central Coast regions — all have alluvial aquifer systems that 
support significant groundwater development, as suggested by the information shown on well 
yields. (The data shown are typical of wells used for agricultural or municipal production. A 
well used to supply an individual residence would have a much smaller capacity. Over 
90 percent of the ground water use in each of these regions is for agricultural use.) In contrast, 
aquifer systems in fractured rock, such as those used to supply small communities in the Sierra 
Nevada foothills, can generally support only limited groundwater development. 

3-65 DRAFT 



263 


294 


68 


92 


1.045 


1,142 


1,177 


1,371 


2,672 


3,218 


2,195 


2,900 


4,340 


5,970 


157 


187 


239 


273 


337 


337 


12,493 


15,784 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Groundwater Production Conditions 

One of the Department's data programs is water level measurement in a statewide network of wells owned by local agencies 
and by individuals, to provide long-term information on changes in groundwater levels. Data from that program were combined 
with Bulletin 160 water use information to prepare the tables on typical groundwater production conditions shown below. 
(These data are intended to represent typical conditions. Individual areas within the basins listed may have conditions that 
deviate greatly from the typical conditions. In the Tulare Lake region, for example, groundwater production is occurring from 
wells with pump lifts of over 800 feet.) Long-term water level data can show the effects of increased groundwater extraction in 
drought years, and the effects of changing water management practices in a basin. 

Within the San Joaquin River Region, approximately 2.6 maf of groundwater is extracted in a typical year. The following 
table shows typical characteristics associated with groundwater extraction in the San Joaquin River region, based on Department 
data, to illustrate how groundwater supply is developed in the region. 

Typical Groundwater Production Conditions in the 
San Joaquin River Region 



Basin 


Extraction 
(af/yr) 


Well Yields 
(9Pm) 


Pumping Lifts 
(ft) 


Chowchilla 


255,000 


1500-1900 


no 


Delta Mendota 


511,000 


800-2000 


35-150 


Madera 


565,000 


750-2000 


160 


Merced 


555,000 


1500-1900 


no 


Modesto 


229,000 


1000-2000 


90 


Turlock 


452,000 


1000-2000 


90 


TOTAL 


2,567,000 







In the Tulare Lake Region, approximately 5.6 maf of groundwater is pumped in a typical year. The following table shows 
typical characteristics associated with groundwater extraction in the Tulare region. 

Typical Groundwater Production Conditions in Tulare Lake Region 



Basin 


Extraction 
(af/yr) 


Well Yields 

(gpm) 


Pumping Lifts 
(ft) 


Kaweah 


758,000 


1000-2000 


125-250 


Kern 


1,400,000 


1200-1500 


200-250 


Kings 


1,790,000 


500-1500 


150 


Pleasant Valley 


104,000 


NA 


350 


Tulare Lake 


672,000 


300-1000 


270 


Tule 


660,000 


NA 


300 


Westside 


213,000 


800-1500 


200-800 


TOTAL 


5,597,000 







In the Pajaro and Salinas Valley groundwater basins in the Central Coastal Region, approximately 0.61 maf of groundwater 
is pumped in a typical year. The following table shows typical characteristics associated with groundwater extraction in the 
Central Coast region. 

Typical Production Conditions in Central Coastal Region 

_ Extraction Well Yields Pumping Lifts 

^'" (as. (9BTl r^; 

Pajaro Valley 64,000 500 10-300 

Salinas Valley 550,000 1000-2000 70 

TOTAL 614,000 



3-66 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chaptw 3. Water Supplies 



Groundwater Basin Yield 

Historically, the term safe yield has been used in an attempt to describe the available 
supply from a groundwater basin. Safe yield is defined in the Department's Bulletin 1 1 8-80 
{Groundwater Basins in California) as "the maximum quantity of water that can be continuously 
withdrawn from a groundwater basin without adverse effect." Adverse effect can include 
depletion of the groundwater reserves (groundwater level decline), intrusion of water of 
undesirable quality, impacts to existing water rights, higher extraction costs, subsidence, 
depletion of streamflow, and environmental impacts. Historically, additional extraction from a 
groundwater basin above the safe yield value has been called overdraft. Overdraft is defined in 
Bulletin 1 18-80 as "the condition of a groundwater basin where the amount of water withdrawn 
exceeds the amount of water replenishing the basin over a period of time." 

Quantifying either overdraft or safe yield is inherently complex. For example, estimates 
of safe yield of a basin often change over time, as more development occurs in a basin and 
extractions increase. The observed effects of these extractions can cause water managers to 
revise - either upward or downward - safe yield estimates based on an earlier level of 
development. This update of the California Water Plan uses perennial yield rather than safe yield 
to define long-term groundwater basin yield. 

Perennial Yield, Perennial yield is the amount of groundwater that can be extracted 
without lowering groundwater levels over the long-term. Perennial yield in basins where there is 
hydraulic connection between surface water and groundwater depends, in part, on the amount of 
extraction that occurs. Perennial yield can increase as extraction increases, as long as the annual 
amount of recharge equals or exceeds the amount of extraction. Extraction at a level that exceeds 
the perennial yield for a short period may not result in an overdraft condition. In basins with an 
adequate groundwater supply, increased extraction may establish a new hydrologic equilibrium 
with a new perennial yield. The establishment of a new and higher perennial yield requires that 
adequate recharge (from some surface supply) be induced. (Inducing recharge from surface 
supplies may impact downstream users of that supply.) 

In Bulletin 160-98, perennial yield is estimated as the amount of groundwater extraction 
that has taken place, or could take place, over a long period of time under average hydrologic 

3-67 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



conditions without lowering groundwater levels. Existing basin water management programs 
(1995 level of development) were evaluated in the development of perennial yield estimates. 

Overdraft In this update of the California Water Plan, additional annual extraction from 
a groundwater basin over a long period of time above the annual perennial yield is defined as 
overdraft. In wet years, recharge into developed groundwater basins tends to exceed extractions 
from developed groundwater basins. Conversely, in dry years, groundwater basin recharge tends 
to be less than groundwater basin extraction. By definition, overdraft is not a measure of these 
annual fluctuations in groundwater storage volume. Instead, overdraft is a measure of the long- 
term trend associated with these annual fluctuations. The period of record used to evaluate 
overdraft must be long enough to produce data that, when averaged, approximates the long-term 
average hydrologic conditions for the basin. Table 3-15 shows The Department's estimate of 
1995-level groundwater overdraft by hydrologic region. 

Table 3-15. Estimated Overdraft by Hydrologic Region 



Hydrologic Region 


Overdraft 
(taf/yr) 


North Coast 





San Francisco Bay 





Central Coast 


210 


South Coast 





Sacramento River 


30 


San Joaquin 


240 


Tulare Lake 


820 


North Lahontan 





South Lahontan 


90 


Colorado River 


70 


TOTAL 


1,460 



Water supply shortages associated with SWRCB's Order WR 95-6, ESA requirements, 
and CVPIA implementation have had short-term impacts on groundwater levels in the San 
Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions. CVP contractors in these regions who rely on Delta exports 
for their surface water supply have experienced supply deficiencies of up to 50 percent 
subsequent to implementation of export limitations and CVPIA requirements, and have turned to 



3-68 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



groundwater pumping for additional water supplies. This increase in groundwater use 
exacerbated a short-term decline in water levels as a result of the 1987-1992 drought. Long-term 
cutbacks in surface water supplies south of the Delta will also translate into long-term increases 
in groundwater extractions south of the Delta. Bulletin 160-98 estimates a statewide increase in 
groundwater overdraft (160 taf/yr) above the 1990 base year reported in the previous California 
Water Plan update. Most of the statewide increase in overdraft is expected to occur in the San 
Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions, two regions where surface water supplies were reduced by 
Delta export restrictions and CVPIA requirements. 

Groundwater quality degradation is another factor that should be considered when 
computing overdraft. Groundwater overdraft in a basin may cause the movement of poor quality 
water into higher quality water. The resulting quality degradation may reduce the usable storage 
in a groundwater basin. This adverse effect was evaluated and included in the updated overdraft 
computations. 

The Central Coast hydrologic region includes several small basins with limited storage 
capacity. During drought periods, water levels in these basins may decline to a point where 
groundwater is not usable. However, during wet periods, most of these basins recover, thus 
making application of overdraft or perennial yield concepts difficult. The Department is 
currently evaluating Central Coast region groundwater use to better estimate overdraft, but this 
evaluation will not be completed in time for Bulletin 160-98. Parts of the Central Coast have 
received CVP water through the San Felipe Tunnel since 1986; other parts will soon receive 
SWP water through the Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct. These imported supplies 
should help reduce overdraft in the region. 



3^9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapters. Water Supplies 



Seawater Intrusion in Orange County 

The Orange County Water District was formed in 1933 to protect and manage the 
groundwater basin that underlies the northwest half of the county, which supplies about 75 percent of 
OCWD's total water demand. As the county developed, increased groundwater demands resulted in a 
gradual lowering of the water table. By 1956, years of heavy pumping to sustain the region's 
agricultural economy had lowered the water table below sea level, and saltwater from the ocean had 
encroached as far as five miles inland. The area of seawater intrusion is primarily along 4 miles of 
coast between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach know as the Talbert Gap. 

To prevent further seawater intrusion, OCWD operates a hydraulic barrier. A series of 23 
multi-point injection wells 4 miles inland delivers fresh water into the underground aquifer to form a 
water mound, blocking further passage of seawater. Water supply for the Talbert Barrier is produced 
at OCWD's Water Factory 21 . The supply is a blend of 62 percent recycled water and 38 percent 
groundwater pumped from a deep aquifer zone that is not subject to seawater intrusion. The first 
blended recycled water from the plant was injected into the barrier in October 1976. 

Water Factory 21 recycles about 15 mgd, and with the deep well water used for blending, 
produces about 22.6 mgd. OCWD has applied for and has received a permit to modify the treatment 
process to allow for injection of 100 percent recycled water, eliminating the use of deep well water for 
blending. The plant's current treatment includes chemical clarification, recarbonation, multi-media 
filtration, granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, chlorination, and blending. The blended 
injection water has a total dissolved solids content of 500 mg/L or lower, and meets DHS primary and 
secondary drinking water standards. 



Land Subsidence 

Land subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal has occurred in parts of the Central 
and Santa Clara valleys, and in localized areas of the south coastal plain. An important 
groundwater management goal is the prevention or reduction of land subsidence. Land 
subsidence can impact infrastructure, roads, buildings, wells, canals and stream channels, flood 
control structures (such as levees), and low-lying coastal or floodplain areas. Actions to manage 
subsidence may include: (1) monitoring changes in groundwater levels, (2) precisely surveying 
land surface elevations at periodic intervals to detect changes, (3) installing extensometers to 
measure the change in thickness of sediments between the land surface and fixed points below 
the surface, (4) recording the amount of groundwater extracted, (5) recharging the aquifer to 
control subsidence, and (6) determining when extraction must be decreased or stopped. 

One area where subsidence has been of particular concern is the west side of the San 
Joaquin Valley, where infrastructure affected by subsidence includes state highways, county 

370 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



roads, and water conveyance and distribution facilities. The accompanying sidebar provides an 
overview of subsidence in the area. 



Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley 

San Joaquin Valley land subsidence was observed as early as the 1 920s. The rate of 
subsidence increased significantly in the post- WWII era as groundwater extraction increased. 
Subsidence was especially noticeable along parts of the west side of the valley, where land 
that had been used for grazing or dry farming was converted to irrigated agriculture. By 
1970, 5,200 square miles in the valley had subsided more than 1 foot. Between 1920 and 
1970, a maximum of 28 feet of subsidence was measured at one location southwest of 
Mendota. In the years since 1 970, the rate of subsidence has declined because surface water 
was imported to the area. An increase in subsidence occurred during the 1 976-77 and 1 987- 
92 droughts, when groundwater extraction increased due to reductions in SWP and CVP 
supplies. Recent increases in subsidence are the result of increased groundwater extractions 
to compensate for water supply deficiencies caused by Bay-Delta export restrictions, ESA 
requirements, and CVPIA. 

The Department monitors subsidence along the California Aqueduct, maintaining 
seven compaction recorders and performing periodic precise leveling along the Aqueduct. 
The data indicate, for example, that a 68-mile reach of the aqueduct near Mendota subsided 2 
feet between 1970 and 1994. In the south end of the San Joaquin valley over the same time 
period, the Aqueduct subsided approximately 2 feet along a 29-mile reach near Lost Hills, 
and up to 1 foot in a 9-mile reach near the Kern Lake Bed. At the time of the Aqueduct's 
design, the potential for San Joaquin Valley subsidence was recognized, and measures were 
taken to compensate for some of its impacts. Canal sections in subsidence-prone areas were 
designed with extra freeboard, and structures crossing the canal (such as bridges) were 
designed to allow them to be raised later. Even so, continued subsidence along the Aqueduct 
alignment creates the need for costly repairs and reduces the canal's capacity in places. 



Groundwater Management Programs 

Because no two groundwater basins are identical, local agency groundwater basin 
management programs differ in purpose and scope. Typical local groundwater management 
strategies include monitoring groundwater levels and well extractions; cooperative arrangements 
among pumpers to minimize or eliminate problem conditions; and, where applicable, conjunctive 
use. Groundwater management options include AB 3030 plans (Water Code Section 10750, et 
seq.\ local ordinances, and legislative authorization for individual special districts. Rights to use 
groundwater also may be adjudicated by court action. Table 2A-1 in the Appendix 2A lists 

3-71 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



agencies that have adopted AB 3030 plans as of January 1997. A map of groundwater 
management districts and agencies with AB 3030 plans appears in Figure 3-27. 

Basin Adjudication. In California's adjudicated groundwater basins, groundwater 
extraction is regulated or administered by a court-appointed watermaster. The court retains 
jurisdiction over the judgment, so parties can appeal to the court to resolve disputes related to 
their adjudicated rights. The groundwater that each well owner can extract is determined by the 
court decision as administered by the watermaster. While each court decision may be different, 
the goal is to avoid groundwater overdraft by providing sustainable supply. Table 3-16 shows a 
list of adjudicated basins. 

Table 3-16. California Adjudicated Groundwater Basins and Watermasters 

County Basin Watermaster 



Los Angeles Central 

West Coast 

Upper Los Angeles River Area 

Raymond 

Main San Gabriel ' 

Main San Gabriel - Puente Basin ^ 



DWR 

DWR 

An individual specified in the court decision 

Raymond Basin Management Board 

Nine-director board 

Two individuals 



Kern 



Cummings 
Tehachapi 



Tehachapi-Cummings Water District 
Tehachapi-Cummings Water District 



San Bernardino 



Warren Valley 

San Bernardino Basin Area 

Cucamonga 
Mojave River 



Hi-Desert Water District 

One representative each from Western Municipal 
Water District of Riverside County and San 
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 

Not yet appointed 

Mojave Water Agency 



Riverside and 
San Bernardino 



Chino 



Chino Basin Municipal Water District 



Siskiyou 



Scott River Stream System 



Scott Valley Irrigation District 



The watermaster for Main San Gabriel Basin in Southern California has returned to court and obtained approval of regulations to 
control extraction for protecting groundwater quality. 

Groundwater underflow from Puente Basin, a part of Main San Gabriel Basin, was addressed in a court decision separate from the Main 
San Gabriel adjudication. The court named two individuals to act as watermaster. 



3-72 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Figure 3-27. Locations of Groundwater Management Districts and Agencies with 

Groundwater Management Plans 



■ Ground Water Management Districta 
• Adjudicated Ground Water Basins 




3-73 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Groundwater and surface water have also been adjudicated in the Santa Margarita River 
Watershed in Riverside and San Diego counties (not listed in Table 3-16). Water users are 
required by the court decision to report to the court-appointed watermaster the amount of 
groundwater they extract from the aquifer and the amount of surface water they divert from the 
river, canals, or ditches. However, groundwater extraction is not limited by the decision. 

Special Powers Agencies and Local Ordinances. The California Legislature may create 
special powers agencies, such as the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management District, or may 
amend the statutory authority of an existing agency to allow it to manage groundwater. 
Generally, these agencies are governed by a board of directors that may be appointed or elected. 

The Baldwin v. County of Tehama decision confirmed the right of cities and counties to 
adopt local regulations concerning groundwater. Moreover, the Baldwin decision confirmed that 
Tehama County has general police power to regulate groundwater and water transfers, and that 
counties are free to adopt local ordinances that do not conflict with state legislative mandates. 
The following counties have ordinances regulating groundwater: Butte, Glenn, Imperial, San 
Benito, San Joaquin, Tuolumne, and Tehama. 

Water Transfers, Exchanges, and Banking 

During recent years, water transfers, exchanges, and banking have received increasing 
attention as a means of overcoming water supply/demand imbalances. Experiences with 
temporary transfers during and since the 1987-92 drought bolstered interest in transfers as a 
water management tool. In this update of the California Water Plan, water transfers are defined 
as: 

• the permanent sale of a water right by the water right holder: 

• a lease from the water right holder, who retains the water right, but allows the leasee to 
use the water under specified conditions over a specified time-period; or 

• the sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. The ability of the holder of a 
contractual right to water supply to transfer the contractual right usually requires the 
approval of the agency supplying the water. An example of this type of transfer would be 
a transfer proposed by a water agency that received its supply from the CVP, SWP, or 
other water wholesaler. 

/ 
3-74 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Water exchanges between individual water users within a water district are common in 
dry years, and such transfers are becoming increasingly common even in average years. Water 
exchanges between users within a district normally do not require approval from the SWRCB 
because there is no change in the type, place, or time of use. Water exchanges of this type are 
not considered transfers for the purposes of Bulletin 160. 

Water banking — where water is physically banked or stored without a change in 
ownership of the water — is not considered a water transfer in this Bulletin. For example, Warren 
Act contracts, where local agencies contract with USBR for storage or conveyance of non-project 
water in federal facilities, only involve the rental of facilities for storage or conveyance. Water 
banking agreements where ownership of the water does change hands are considered water 
transfer agreements in this Bulletin. For example, the MWDSC-Semitropic Water Storage 
District agreement allows MWDSC access to 35 percent of Semitropic's groundwater storage 
capacity. MWDSC may store a portion of its S WP entitlement water for later withdrawal and 
delivery to its service area. However, Semitropic WSD could exchange a portion of its SWP 
entitlement water for MWDSC 's stored water, thereby making this banking arrangement a water 
transfer. 
Short-Term Agreements 

Short-term agreements have made up the majority of water marketing arrangements in 
recent years. Short-term transfers, executed for one year or less, can be an expedient means of 
alleviating the most severe drought year impacts. Short-term transfers can be made on the spot 
market; however, water purveyors are increasingly negotiating long-term agreements for 
drought year transfers. In such agreements, specific water supply conditions are used to 
determine whether water would be transferred in a specific year. 

Two examples of programs for acquiring water through short-term agreements are the 
Drought Water Bank and the CVPIA interim water acquisition program. These programs are 
discussed below. Beyond these programs, data on short-term water transfers are difficult to 
locate and verify (transfers executed for less than one year do not need SWRCB approval and 
thus are not tracked by outside entities) and are difficult to evaluate (data often do not distinguish 
between exchanges and transfers). 

3-75 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Drought Water Bank, In 1991, after four years of drought, the Governor signed an 
executive order establishing a Drought Action Team. The first emergency drought water bank 
was created in response to the team's recommendations. The Department operated the DWB. 
DWB's primary role was to purchase water from willing sellers and sell it to entities with critical 
needs. Sellers made water available to DWB by fallowing farmland and transferring the 
conserved irrigation water to DWB, using groundwater instead of surface water, or transferring 
water stored in local reservoirs. 

During 1991, the DWB purchased about 820,000 af of water under more than 100 short- 
term agreements. About 51 percent of that water came from agreements to not irrigate farmland 
during part of the year. About 3 1 percent came from various groundwater exchange agreements 
made with participating farmers and water districts. The rest of the water came from stored water 
reserves. 

The 1991 DWB experience and contracts provided a basis for administration of the 1992 
DWB. Unlike the 1991 DWB, water for the 1992 DWB was purchased only to meet prior 
contractual commitments. The 1992 DWB included 19 sellers and 16 buyers. Water was 
purchased primarily through reservoir storage release and groundwater substitution contracts. 
No land fallowing contracts were executed. These conditions allowed the 199^ DWB to operate 
at a significantly reduced cost for water. The DWB was able to acquire sufficient water to meet 
the critical needs of all participants. 

Drawing on the 1991 and 1992 DWB experiences, the Department completed a 
programmatic environmental impact report that evaluated different categories of transfers. The 
final EIR released in 1 993 covered a drought water bank program intended to meet water 
demands during periods of drought and other severe water-short periods over the next 5 to 10 
years, on an as-needed basis. The program is a water purchasing and allocation program 
whereby the Department will purchase water from willing sellers and market the water to buyers 
under specific critical needs allocation guidelines. 

The DWB program would be implemented as needed for a particular year by an executive 
order of the Governor or upon a finding by the Department's Director that drought or other 
unanticipated conditions exist that would significantly curtail water deliveries. The program 
would continue to operate until water supplies returned to noncritical levels. 

3-76 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



In 1994, the Department reactivated the DWB and also initiated a short-term water 

purchase program for SWP contractors. More than 173,000 af of water was delivered to cities 

and farms throughout the State. About 1 15,000 af was delivered from the DWB and 

58,000 af was delivered from the short-term water purchase program. A comparison of the three 

DWBs is shown in Table 3-17. 

Table 3-17. California Drought Water Banks' Purchases 

(af) 



1991 Bank 


1992 Bank 


1994 Bank' 


Purchases 820,664 

Delta & instream fish requirements -165,137 

Net Supply 655,527 


193,246 
-34,478 
158,768 


221,754 
-48,271 
173,483 


Allocations (af) 


Urban Uses 307,373 
Agricultural Uses 82,597 


39,000 
95,250 
24,518 


23,840 
149,643 


SWP' 265,558 








Total Allocations 655,528 


158,768 


173,483 


Unit Price to Buyer ($/aO^ 


175 


72 


68 


Includes deliveries for the SWP. 

' Carryover water for the SWP. 

' Price to buyers south of Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta at Banks Pumping Plant. Includes the cost of the 
water, adjustments for carriage losses and administrative charges. Does not include transportation charges 
which have ranged from $15 to $200 per acre-foot, depending on the point of delivery and other factors. 



The Department began to organize a 1995 DWB in September 1994, anticipating another 
dry year. By mid-November, water agencies had signed contracts with the Department to 
purchase water from DWB for critical needs, and the Department had established DWB in an 
inactive status, with the intent of activating it if 1995 precipitation was below normal. While in 
inactive status, DWB purchased options on 29 taf of water from five willing sellers. As a result 
of an abundance of precipitation and snowpack throughout California in 1995, the DWB was not 
activated and the Department did not exercise the acquired options. 

Despite the success of the DWB, it is a contingency or drought management supply 
option. It is not a permanent water supply. Based upon past experience, future State-operated 
DWBs might be able to reallocate about 250 taf/yr of supplies during droughts. However, the 

3-77 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



ability to purchase dry year supplies for future DWBs will become increasingly difficult as water 
shortages increase. 

CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program, Short-term water transfers have provided 
supplies to meet fish and wildlife water requirements of the CVPIA. An interim water 
acquisition program was established to acquire water while long-term planning for supplemental 
fishery water acquisition and refuge water supply acquisition continues. The program, a joint 
effort by USBR and USFWS, is to be in place from October 1995 through February 1998. A 

1995 Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the program 
addressed the regional impacts associated with four categories of water acquisition. The four 
categories were: 

• acquisition of up to 1 3, 1 23 af/yr of water for wildlife refuges in the Sacramento Valley; 

• acquisition of up to 45 cfs of water flows on Battle Creek for spawning and migration of 
winter and spring run chinook salmon and steelhead trout; 

• acquisition of up to 52,421 af/yr of water for wildlife refuges within the San Joaquin 
Valley; and 

• acquisition of up to 1 00,000 af/yr of water on each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and 
Merced rivers to meet instream flows for anadromous fish and to help meet Bay-Delta 
flow and water quality requirements on the San Joaquin River. 

Table 3-18 summarizes purchases made under the program in 1995 and 1996. In the 
program's second phase, USBR and USFWS completed a Supplemental Environmental 
Assessment and entered into agreements with PG&E for reduced diversions on Battle Creek in 

1996 and 1997 and with Merced Irrigation District to purchase up to 100,000 af of water in 1997 
to improve flows on the Merced River. 



Table 3-18. CVP Interim Water Acquisition Program 

(af/yr) 






1995 


1996 


Level 4 Water Acquisition 


San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors 
Semitropic Water Storage District 
Subtotal 


25,000 

5,200 

30,200 


30,318 

6,802 

37,120 


Supplemental Water Acquisition 


Merced Irrigation District 




~ 


120,000 


TOTAL 




30,200 


157,120 



3-78 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Long-Term Agreements 

Table 3-19 presents several long-term agreements completed in recent years. Long-term 
agreements currently being negotiated are presented as future water management options and are 
discussed in Chapter 6. 

Table 3-19. Recently Completed Long-Term Water Transfer Agreements 



From 


Region 


To 


Region 


Amount 
(taf/yr) 


Westside Water District' 


Sacramento River 


Colusa County Water District 


Sacramento River 


25 


Kern County Water 


Tulare Lake 


Alameda County Flood 


San Francisco 


7 


Agency' 




Control and Water 
Conservation District, Zone 7 






Kem County Water 


Tulare Lake 


Mojave Water Agency 


Colorado River 


25 


Agency' 










Semitropic Water Storage 


Tulare Lake 


Santa Clara Valley Water 


San Francisco 


32-78 


District 




District 






Semitropic Water Storage 


Tulare Lake 


Metropolitan Water District of 


South Coast 


32-78 


District 




South California 






Imperial Irrigation District 


Colorado River 


Metropolitan Water District of 
South California 


South Coast 


106 

maximum 


' This is a permanent transfer of contractual entitlement. The amount shown is the contractual entitlement and 


may not reflect actual deliveries. 









One of the terms in the SWP's Monterey Agreement was that agricultural contractors 
would make 130,000 af of SWP annual entitlement available for permanent transfer to urban 
contractors (on a willing buyer- willing seller basis). In 1997, Kem County Water Agency 
concluded the transfer of 25,000 af to Mojave Water Agency. KCWA is also in the process of 
permanently transferring up to 7,000 af of entitlement to Alameda County Flood Control and 
Water Conservation District, Zone 7. As with the SWP, entitlement transfers among CVP 
contractors are now taking place. In 1997, USBR completed an environmental assessment for a 
proposed long-term transfer of 25,000 af of water from the Westside Water District to the Colusa 
County Water District. 

Banking project water outside of an SWP contractor's service area for later use within its 
service area is also provided for in the Monterey Agreement. SWSD has developed a 



3-79 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



groundwater storage program with 1 maf of storage capacity. Under this program, an SWP 
contractor may negotiate an agreement with SWSD to deliver SWP water to SWSD for in-lieu 
groundwater recharge. At the contractor's request, groundwater would be extracted and 
delivered to the California Aqueduct, or otherwise exchanged for entitlement. Currently, 
MWDSC and SCVWD have long-term agreements with SWSD for 350,000 af of storage. 
Alameda County Water District is in the process of signing a similar agreement for 50,000 af of 
storage. 

In addition to the MWDSC-IID transfer shown in Table 3-19 (described in Chapter 9), 
MWDSC has executed an agreement for groundwater banking in Arizona. Under an existing 
agreement between MWDSC and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, MWDSC can 
store a limited amount of unused Colorado River water in Arizona for future use. The Southern 
Nevada Water Authority is also participating in the program. The agreement stipulates that 
MWDSC and SNWA can store up to 300 taf in central Arizona through the year 2000. To date, 
MWDSC has placed 89 taf of water in storage and SNWA has placed 50 taf of water in storage 
for a total of 139 taf. About 90 percent of the stored water can be recovered, contingent upon the 
declaration of surplus conditions on the Colorado River. When MWDSC is able to draw on this 
source, it can divert up to a maximum of 1 5 taf in any one month. The stored water would be 
made available to MWDSC by Arizona foregoing the use of part of its normal supply from the 
Central Arizona Project. MWDSC plans to recover the stored water at times in the future when 
its Colorado River Aqueduct diversions may be limited. 

Water Recycling and Desalting Supplies 

Water recycling is the intentional treatment and management of wastewater to produce 
water suitable for reuse. Several factors affect the amount of wastewater treatment plant effluent 
that local agencies are able to recycle, including the size of the available market and the 
seasonality of demands. Local agencies must plan their facilities based on the amount of 
treatment plant effluent available and the range of expected service area demands. In areas 
where landscaping uses constitute the majority of recycled water demands, there can be a great 
variation between winter and summer demands. (Where recycled water is used for groundwater 
recharge, seasonal demands are more constant throughout the year.) Also, since water recycling 
projects are often planned to supply certain types of customers, the proximity of these customers 

380 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



to each other and to available pipeline distribution systems affects the economic viability of 
potential recycling projects. 

Technology available today allows municipal wastewater treatment systems to produce 
water supplies at competitive costs. More stringent treatment requirements for disposal of 
municipal and industrial wastewater have reduced the incremental cost higher levels of treatment 
required for recycled water. The degree of additional treatment depends on the intended use. 
Recycled water is used for agricultural and landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, and 
industrial and environmental uses. Some uses are required to meet more stringent standards for 
public health protection. Examples include a project to provide recycled water to irrigate 
10,000 acres of vegetables, including vegetables such as salad greens (which are normally eaten 
without having been cooked) in the northern Salinas Valley. Another example is the City of San 
Diego's planned 20 mgd treatment plant to produce repurified water. This water project 
(described in Chapter 5) would produce about 15,000 af per year of repurified water to augment 
local municipal supplies, and if implemented, would be California's first indirect potable reuse 
project. 

The use of recycled water can lessen the demand for new water supply. However, not all 
water recycling produces new water supply. Bulletin 160 counts water that would otherwise be 
lost to the State's hydrologic system (e.g., water discharged directly to the ocean) as recycled 
water supply. If water recycling creates a new demand which would not otherwise exist or if it 
recycles water that would have been otherwise been used by downstream entities or recharged to 
usable groundwater, it is not considered new water supply. 
Water Recycling Status 

The Department, in partnership with the WateReuse Association of California, 
conducted a 1995 survey to update the Association's 1993 survey. The purpose of the surveys 
was to determine local agencies' plans for future water reuse. The 1 993 survey was used in 
Bulletin 160-93 to estimate recycling potential. Bulletin 160-98 uses data from the 1995 survey. 

The 1993 survey, with 1 1 1 respondents, reported total annual water recycling of 384,000 
af The 1995 survey, with 230 respondents reported total recycling of 485,000 af per year, with 
323,000 af/year being new water supply. One hundred ninety-one new water reuse projects have 
been constructed since 1993. As shovm in Table 3-20, which presents current water recycling by 

3-81 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



hydrologic region, recycling projects do not generate new water supply in the State's interior 
regions, because the water constituting their source of supply would otherwise be used by 
downstream entities or would be recharged to groundwater. 

Table 3-20. Base Year (1995) Reuse by Hydrologic Region 



Region 


Reuse 
(taf/yr) 


Percent of Total 
(%) 


^etv Water Supply 
(taf/yr) 


North Coast 


13 


3 


13 


San Francisco Bay 


40 


8 


35 


Central Coast 


19 


4 


18 


South Coast 


263 


54 


207 


Sacramento River 


12 


2 





San Joaquin River 


37 


8 





Tulare Lake 


51 


11 





North Lahontan 


8 


2 


8 


South Lahontan 


27 


5 


27 


Colorado River 


15 


3 


15 


Total 


485 


100 


323 



The 1993 survey respondents reported plans to recycle more than 650,000 af/yr of water 
by 1995. This level of recycling did not materialize. The most obvious reason for the shortfall 
between 1993 projections for 1995 and the actual 1995 recycling was because the 1993 survey 
was administered when the memory of the 1987-92 drought was vivid. When asked about 
factors that influence water recycling decisions, respondents reported that "memory of the last 
drought" and "concern over long-term supply" were most likely to influence recycling decisions. 
Financial problems and recession were identified as least likely to affect recycling decisions. 
Existing use of recycled water is shown in Table 3-21 . Examples of types of reuse in the "Other" 
category include snow making, dust suppression, fire fighting, and recreational ponds. 



3-82 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Table 3-21. Base Year (1995) Use of Total Recycled Water by Category 



Type of Reuse 



TOTAL 



Amount 
(taf per year) 



Agricultural Irrigation 


155 


Groundwater Recharge 


131 


Landscape Irrigation 


82 


Industrial Uses 


34 


Environmental Uses 


15 


Seawater Intrusion Barrier 


5 


Other 


63 



485 



Percent of Total 



32 

27 

17 

7 

3 

1 

13 



100 



Water Recycling Potential 

By 2020, total water recycling potential is expected to increase from 485 taf^yr to 615 

taf/yr due to greater production at existing treatment plants and new production at plants 

currently under construction. This base production is expected to increase new recycled supplies 

from 323 tafi'yr to 468 taf/yr. All new recycled water is expected to be produced in the San 

Francisco Bay, Central Coast, and South Coast regions. Table 3-22 shows projections of future 

water recycling and resulting new water supply based on the 1995 survey. Future potential water 

recycling includes projects now in the planning stage, as well as conceptual projects which have 

not yet begun planning for facility construction. 

"S'photo: local agency plant in coastal area 

Table 3-22. Projections of Future Water Recycling and 

Resulting New Water Supply 

(taf per year) 





1995 




2020 




Projects 


Total 
Water Recycling 


New 
Water Supply 


Total Total 
Water Recycling Water Supply 


Base 

Planned 

Conceptual 


485 


323 


615 

837 

131 




468 
699 

31 


TOTAL 


485 


323 


1,583 




1,198 



By 2020, water recycling projects that are in the planning and conceptual stages are 
expected to bring total water recycling potential to nearly 1,600 taf/yr, or about 1,200 taf per year 
of new supply. (In addition, the 1995 survey also tabulated survey respondents' view of water 



3-83 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



recycling potential beyond the 2020 planning horizon of Bulletin 160-98. Beyond 2020, the 
survey reported an additional 0.2 maf/yr of wastewater statewide, potentially generating an 
additional 0.1 maf^yr of new water supply.) 

Future water recycling options are discussed in Chapter 6 and in the regional chapters. 

Water Quality 

A critical factor in determining the usability and reliability of any particular water source 
is water quality. The quality of a water source will significantly affect the beneficial uses of that 
water. Water has many potential uses, and the water quality requirements for each use vary. 
Sometimes, different water uses may have conflicting water quality requirements. For example, 
water temperatures desirable for irrigation of some crops may not be suitable for fish spawning. 
Overview of Pollutants and Stressors Causing Water Quality Impairment 

Mineralization. When water passes over and through soils, it picks up soluble minerals 
(salts) that are the result of natural processes, such as geologic weathering. As the water passes 
through a watershed and is used for various purposes, concentrations of dissolved minerals and 
salts in the water increase, a process called mineralization. For example, when Sierra Nevada 
streams flow into the valley floors, they typically pick up 20 to 50 milligrams per liter of 
dissolved minerals, which is equivalent to about 50 to 140 pounds of salts per acre-foot. An 
acre-foot of water with total dissolved solids of 736 mg/L contains one ton of salt, a 
concentration typical of water in the lower Colorado River. Increased concentrations of 
minerals can result from both urban and agricultural water uses, as illustrated in the section on 
pollutants in agricultural and urban runoff. 

In the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the export location for much of California's water 
supply, sea water intrusion is a major source of mineralization. Sea water intrusion in the Delta 
elevates the salinity (particularly the concentrations of ions of concern: sodium, chloride, and 
bromide) of fresher river water entering the Delta. The impact of sea water intrusion is 
especially significant during periods of low river flows. For example, during the drought from 
1987 to 1992, the average concentration of dissolved solids (salt) in the lower Sacramento River 
was 108 mg/L. In the lower San Joaquin River, the average was 519 mg/L, and at Banks 
Pumping Plant, the southern Delta export location of the SWP, the average was 310 mg/L. 
During the wetter years firom 1993 to 1995, the average concentration of dissolved solids in the 

3-84 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



lower Sacramento River was 98 mg/L, while the average concentration of dissolved solids was 
342 mg/L in the lower San Joaquin River and 236 mg/L at Banks Pumping Plant. Bromides 
contributed by sea water intrusion are of particular concern because they contribute to the 
formation of disinfection by-products when the water is treated for drinking. 

Euirophication. Eutrophication results when nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus 
are added to surface waters. In the presence of sunlight, algae and other microscopic organisms 
use the available nutrients to increase their populations. Slightly or moderately eutrophic water 
can be healthful and can support a complex web of plant and animal life. However, water 
containing high concentrations of microorganisms is undesirable for drinking water and other 
needs. Some microorganisms can produce compounds that, while not directly harmful to human 
health, may cause taste and odor problems in drinking water. 

Nowhere is the subject of eutrophication of greater concern than at Lake Tahoe, where 
stringent regulatory controls have been imposed to maintain, or at least halt the decline of the 
lake's unique clarity. The lake is in the early stages of eutrophication and, if it continues, its 
clarity will be significantly reduced in 20 to 40 years. About one and a half feet of transparency 
have been lost each year since the early 1960s. Development of the basin's erodible land, as well 
as construction of highways, streets, and logging roads, generates phosphorous and nitrogen 
compounds that are deposited in Lake Tahoe, spurring algae growth. Algae and suspended 
sediments cloud the lake and reduce its transparency. The combination of the lake's large 
volume and the fact that it has only one outlet, the Truckee River, aggravates the impacts of the 
phosphorous and nitrogen loading because there is virtually no flushing action. 

Abandoned Mines. Runoff from abandoned mines contributes to loading of metals such 
as nickel, silver, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic in surface waters. 
Iron Mountain Mine on Spring Creek above Keswick Reservoir and Perm Mine above Comanche 
Reservoir are examples of abandoned mines that drain into major watersheds. Periodic fish kills 
have been experienced at these sites as a result of elevated levels of metals in mine drainage 
flows. Concentrations of metals well below levels of concern for humans can be acutely toxic to 
many aquatic species. Much of the heavy metal loading in the Sacramento River is thought to 
come from abandoned mines in the upper watershed. 



3-85 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Pathogens. Cryptosporidium parvum outbreaks have been documented in many places 
throughout the world. Table 3-23 lists some of the most significant outbreaks documented in 
recent years. In April 1993, approximately 403,000 persons in Milwaukee, Wisconsin became ill 
of cryptosporidiosis, the disease caused by Cryptosporidium in their water supply. 
Approximately 1 00 deaths resulted from this outbreak. The suspected sources of 
Cryptosporidium were cattle wastes, slaughterhouse wastes, and sewage carried by rivers 
tributary to Lake Michigan, the water body used as the source of drinking water. This outbreak 
was associated with operational deficiencies in the water treatment plant, and presents a 
compelling example of the importance of maintaining the quality of source waters. 

Table 3-23. Significant Cryptosporidium Outbreaks 



Year 


Location 


Approximate Number of Reported Cases 


1984 


Braun Station, Texas 


2,000 cases 


1987 


Carroilton, Georgia 


13,000 cases 


1989 


Thames River area, England 


100,000 cases 


1992 


Jackson County, Oregon 


15,000 cases 


1993 


Milwaukee, Wisconsin 


403,000 cases, 100 deaths 


1994 


Las Vegas, Nevada 


78 cases, 16 deaths 



More significantly, the 1994 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Las Vegas, Nevada was the 
first documented epidemiologically-confirmed waterbome outbreak from a water system with no 
associated treatment deficiencies or breakdowns. During this outbreak, 78 immunocompromised 
persons became ill of cryptosporidiosis, even when no Cryptosporidium was detected in the 
treated drinking water. 

Federal and state surface water treatment rules require that all surface water supplied for 
drinking receive filtration, high level disinfection, or both, to inactivate or remove viruses and 
protozoan cysts such as Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium. However, if a water supply 
meets certain source water quality criteria and a watershed management program exists to 
provide protection against these pathogens, the public water purveyor may receive an exemption 
from the filtration requirements of the federal and state surface water treatment rules. The City 



3-86 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



and County of San Francisco is an example of a public water purveyor with a current exemption 
from filtration requirements. 

Besides Giardia and Cryptosporidium, there are many other disease-causing viruses, 
bacteria, and protozoans. Table 3-24 lists some waterbome diseases in the United States. 

Table 3-24. Some Waterborne Diseases of Concern in the United States 

Disease Microbial Agent 

Amebiasis Protozoan (Entamoeba histolytica) 

Campylobacteriosis Bacterium (Campylobacter jejuni) 

Cholera Bacterium ( Vibrio cholerae) 

Cryptosporidiosis Protozoan (Cryptosporidium parvum) 

Giardiasis Protozoan (Giardia lamblia) 

Hepatitis Virus (hepatitis A) 

Shigellosis Bacterium (Shigella species) 

Typhoid Fever Bacterium (Salmonella typhi) 

Viral Gastroenteritis Viruses (Norwalk, rotavirus, and other types) 

Disinfection By-Products, As water passes over and through soils, it also dissolves 
organic compounds present in the soil as a result of plant decay, including humic and fulvic 
acids. High levels of these compounds can be present in drainage from wooded or heavily 
vegetated areas and from soils high in organic content. Chlorine, when used as a disinfectant in 
drinking water treatment, reacts with these organic compounds to form disinfection by-products 
such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. Table 3-25 lists some potential disinfection by- 
products, or chemical classes of disinfection by-products, which may be produced during 
disinfection of drinking water. A maximum contaminant level of trihalomethanes for drinking 
water has been established by EPA and by DHS, in accordance with the federal and state Safe 
Drinking Water laws. The current MCL for trihalomethanes in drinking water is 0.10 mg/L; no 
MCL for haloacetic acids is currently in effect. A stricter MCL of 0.08 mg/L for 
trihalomethanes and a new MCL of 0.06 mg/L for haloacetic acids are expected to be effective in 
late 1998, as EPA revises current drinking water standards. 



3-87 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-25. Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products 



Disinfectant 



Chlorine 



Chloramine 



Ozone 



Chlorine dioxide 



Potential Disinfection By-Products or Classes of 
Disinfection By-Products 



Trihalomethanes 
Halogenated acids 
Haloacetonitriles 
Halogenated aldehydes 
Halogenated ketones 
Chloropicrin 
Chlorinated phenols 



Trihalomethanes 
Halogenated acids 
Haloacetonitriles 
Halogenated aldehydes 
Halogenated ketones 
Chloropicrin 
Chlorinated phenols 
Cyanogen chloride 



Bromate 

Brominated acids 
Formaldehyde 
Acetaldehyde 
Other aldehydes 
Carboxylic acids 
Hydrogen peroxide 



Chlorite 
Chlorate 



Ozone is a powerful oxidant widely used for drinking water disinfection. Its advantages 
are that it efficiently kills pathogenic organisms such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, destroys 
tastes and odors, and minimizes production of trihalomethanes and most other unwanted 
disinfection by-products. However, bromate is formed during ozone disinfection of waters 
containing bromide. EPA estimates that bromate may be a more potent carcinogen than 
trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. A new MCL of 0.01 mg/L for bromate is expected to be 
effective in late 1998. 



3-88 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Pollutants in Agricultural and Urban Runoff. Pollutants in runoff from agricultural 
areas are generally of the nonpoint variety, meaning their sources are usually diffuse and are not 
readily subject to control. Agricultural runoff may contain chemical residues, trace elements, 
salts, nutrients, and elevated concentrations of chemicals which are converted to disinfection by- 
products in drinking water. Pathogens from dairies and livestock operations can enter waterways 
through agricultural runoff. Sediments from land tillage and forestry activities can enter 
waterways, obstructing water flow and affecting the survival and reproduction of fish and other 
aquatic organisms. 

Drainage from some agricultural lands in the San Joaquin Valley contains high 
concentrations of salts and sometimes concentrations of pesticides and trace elements. This 
water quality problem is exacerbated when salts are recirculated as Delta water is delivered to the 
San Joaquin Valley to irrigate agricultural lands, and then is returned to the Delta through the 
San Joaquin River. 

Many agencies south of the Delta blend Delta water supplies with other more saline 
water. When Bay-Delta TDS levels increase, more Bay-Delta water is needed to maintain 
salinity objectives for blended water supplies and to leach salts from farm fields and urban 
landscapes. Elevated TDS levels also limit agencies' ability to recycle water. Agencies must 
meet customer objectives for TDS and comply with discharge requirements. Increased TDS 
levels may limit their ability to do so. Agencies' ability to store water for future use through 
groundwater recharge or conjunctive use programs depends on the TDS of the source water. 
RWQCB Basin Plans generally require that water used for recharge not degrade existing 
groundwater quality. Increased TDS levels increase salt loadings to groundwater basins and may 
ultimately limit the use of the existing groundwater. 

The TOC level of water is generally a good indication of the amount of DBP precursor 
present in the water. Rivers passing through the Delta pick up organic matter. For example, as 
Sacramento River water passed through the Delta, the THM formation potential increases almost 
threefold by the Delta outflow at the Banks Pumping Plant due to the contribution of agricultural 
drainage from peat soils. 

Under EPA's proposed rule, the maximum contaminant level for THMs will be lowered 
fi-om 100 to 80 ug/L in Stage 1 and to 40 ug/L in Stage 2. Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the D/DBP 

3-89 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Rule are to be promulgated in November 1998 and May 2002. Compliance with the MCLs for 
DBFs alone will not be sufficient. Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule also requires surface water 
systems using conventional treatment to remove a percentage of the DBF precursosrs in the 
influent ~ as measured by TOC — in addition to meeting standards for the D/DBFs themselves. 
The rule proposes that systems achieve a percent TOC removal based on their influent TOC. 
TOC removal requirements would be 25 percent when the influent TOC is between 2.0 and 4.0 
mg/L and 35 percent when the influent TOC is between 4.0 to 8.0 mg/L. Measured TOC 
concentrations at the Banks Fumping Flant range from 2.1 to 8.6 mg/L. 

MWDSC estimates that additional treatment costs to meet the enhanced coagulation 
requirements for SWF water would be about $26 per acre-foot and about $39 per acre-foot, 
depending on whether the influent TOC is less than or greater than 4.0 mg/L. MWDSC's current 
cost to treat SWF water is about $26 per acre-foot. 

Follutants in runoff from urban areas can come from both point and nonpoint sources. 
Nonpoint sources of pollution include recreational activities, drainage from industrial sites, 
runoff from streets and highways, discharges from other land surfaces, and aerial deposition. In 
California, storm water runoff, a major source of nonpoint source pollution, is regulated by 
S WRCB on behalf of EFA. 

Municipal and industrial wastewater discharges are point sources of pollution. Most 
industries in California discharge to a publicly-owned wastewater treatment plant and only 
indirectly to the environment. These industries are required to pretreat their industrial waste 
prior to its discharge to municipal wastewater treatment plants. Like municipal discharges, 
industrial discharges are subject to regulation through NFDES. Industries discharging directly 
into the environment are also required to have NFDES permits. 

Wastewater treatment facilities operated under NFDES have, in general, been successful 
in maintaining the quality of California's water bodies. However, the discharge permits do not 
regulate all constituents that may cause adverse impacts. For example, the discharge of organic 
materials that contribute to the formation of disinfection by-products in drinking water is not 
regulated. NFDES does not guarantee elimination of pathogenic organisms such as Giardia and 
Cryptosporidium^ which are harder to inactivate (disinfect) than most other waterbome 
pathogens. In addition, permitted discharges can include nitrogen compounds that can be 

3-90 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



harmful to aquatic life, cause algae growth in surface water bodies, and force downstream 
drinking water facilities to increase their use of chlorine or to switch to alternative disinfection 
processes. Some wastewater treatment plant processes do not completely remove all synthetic 
chemicals that can be present in the water. 

The potential for adverse impacts on water quality increases as the number of treatment 
plants discharging into the waterway increases. For example, 15 major wastewater treatment 
plants discharge into the Sacramento River watershed and 6 major wastewater treatment plants 
discharge into the San Joaquin River watershed. These rivers are the two major tributaries which 
flow into the Delta, a source of drinking water for much of southern California. Table 3-26 lists 
these wastewater treatment plants and the average daily volume of discharge from each facility 
into the waterways. 

Recently, there has been increasing concern about contamination of drinking water 
sources by methyl tertiary butyl ether. MTBE is a compound added to gasoline to promote more 
complete combustion and reduce exhaust emissions. In California, MTBE is used to reduce 
exhaust emissions and to meet federal Clean Air Act requirements for oxygenated gasoline. 
MTBE is now being found in wells and reservoirs used for municipal water supply. 



3-91 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-26. Major Waste Water Treatment Plants Discharging into the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers 



Facility 


Average Flow 
(mgd) 


Sacramento River Basin 




Sacramento Regional 


150 


Roseville 


11.8 


Vacaville Easterly 


6 


West Sacramento 


4.5 


Davis 


3.6 


Redding, Clear Creek 


3.5 


Oroville 


3.5 


Chico Main 


3 


University of California 


1.8 


Grass Valley 


1.6 


Red Bluff 


1.2 


Anderson 


1.2 


Placerville, Hangtown Creek 


1.2 


Beale AFB 


1.1 


Olivehurst PUD 


1 


San Joaquin River Basin 




Stockton Main 


29 


Turlock 


8 


Merced 


5.5 


Tracy 


4 


Atwater 


2.9 


EID Deer Creek 


1.5 


Total 


245.9 



In drinking water, MTBE causes taste and odor problems at low concentrations. EPA has 
tentatively classified MTBE as a possible human carcinogen, and has issued a draft lifetime 
health advisory of 70 mg/1 in drinking water. In California, an interim action level of 35 mg/1 
has been issued. 

To evaluate the presence of MTBE in drinking water supplies in California, voluntary testing 
for MTBE was implemented in 1 996 by water suppliers in response to a DHS request. In 
February 1997, a regulation was adopted requiring public drinking water systems to monitor 



3-92 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



their drinking water sources for MTBE as an unregulated chemical (a chemical for which there is 
no established regulatory or enforceable drinking water level or maximum contaminant level). 
Because MTBE is an unregulated chemical, water suppliers will be monitoring and reporting 
MTBE in sources of drinking water at least once every three years. 

The most extensive MTBE contamination of drinking water sources in California was at two 
well fields (Chamock and Arcadia) in Santa Monica. This contamination was discovered in 
February 1996, not long after DHS' request for voluntary testing for MTBE. These well fields 
supplied 80 percent of Santa Monica's municipal water. MTBE concentrations as high as 610 
mg/1 were observed in the Chamock well field and seven wells in the field were closed. In the 
Arcadia well field, two wells were closed due to contamination from an underground storage 
tank at a nearby gasoline station. 

As noted in Chapter 2, legislation enacted in 1 997 required DHS to begin adopting primary 
and secondary drinking water standards for MTBE. The secondary drinking water standard for 
MTBE is to be established by July 1, 1998, and the primary drinking water standard is to be 



r K^ luatic organisms and has been 

Q^xD le Sacramento River. Turbidity 

*-^ ions. Significant turbidity 

*0 ligh storm runoff. Phytoplankton 

^-^ )idity requires increased chemical 

-A 

ds for water bodies in California 

*v o^ "he RWQCBs protect water quality 



through adoption of region-specific water quality control plans, commonly known as basin plans. 
In general, water quality control plans designate beneficial uses of water and establish water 
quality objectives designed to protect them. The designated beneficial uses of water may vary 
between individual water bodies; some are listed in Table 3-27. 



3-93 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-27. A Partial List of Potential Beneficial Uses of Water 

Municipal and Domestic Supply 

Agricultural Supply 

Industrial Supply 

Groundwater Recharge 

Freshwater Replenishment 

Navigation 

Hydropower Generation 

Recreation 

Commercial and Sport Fishing 

Aquaculture 

Freshwater Habitat 

Estuarine Habitat 

Wildlife Habitat 

Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance 

Preservation of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species 

Migration of Aquatic Organisms 

Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development 

Shellfish Harvesting 

Water quality objectives are the limits or levels of water quality constituent§ or characteristics 
which are established to protect beneficial uses. Because a particular water body may have 
several beneficial uses, the water quality objectives established must be protective of all 
designated uses. When setting water quality objectives, several sources of existing water quality 
limits are used (see Table 3-28), depending on the uses designated in a water quality control plan. 
When more than one water quality limit exists for a water quality constituent or characteristic 
(e.g., human health limit vs. aquatic life limit), the more restrictive limit is used as the water 
quality objective. Table 3-29 lists some typical water quality constituents or characteristics for 
which water quality objectives may be established in water quality control plans. 



3-94 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-28. A Partial List of Existing Water Quality Limits 

Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels 

Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 

State Action Levels and Recommended Public Health Levels for Drinking Water 

EPA Health Advisories and Water Quality Advisories 

National Academy of Sciences Suggested No- Adverse-Response Levels 

Proposition 65 Regulatory Levels 

EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

Table 3-29. A Partial List of Water Quality Constituents or Characteristics 
for Which Water Quality Objectives May Be Established 

Chemical Constituents Pesticides 

Tastes and Odors pH 

Human Health and Ecological Toxicity Radioactivity 

Bacteria Salinity 

Biostimulatory Substances Sediment 

Color Settleable Material 

Dissolved Oxygen Suspended Material 

Floating Material Temperature 

Oil and Grease Turbidity 



Drinking Water Standards 

Drinking water standards for a total of 8 1 individual drinking water constituents (see Table 3- 
30) are in place under the mandates of the 1986 SDWA amendments. By the new SDWA 
standard setting process established in the 1996 amendment, EPA will select at least five new 
candidate constituents to be considered for regulation every five years. Selection of the new 
constituents for regulation must be geared toward contaminants posing the greatest health risks. 



3-95 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-30. Constituents Regulated Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act^ 



1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene 

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 

1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane 

1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 

1 ,2-DichIorobenzene 

1 ,2-Dichloroethane 

1 ,2-Dich!oropropane 

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 

Acrylamide 

Adipates 

Alachlor 

Antimony 

Arsenic 

Asbestos 

Atrazine 

Barium 

Benzene 

Beryllium 

Cadmium 

Carboftiran 

Carbon tetrachloride 

Chlordane 

Chiorobenzene 



Chromium 

cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethy lene 

Copper 

Cyanide 

Dalapon 

Dichloromethane 

Dinoseb 

Diquat 

Endothall 

Endrin 

Epichlorohydrin 

Ethylbenzene 

Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 

Fluoride 

Giardia lamblia 

Glyphosate 

Gross alpha particle activity 

Gross beta particle activity 

Heptachior 

Heptachlor epoxide 

Heterotrophic bacteria 

Hexachlorobenzene 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

Lead 

Legionella 

Lindane 

Mercury 



Methoxychior 

Nickel 

Nitrate 

Nitrite 

Oxamyl 

Pentachlorophenol 

Phthalates 

Picloram 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 

Radium 226 

Radium 228 

Selenium 

Simazine 

Styrene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Thallium 

Toluene 

Total conforms 

Total trihalomethane 

Toxaphene 

trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 

Trichloroethylene 

Turbidity -. 

Vinyl chloride 

Viruses 

Xylenes (total) 



'As of February 1997. 



Occasionally, drinking water regulatory goals may conflict. For example, concern over 
pathogens such as Cryptosporidium spurred a proposed rule requiring more rigorous disinfection. 
At the same time, there was considerable regulatory concern over trihalomethanes and other 
disinfection by-products resulting from disinfecting drinking water with chlorine. However, if 
disinfection is made more rigorous, disinfection by-product formation is increased. Poor quality 
source waters with elevated concentrations of organic precursors and bromides further 
complicate the problem of reliably meeting standards for disinfection while meeting standards 
for disinfection by-products. The regulatory community will have to balance the benefits and 
risks associated with pursuing the goals of efficient disinfection and reduced disinfection by- 
products. 



3-96 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



EPA promulgated its Information Collection Rule in 1996 to obtain the data on the tradeoff 
posed by simultaneous control of disinfection by-products and pathogens in drinking water. The 
Information Collection Rule requires all large public water systems to collect and report data on 
the occurrence of disinfection by-products and pathogens (including bacteria, viruses, Giardia, 
and Cryptosporidium) in drinking water over an 1 8-month period. With this information, an 
assessment of health risks due to the presence of disinfection by-products and pathogens in 
drinking water can be made. EPA can then determine the need to revise current drinking water 
filtration and disinfection requirements, and the need for more stringent regulations for 
disinfectants and disinfection by-products. 
Source Water ProtectionAVatershed Management Activities 

The source water protection program established in the 1996 SDWA amendments is part of a 
multiple barrier approach to drinking water protection that includes SWPP monitoring. SWPP is 
intended to delineate the watersheds of all public drinking water sources — both surface and 
groundwater— identify sources of contamination within each watershed, and determine the 
susceptibility of drinking water sources to the contaminants present. States must submit their 
SWPPs to EPA for approval before implementing their programs. SDWA provides funding to 
implement the SWPP through a set-aside from the SRF. Once the SWPP is implemented, states 
may provide loans to local agencies that establish voluntary partnerships to protect drinking 
water sources. 

The potential sources and causes of water quality impairment vary from watershed to 
watershed. A comprehensive source water protection and watershed management program will 
identify and address all sources and causes within the watershed. Table 3-31 lists potential 
sources and causes of water quality impairment in a watershed. 



3-97 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Table 3-31 . Potential Sources and Causes of Water Quality Impairment 

Source of 
Contamination 



Poliutant or Stressor 



Possibie Sources 



Natural 
(occur statewide) 



Dissolved minerals 

Asbestos 

Hydrogen sulfide 

Metals 

Microbial agents 
Radon 
Sediment 

Altered flow or habitat modification 



Mineral deposits, mineralized waters, hot springs, sea water 
intrusion 

Mine tailings, serpentinite formations 

Subsurface organic deposits, such as peat soils in Delta 
islands 

Mine tailings 

Wildlife 

Geologic formations 

Forestry activities, stream banks, construction activities, 
roads, mining operations, gullies 

Impoundments, storm water runoff, artificial drainage, bank 
erosion, riparian corridor modification 



Commercial Businesses 



Gasoline 
Solvents 
Metals 



Service stations' underground storage tanks 

Dry cleaners, machine shops 

Photo processors, laboratories, metal plating works 



Municipal 



Microbial agents 

Pesticides 

Nutrients 

Miscellaneous liquid wastes 



Sewage discharges, storm water runoff 

Storm water runoff, golf courses 

Storm water runoff 

Industrial discharge, household waste, septic tanks 



Industrial 



VOCs, industrial solvents, metals, 
acids 

Pesticides 

Wood preservatives 



Electronics manufacturing, metal fabricating and plating, 
transporters, storage facilities, hazardous waste disposal 

Chemical formulating plants 

Plants that treat pressure treating power poles, wood pilings, 
railroad ties 



Solid Waste Disposal 



Solvents, pesticides, metals, organics, 
petroleum wastes, microbial agents 



Disposal sites receive waste from a variety of industries, 
municipal solid wastes, wasted petroleum products, 
household waste 



Agricultural 



Pesticides, fertilizers, concentrated 
mineral salts, microbial agents, 
sediment, nutrients 



Tailwater runoff, agricultural chemical applications, 
fertilizer usage, chemical storage at farms and applicators' 
air strips, packing sheds and processing plants, dairies, feed 
lots, pastures 



Disasters 



Solvents, petroleum products, 
microbial agents, other hazardous 
materials 



Earthquake-caused pipeline and storage tank failures and 
damage to sewage treatment and containment facilities, 
major spills of hazardous materials, flood water 
contamination of storage reservoirs and groundwater 
sources 



A Source Water Protection Example. DHS requested that the Department perform a sanitary 
survey of the SWP. The Department's 1990 initial survey and 1996 update provide an example 
of factors considered in source protection studies. Table 3-32 lists some recommendations for 
action resulting from the sanitary survey. 



3-98 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapters. Water Supplies 



Table 3-32. State Water Project Sanitary Survey Update Recommendations 



Water Quality Problem 



Recommendation 



Pathogenic Organisms 

Disinfection By-Product Precursors (Organic 
Carbon) 

Disinfection By-Product Precursors (Bromide) 

Dissolved Solids and Turbidity in the 
California Aqueduct 

Hazardous Waste Facilities 
Hazardous Materials Releases 



Urban Runoff 



Barker Slough/North Bay Aqueduct 



Solid Waste Landfills 



Underground Storage Tanks 



Petroleum Product Pipelines 



Emergency Action Plan 



Implement pathogen monitoring program to evaluate risk of 
pathogens in State Water Project waters 

Investigate possible means of reducing organic carbon levels 
in the Delta and North Bay Aqueduct 

Investigate possible means of controlling bromide 
concentrations in State Water Project waters 

Measures to reduce salts and turbidity in the Aqueduct 
should be investigated 

An inventory of hazardous waste facilities and volume of 
hazardous materials should be obtained and reviewed 

Incidences of emergency responses to hazardous materials 
should be reviewed to determine types/amounts of materials 
released and potential for contamination in watershed 

Storm water monitoring in cities and urbanized areas should 
be reviewed to determine extent of discharge of 
contaminants 

Intensive study of the watershed should be conducted to 
determine sources and extent of contamination and to 
identify possible corrective measures 

A comprehensive review of solid waste landfills in State 
Water Project watersheds should be conducted 

Evaluation of status of leaking underground storage tanks 
within State Water Project watersheds should be performed 

Incidences of pipeline failures resulting in petroleum releases 
should be reviewed to determine potential for State Water 
Project water contamination 

Emergency Action Plan for the State Water Project should be 
reviewed to ensure document is up-to-date and functionally 
adequate 



The 1996 sanitary survey identified the need to address pathogenic organisms, such as 
Giardia and Cryptosporidium, in SWP waters. Recommendations were made to further 
investigate each watershed tributary to the SWP to evaluate the potential sources of pathogenic 
organisms and to develop a coordinated microbiological monitoring and reporting system for 
municipal SWP contractors and agencies. The Department and MWDSC have implemented a 
pathogen monitoring program. Under this program, regularly scheduled and storm event 
sampling for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and bacteria which serve as general indicators of 



3-99 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



microbiological contamination (such as Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, and total and 
fecal coliforms) is conducted at sites throughout the SWP. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Water Quality Planning. CALFED's objective for water 
quality is to provide good water quality for urban, agricultural, industrial, environmental, and 
recreational beneficial uses. To achieve this objective, CALFED will recommend strategies that 
address water quality parameters identified as a concern to beneficial uses. 

Through public workshops, CALFED developed a comprehensive list of water quality 
parameters of concern in the Bay-Delta watershed (see Table 3-33). This list was developed so 
water quality impacts to the estuary's five major beneficial uses of water (envirormient, urban, 
agriculture, recreation, and industrial) can be evaluated as proposed solutions for the Bay-Delta 
are considered. To help evaluate water quality improvements, CALFED set target values for 
each water quality parameter of concern. These water quality targets were based on existing 
regulatory criteria or other appropriate objectives where regulatory criteria do not exist. 

CALFED developed strategies to address water quality parameters of concern in the Delta and 
its tributaries. The strategies are recommended actions that improve water quality by reducing 
loadings fi^om the sources of water quality problems or changing water management practices. 
Action strategies to address water quality problems include a combination of research, pilot 
studies, and full-scale actions. Some of the action strategies being considered by CALFED 
include: 

• Reducing pollutant concentrations entering the Delta from the San Joaquin River. 

• Reducing vulnerability of Delta water quality to salinity intrusion by implementing the Delta 
Long-Term Protection Plan (including maintenance of Delta levees). 

• Improving water circulation in the Delta by constructing seasonally-operated barriers in south 
Delta chaimels. 

• Promoting and supporting efforts of local watershed programs that improve the water quality 
within the Delta and its tributaries. 

• Reducing the load of metals fi^om mine drainage entering the Delta and its tributaries. 

• Reducing urban and industrial pollutants entering the Delta and its tributaries by controlling 
urban and industrial runoff. 

• Controlling discharges of domestic wastes from boats within the Delta and its tributaries. 

3-100 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Identifying and implementing actions to address contaminants in water and sediment within 

the Delta and its tributaries. 

Reducing pollutants entering the Delta and its tributaries from agricultural runoff. 

Table 3-33. CALFED Bay-Delta Water Quality Parameters of Concern 



Environment 


Urban 


Agriculture 


Recreation 


Industrial 


Metals and Toxic 


Disinfection By- 


Boron 


Metal? 


Salinity 


plements 


product Precursors 


Chloride 


Mercury 


pH 


Cadmium 


Bromide 


Nutrients (Nitrate) 




Alkalinity 


Copper 


Total Organic Carbon 


pH (Alkalinity) 


Orsanics/Pesticide? 


Phosphates 


Mercury 




Salinity (TDS, EC) 


PCBs 


Ammonia 


Selenium 


Other 


Sodium Adsorption 


DDT 




Zinc 


Nutrients (Nitrate) 


Ratio 








Pathogens 


Turbidity 


Other 




Qrganic§/Pe?ticides 


Salinity (TDS) 


Temperature 


Pathogens 




Carbofuran 


pH 




Nutrients 




Chlordane 


Turbidity 








Chlorpyrifos 










DDT 










Diazinon 










PCBs 










Toxaphene 










Other 










Ammonia 










Dissolved Oxygen 










Salinity (TDS, EC) 








*' 


Temperature 










Turbidity 










Toxicity 











Colorado River Water Quality. The Colorado River is a major source of water supply to 
Southern California. The river is subject to various water quality influences because its 
watershed is so large. Much of the watershed is open space and agricultural lands, and municipal 
and industrial discharges are not a significant source of water quality degradation. Salts and 
turbidity from natural geologic formations and from agricultural operations are the primary forms 
of water quality degradation. Unlike the watersheds of the Delta, the soils of the Colorado River 
watershed are low in organic content. As a result, water from the Colorado River typically has 
only about one-half the capacity to produce disinfection by-products during drinking water 
treatment as does water from the Delta. 



3-101 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Mineral concentrations in the Colorado River are usually much higher than those found in the 
water taken from the Delta. For example, from 1993 to 1995, the average concentration of 
dissolved solids in MWDSC's Colorado River Aqueduct was 691 mg/L, while the average 
concentration in the California Aqueduct was 236 mg/L. When possible, MWDSC blends 
Colorado River water with SWP water or other sources to reduce the salt concentrations in the 
water delivered to customers. 

The federal Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 authorized construction of 
facilities to control Colorado River salinity to meet salinity requirements expressed in Minute 
242 of the U.S. - Mexican Treaty. Currently, salinity control activities are removing over 
600,000 tons of salt per year from the river system. However, to maintain the 1975 federally 
approved salinity standards for the basin, it is estimated that by the year 2010, approximately 1.5 
million tons of salt will have to be removed each year. An example of a salinity control feature 
in the basin is USBR's Yuma desalting plant, constructed to treat agricultural drainage from 
Arizona's Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District that had substantially increased 
river salinity. The plant, said to be the world's largest reverse osmosis desalter, has a capacity of 
75 mgd. Plant construction was completed in the early 1990s, but the facility has not been 
operated in a production mode due to cost considerations. (Current levels of river flow and 
USBR's bypass of an Arizona agricultural drainage canal are enabling treaty water quality 
requirements to be met without use of the desalter.) 
Groundwater Quality 

There has been growing concern over the potential human health threat of pathogens in 
groundwater used as drinking water. This concern stems from pathogens such as Giardia, 
Cryptosporidium^ bacteria, and viruses being found in water taken from wells. Several 
waterbome-disease outbreaks associated with groundwater used as a source of drinking water 
have been reported outside California. Some of these outbreaks are listed in Table 3-34. 



3-102 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Table 3-34. Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks Associated with Groundwater 
Used as a Drinking Water Source, 1993-1994 



State 



Month/Year 



Pathogenic Organism 



Organism 
Type 



No. of 
Cases 



Minnesota 


November 1993 


Campylobacter jejuni 


Bacterium 


32 


Missouri 


November 1993 


Salmonella serotype 
Typhimurium 


Bacterium 


625 


New York 


June 1993 


Campylobacter jejuni 


Bacterium 


172 


Pennsylvania 


January 1993 


Giardia lamblia 


Protozoan 


20 


South Dakota 


September 1993 


Giardia lamblia 


Protozoan 


7 


Washington 


April 1993 


Cryptosporidium parvum 


Protozoan 


7 


Idaho 


June 1994 


Shigella flexneri 


Bacterium 


33 


Minnesota 


June 1994 


Campylobacter jejuni 


Bacterium 


19 


New York 


June 1994 


Shigella sonnei 


Bacterium 


230 


Washington 


August 1994 


Cryptosporidium parvum 


Protozoan 


134 



The concern about pathogens in groundwater has led to regulatory discussions on disinfection 
requirements for groundwater. It is currently estimated that the Groundwater Disinfection Rule 
will be proposed sometime in 1999 and will become effective in 2002. The risks to human 
health posed by the presence of these pathogens in groundwater supplies have not yet been 
determined. The data obtained through the Information Collection Rule will provide the 
necessary information to assess the extent and severity of risk. 

The SDWA requires states to implement wellhead protection programs designed to prevent 
the contamination of groundwater supplying public drinking water wells. Wellhead protection 
programs rely heavily on local efforts to be effective, because communities have the primary 
access to information on potential contamination sources and can adopt locally-based measures 
to manage these potential contamination sources. EPA has recommended five steps that 
communities can take to implement wellhead protection: 

• Form a community planning organization. 

• Define the land area around the well to be protected. 

• Identify potential sources of contamination within the area. 

• Develop and implement a management plan to protect the area. 

• Plan for emergencies and future water supply needs. 



3-103 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 3. Water Supplies 



Water Supply Summary by Hydrologic Region 

This chapter described how the State's water suppHes are affected by climate and hydrology, 
how water supplies are calculated, and how water supplies are reallocated through storage and 
conveyance facilities and through water transfers. Also, this chapter discussed water quality 
considerations that affect beneficial uses of California's water supplies. 

Table 3-35 summarizes average year water supplies by hydrologic region assuming existing 
1995 and future 2020 levels of development and existing facilities and programs. Similarly, 
Table 3-36 summarizes drought year water supplies by hydrologic region for existing and future 
levels of development. Regional water supplies, along with water demands presented in the 
following chapter, provide the basis for regional water budgets developed in Chapters 7 through 
9 and the statewide water budget developed in Chapter 1 0. 



3-104 



DRAFT 



O 

a> 

1 Sj 

Si B 
tn c 
.2 •" 
"5. w 

ll 

(0 ^^ 
O CO 

>■ © 

0):= 
(0 o 
^ (0 









i 

c 
S 

C5 



CO 


♦J 




CO 


c 




k 


X 


o 


o 


(^ 






£ 


CO 


4-* 


o 


^ 


id 




CO 




CO 




o 








£ 




CO 




H 





Q) 



i 

c 

3 

S 

CD 



<N VO t^ 00 

t^ t^ m oo 
vo^ — Tt <N 



<N 

oo 



00 






— On oo 
-N OS 00 

<N r- (N 



oo 
oo 

(N 









(N 



00 



OS VO vO 

<N ^ en 

O ^^ VO^ 

— r — " <N 



<N 






vo m r~- '— 
oo oo <N v^ 
f«^ — rvj <N 



rn 



r^ r^ rt oo 

vO VO ^ oo 

o^ m r-^ — 






oo 



o >n f*^ 
<N Tt <N 
O >/^ O 



O 



»n — «ri >/^ 
-N r^ m Tt 
-^ m — u-i 






oo 

o 



o 



oo 



C 
O 

I 






oo r^ 

-^ o 






<N 


OO 
VO 


o 




<N 


OS 






.« 


— 


<N 


<N 



O t^ OS t^ 
rt U^ f«^ m 

m — ' <N CO 



o 

<N 



— OO 

— o 



O rn 

r~» 00 



oo 

so 



oo oo <N Tt 
vo m rsj >n 

OS o m — 



v« 



cd 
O 
U 



o 



ca 

o 
o 



C/D 



O 

U 

IS 

is 
c 
u 





t> 


U 








> 

5 


> 

5 




c 
o 

-J 


(d 

O 


o 
c 


c 
'3 




3 
O 


k. 

^ 


o 


,3 


o 


C/3 


C/3 


C/3 


H 



c 
o 

■S 

3 
O 



o 

T3 

k. 

_o 
o 
U 



ed 




^ 




•o 




« 












o. 




o. 




ed 




3 




c 




^ 




o 




J= 




M 




iS 


% 


cd 


w 


"O 


T3 




k. 


>^ 


U 


"o. 


> 

o 


o. 




s 


k. 
o 


^ 


cd 


4> 


^ 


A 


T3 


^ 


C 



u 



— r-j 









^ 


-"it 


OS 


«n 


<N 


;2; 


O 


00 


t^ 


00 






(0 


Tt 


U-i 


VO 


m 


0^ 




w^* 


»n 


■"sr 


t^ 


^ 




«* 


m 


-^^ 


rn 


00 


<N 


^^ 


VO 


00 


t^ 


<N 




i2 


r. 




















•s 




o 


"n" 




-^ 




oo'' 


Os" 






■^'' 


?$ 






"0 




























o 




























g. 


Tf 


in 


<N 


oo 


o 


o 


o 


00 


r- 


u-> 


o 








m 


rf 


<N 










fvj 




t>- 












fO 














^ 


•• 




^ 
























c 
o 




s 
























"5) 


1 






























•JS 


^m 


^^ 


U-i 


(N 


P>M 


(N 


OS 


00 


OS 


O 


o 


o 




1? 


fN 


OS 


-^ 


fS 


00 




OS 


o 


r«- 


•n 


*i^ 


Hydrologi 
per year) 




1 

s 


m 






"^^ 






»n 


fS 


<N 


c^^ 




>»*s 


8 
























jQ 4S 


<N 


o 


m 


Tf 


,^ 


<N 


_ 


<N 


^^ 


m 


o 


|E 


H 


oo 

<N 


00 


00 


o 


O 
»n 


3^ 


S 


5 


o 


s 


s 


o" 


en 




rn 


o" 


»n 


CO 






Tf 


fo 


Q. (0 


<0 




»n 


















"* 


S- E 


























1 n 


























(0 t- 


























«- ? 


i«« 
























B s 


iS 


1—1 


<N 


oo 


Tf 


00 


On 


I—I 


r» 


On 


On 


o 




OS 




i*-^ 


^ 


m 


•n 


00 


en 


•n 


r^ 


"* 


(0 Q. 


"^^ 


^^ 


en 


^^ 


(N 


Tf 


VO^ 


00 


Ul 


Tt 




St5 




o 


ut" 




-^^ 


c^t" 


oo" 


oT 






rr" 


9\ 
























V) 


"- £ 


























CO CB 




























® (0 




■o 


























o 
























. . ■■■ 




§. 


rt 


in 


\o 


r- 


o 


O 


o 


00 


t-- 


U-1 


o 


£•£ 






m 


<N 


^ 










<N 






0)q 




^ 
























S (« 




q: 
























O H^ 




























Fornia Dr 
existing 


O) 


«M 


"^ 


<N 


<N 




00 


o 


o 


r^ 


m 


r- 


o 




5 


as 


OS 


Tf 


r^ 


v-^ 


o 


r^ 


00 


r^ 


m 


00 




1 


(N 






en 




OS^ 


OS^ 


^^ 


fS 


m 


1^ 
i/T 


= £ 




§ 






















wN 


(0 ^ 


























o 5 




1 
























<d 




























•? 


























CO 


8 
























0> 


<^ 


«r> 


O 


»n 


_• 


OS 


— < 


<N 


OS 


00 


o 


oo 


00 


«n 


oo 


<N 


m 


i«i^ 


S 


»n 


(N 


n 






*H 




o^ 


O^ 


U-)^ 


r-; 


(N 




o 


S 


o" 


•n 




fo 


o" 


irT 


en 






"^^ 


fo 


(/) 






















"* 


H 




























c 
.o 

1 


1 


PQ 

c 
u 


-t-t 

i 


1 

o 

u 


> 

i 

4> 


> 

.S 

3 




C 

o 


§ 


> 

1 


? 

-a 
o 
a 

2 






o 


£ 
g 


1 

c 


■5 

3 
O 




►^ 
§ 


1 

3 


1 


1 


1 

o 










Z 


<yD 


U 


C/D 


(Z) 


</) 


H 


Z 


C/3 


U 


H 



•a 






cd 

> 

O 

I 



■& 

3 
O 



l9 ® (5 



•a 

X 



— M 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environnjental Water Use 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

This chapter reviews present and forecasted demands for urban, agricuhural, and 
environmental water use, and updates data presented in the 1 993 CaUfomia Water Plan Update. 
The chapter is organized into three major sections, one for each category of water use. Some 
background information associated with these water uses, but not part of the calculation of 
present and forecasted demands, is presented in the Chapter 4 appendix. 

Water demand information is presented at the hydrologic region level of detail. The base 
year for present water use is 1995. The Bulletin 160-98 planning horizon extends to 2020, as did 
the planning horizon for the 1993 Bulletin. Forecasted 2020-level urban and agricultural water 
demands have not changed greatly since publication of the last Bulletin five years ago. 
Forecasted urban water demands depend heavily on population forecasts. Although the 
Department of Finance has updated its California population projections since the last Bulletin, 
U.S. Census data are an important foundation for the projections, and a new census will not be 
performed until 2000. The Department's forecasts of agricultural demands tend to change fairly 
slowly in the short-term, because the corresponding changes in forecasted agricultural acreage 
are a small percentage of the State's total irrigated acreage. 

There have been changes in base year and forecasted environmental water demands from 
the last Bulletin, reflecting implementation of SWRCB's Order WR 95-6 for the Bay-Delta, and 
emphasis given to evaluating future environmental demands in forums such as the CALFED 
Bay-Delta program and the CVPIA's AFRP. In the prior Bulletin, calculation of future 
environmental demands was based only on required Bay-Delta outflow, flows in wild and scenic 
rivers, required instream flows, and water needs of managed freshwater wildlife refuges. The 
current Bulletin includes proposed instream flow demands, as available, from CALFED' s and 
AFRP's planning processes. 



4-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Summary of Key Statistics 




Shown below for quick reference are some key statistics presented in this chapter. For | 


the water use information, values shown are for 


average 


water year conditions. 


The details 


behind the statistics are discussed later. 








1995 California population 




32.1 million 




2020 California population forecast 




47.5 million 




1995 California irrigated crop acreage 




9.5 million acres 




2020 California irrigated crop acreage forecast 


9.2 million acres 




1995 urban water use 




8.8 maf 




2020 urban water use forecast 




12.0 maf 




1995 agricultural water use 




33.8 maf 




2020 agricultural water use forecast 




31.5 maf 




1 995 environmental water use 




36.1 maf 




2020 environmental water use forecast 




37.0 maf 




1995 




2020 




Urban Water Use 11% 




15% 




Agricultural Water Use 43% 




39% 


"^ 


Environmental Water Use 46% 




46% 




Total California Water Use 100% 




100% 





Calculation of Water Demands 

The urban, agricultural, and environmental water demands calculated in this chapter are 
combined with Chapter 3 water supply information to form the regional water budgets shown in 
Chapters 7-9, and the California water budget shown in Chapter 10. As noted in the Chapter 3 
discussion of water supplies. Bulletin 160-98 water budgets are being computed with applied 
water data, rather than the net water data used in previous editions of the Bulletin. 

Another change from Bulletin 160-93 was the elimination of the "Other" water demand 
category. Water uses previously categorized as "Other" are now included in urban, agricultural, 
or environmental water use according to their intended purpose. In previous Bulletin 160 
updates, the "Other" category included major canal conveyance losses, recreation use, cooling 



4-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Uae 

water use, energy recovery use, and use by high water using industries. At a statewide level, the 
magnitude of these other uses is small in comparison to that of the major categories. 

The definitions shown below are important to understanding the water demand 
information presented in this chapter. Following the definitions. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 provide 
examples of how the definitions are used. 

Applied Water Demand'. The amount of water from any source needed to meet the 
demand of the user. It is the quantity of water delivered to any of the following locations: 

• the intake to a city water system or factory 

• the farm headgate or other point of measurement 

• a managed wetland, either directly or by drainage flows. 

For existing instream use, applied water demand is the quantity of stream flow dedicated 
to: instream use (or reserved under the federal or state Wild and Scenic Rivers acts); repelling 
salinity; or maintaining flows in the San Francisco Bay/Delta pursuant to the State Water 
Resources Control Board's standards. 

Net Water Demand: The amount of water needed in a water service area to meet all 
demands. It is the sum of evapotranspiration of applied water in an area; the irrecoverable losses 
from the distribution system; and agricultural return flow or treated municipal outflow leaving 
the area. 

Irrecoverable Losses: The water lost to a salt sink or lost by evaporation or 
evapotranspiration from a conveyance facility, drainage canal, or in fringe areas. 

Depletion: The water consumed within a service area and no longer available as a source 
of supply. For agriculture and wetlands, it is ETAW (and ET of flooded wetlands) plus 
irrecoverable losses. For urban water use, it is ETAW (water applied to landscaping or home 
gardens), sewage effluent that flows to a salt sink, and incidental evapotranspiration losses. For 
instream use, it is the amount of dedicated flow that proceeds to a salt sink. 

Evapotranspiration (ET„)\ the quantity of water transpired (given off), retained in plant 
tissues, and evaporated from plant tissues and surrounding soil surfaces. 

Evapotranspiration of applied water (ETA W): the portion of the total 
evapotranspiration which is provided by irrigation. 

4-3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-1. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion 

Water Use in Inland Area 



500 Uni ts 



400 
Uni ts 



Diversion to Service | 

Area 1 00 U n i t s I liflaiHMaBi 

^^ ^"''^ / FARM -A- / 

/ Applied Water / 

i 90 Un i ts / 

' 1 X X — ' 

Deep Percolation Irrecoverable 

10 Units f i }'ff^* 

' 4 Un I t s 



Outflow 

21 Uni ts 



EFAW 

7 Uni ts 1 



WILDLIFE AREA 

Applied Wateri 

21 Un I tr 



10 Uni ts 



ETAW 

\ 3 Uni fs 



COY 

Applied Water 

10 Un i ts 



Deep Percolation 

2 Uni ts 



Irrecoverable 
Losses* 

1 Uni t 



ETAW 

18 Uni ts 



Groundwater 
Pumpage 

12 Uni ts 



1 



FARM "B' 

Applied Water 

30 Uni ts 



'*S 5 



□ 



J^ 




Return Flow 
1 From Service Area 



12 Uni ts 



Reuseable in Downstream 
Service Area 



412 Uni ts 



J 



Treated 
Outflow 

4 Uni ts 





Farm "A" 


Wildlife 
Area 


City 


Farm "B" 


TOTAL 




Applied Water 


90 


21 


10 


30 


151 


ETAW 


55 


7 


3 


18 


83 


Irrecoverable Losses* 


4 





1 





5 


Depletion 


59 


7 


4 


18 


88 



ETAW = EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OF APPLIED WATER 



4-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-2. Derivation of Applied Water, Net Water Use, and Depletion 

Water Use in Coastal Area 



5CX) Unl ts 



Diversion to Service 
Area lOO Un i t5 



ETAW /— 

55 Un i t g / 



Jl^ — X- 



Z- fABM 'A' I 
Appltad Water / 
90 Uni ts / 
. I 



10 Uni ts 



Percotatton 



Omo PercoM 
10 Uni ts 



^ ♦ 



4 Uni ts 



Outflow 

21 Units 



ETAW 

7 Uni ts i 

V 

v ^ 

AREA 

Applied Water 

^1 Uni ts 



Irrecoverable 



ETAW 

V '8 M"' '5 Groundwatw 

I Pumpa^e 

12 Uni ts 



FARM 'B' 

Applied Water 

26 Uni ts 



i^ 



I 



O 




Return Flow 
From Service Area 

8 Uni ts 



Uni t$ 



ETAW 

3 Uni ts 



CITY 

Applied Water 

10 Un i t s 



i 



D*ap ParcoMion 

1 Uni ts 



Irrecoverable 
Lonee* 

I Uni t 



, Treated 

\ Outflow 

4 Uni ts 




SALT SINK 



Farm "A" Wildlife 

Area 



City 



Farm "B" 



TOTAL 



Applied Water 90 

ETAW 55 

Irrecoverable Losses* 4 

Depletion 59 



21 


10 


26 


147 


7 


3 


18 


83 





5 


8 


17 


7 


8 


26 


100 



ETAW - EVAPOTRANSPIRADON OF APPUED WATER 



4-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

Urban Water Use 

Forecasts of future urban water use for the Bulletin are based on population information 
and per capita water use estimates, as described in this section. Factors influencing per capita 
water use include expected demand reduction due to implementation of water conservation 
programs. The Department has modeled effects of conservation measures and socioeconomic 
changes on per capita use in 20 major water service areas, so that future changes in per capita use 
by hydrologic region can be estimated. 

This Bulletin makes per capita water use estimates at a statewide level of detail. An 
urban water agency making such estimates for its own service area would be able to incorporate 
more complexity in its forecasting, because the scope of its effort is narrow. For this reason, and 
because California Department of Finance population projections seldom exactly match 
population projections prepared by cities and counties, the Bulletin's per capita water use values 
are expected to be representative of, rather than identical to, those of local water agencies. 
Population Growth 

Bulletin 160-98 uses year 2020 for its planning horizon, as did Bulletin 160-93. Both 
bulletins relied on information generated in the 1990 United States census. The census, 
conducted every 10 years, is a major benchmark for population projections. The California 
Department of Finance works from the decadal census to calculate the State's population in 
noncensus years, and to project future populations. Figure 4-3 shows DOF's currently projected 
growth rates by county for year 2020. (State policy requires that all state agencies use DOF 
population projections for planning, funding, and policymaking activities.) 



4-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Ct)apter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-3. Projected Growth Rates by County, 1995 to 2020 



SISKIYOU 



MODOC 



K-y^.-X 



/ 



SHASTA 



LAesEN 



TRINITY ^ 



^,' 



MENDOCINO 



TEHAMA .fi ^' ^. 
^ , PLUMAS V 

S 
BUHE 

\ LAKE .CDUiSA«^ ^'^^^ 
EL KMADO 




^SONOMA '^ NAPA 1 



1<F 



JOAQUIN 



lALPINE , 

-J 

X ^ 
TUOLUMNE " ^ 




MONO 



ALAMEDA^^^Ig^^j^ >:; MARIPOSA 
SANTA ' 



CLARA w/ MERCED 
.MONTEREY^, -s^-r^ 



MADERA 



,^ 



-\ 



fRESNO __ 

.^ \ 

TULARE 
KINSS , 



INYO 



SAN 

LUIS 
OBISPO 



L0f9ad 

^■1 - 20% 

I I 20X - 40X 

I I 40X - 60X 

^■i 60X - 60X 
SOX - lOOX 
Over lOOX 



SANTA 
3AR5ARA 



VENTURA 



\ LOS ANGELES 



0'^:>'- 






llf^lAL 



4-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

DOF uses as its starting population the 1990 census, as modified by the Bureau of the 
Census for known misreporting. (These counts represent a modification to the age distribution of 
the census count and not an adjustment for undercount to the total.) Although between 1950 and 
1980 the birthrate in California and in the nation was similar, a sharp divergence began during 
the 1980s. While the nation's birthrate was flat, the birthrate in California rose sharply. 

California's annual growth rate was 2 to 3 percent throughout the 1980s. Since 1990, 
however, the rate slowed to 1.3 percent and the State's population grew by only 2 million, for a 
total 1995 population of 32.1 million. A lower than projected natural increase (births minus 
deaths) and net migration have affected California's growth since 1992. Domestic migration 
patterns tend to parallel the unemployment differential rate between California and other states. 
Between 1990-94, California lost more than 700,000 jobs due to the economic recession. This 
job loss resulted in a new demographic phenomenon for California—a net migration of California 
residents to other states. By spring 1996, California had replaced the jobs lost during the 
recession. 

Migration is the most volatile component of population change. Migrants are separated 
into two categories: domestic (from other states) or foreign (from other countries). Since 1980, 
approximately 30 percent of net migration has been domestic and 70 percent foreign. Since 1970, 
annual migration has fluctuated from less than 100,000 to more than 450,000. The wide 
fluctuations are primarily attributed to domestic migration, since undocumented migration has 
been fairly constant and legal foreign migration has slowly increased. Figure 4-4 shows the 
components of growth, natural increase and net migration, for the years 1940 to 1995. 

Data about California's population—its geographic distribution and projections of future 
population and their distribution— come from several entities. The Department works with base 
year and projected year population information developed by the DOF for each county in the 
State. DOF uses a baseline cohort-component method to project population by gender, 
race/ethnicity, and age. A baseline projection assumes people have the right to migrate where 
they choose and no major natural catastrophes or wars will occur. A cohort-component method 
traces people bom in a given year throughout their lives. As each year passes, cohorts change due 



4-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

to mortality and migration assumptions. New cohorts are formed by applying birthrate 
assumptions to women of childbearing age. Special populations display different demographic 
behavior and other characteristics and must be projected separately. The primary sources of 
special populations are prisons, colleges, and military installations. 



4-9 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-4. Components of Population Growth, 1940-1995 



1000 



800 



600 



£ 400 

c 
o 



200 - 



-200 




1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



Natural Inaease 



- Net Migration 



Total Growth 



4-10 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Population projections used in this Bulletin are based on DOF's Special Interim 
Population Projections for the Department of Water Resources (May 1996). Table 4-1 shows the 
1995 through 2020 population figures for Bulletin 160-98 by hydrologic region. 

The Department allocated county population data to Bulletin 1 60 study areas based on 

watershed or water district boundaries. Factors considered in distributing the data to Bulletin 160 

study areas include population projections prepared by cities, counties, and local Councils of 

Governments, which typically incorporate future development envisioned in city and county 

general plans. These local agency projections indicate which areas within a county are expected 

to experience growth, and provide guidance in allocating DOF's projection for an entire county 

into smaller Bulletin 160 study areas. Table 4-2 compares DOF Special Interim Projections with 

Councils of Governments and County projections. 

Table 4-1. California Population by Hydrologic Region 

(in millions)" 



Hydrologic Regions 1995 2020 

North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
South Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 

California Total 32A 47.5'' 

a Columns may not sum due to independent rounding. 

b For comparison, Bulletin 160-93 forecasted a 2020 population of 48.9 
million, 1.4 million people higher than this Bulletin's 2020 forecast. 



0.6 


0.8 


5.8 


7.0 


1.3 


1.9 


17.3 


24.3 


2.4 


3.8 


1.6 


3.0 


1.7 


3.3 


0.1 


0.1 


0.7 


2.0 


0.5 


1.1 



4-11 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



CfiapterA. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-2. Comparison Between Department of Finance Special Interim and 

Councils of Governments Projections 







July 2010" 




\^Bnsus lififu 


DOF 


COG 


Southern California Counties 


17,138,848 


23,351,500 


24,038,300 


Bay Area Counties 


6,020,147 


7,488,900 


7,539,600 


Central Coast Counties 


1,172,164 


1,507,600 


1,517,500 


Greater Sacramento Counties 


1,683,463 


2,541,800 


2,586,000 


San Joaquin Valley Counties 


2,742,000 


4,607,800 


4,640,500 



a Councils of Governments data were only available for 2010, thus 2010 COG forecasts are 
compared with B 160-98 2010 projections. 

Factors Affecting Urban Per Capita Water Use 

Urban per capita water use includes residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional 
uses of water. Each of these categories can be broken down into greater levels of detail. 
Residential water use, for example, includes interior and exterior (e.g., landscaping) water use. 
At a site-specifc level of detail for an individual community, it is possible to break down urban 
water use into components and forecast each component separately. It is not possible to use this 
level of detail for each community in the State at the level of forecasting performed for Bulletin 
160-98. Instead, we have modeled components of urban use for representative urban water 
agencies in each of the State's ten hydrologic regions and have extrapolated those results to the 
remainder of each hydrologic region, as described later in the chapter. 

Assumptions about demand reduction achieved through implementation of water 
conservation measures are an important part of per capita water use forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 
incorporates demand reductions from implementation of urban best management practices 
contained in the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding for Urban Water Conservation. We 
assume implementation of the urban MOU's BMPs by 2020, which would result in a demand 
reduction of about 1.5 maf over year 2020 without BMP implementation. The following 
subsections provide more detail on demand reduction achieved through water conservation, and 
existing urban water conservation programs. 

The relationship of water pricing to water consumption, and the role of pricing in 
achieving water conservation, has been a subject of discussion in recent years. Urban water rates 



4-12 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

in California vary widely, with geographic location having a major influence. Water rates are set 
by local agencies to recover their costs of providing water service, and are highly site-specific. 
Appendix 4A provides background information on urban water pricing. 

Urban Water Conservation Actions. State and federal legislative actions have imposed 
standards to improve the water use efficiency of plumbing fixtures, by requiring that fixtures 
manufactured, sold, or installed after specified dates meet the targets shown in Table 4-3. These 
requirements apply to new construction or to retrofitting existing plumbing fixtures, but do not 
require removal and replacement of existing fixtures. One water conservation action being taken 
by urban water agencies is to sponsor programs for voluntary retrofitting of fixtures, to accelerate 
resulting demand reductions. (This action is one of the BMPs included in the MOU described 
below.) 



4-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Ctiapter4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-3. Summary of California and Federal Plumbing Fixture Requirements 



Plumbing Device 


California 

(covers sale and 

Installation) 


Effective 
Date 


Federal Energy 

Policy Act of 1992 

(covers only 

manufacture) 


Showerheads 


2.5 gpm 


CA: 3-20-92 
US: 1-1-94 


2.5 gpm 


Lavatory Faucets' 


2.75 gpm 
2.2 gpm 


CA: 12-22-78 
CA: 3-20-92 
US: 1-1-94 


2.5 gpm 


Sink Faucets' 


2.2 gpm 


CA: 3-20-92 
US: 1-1-94 


2.5 gpm 


Metering (self-closing) 

Faucets^ 

(public restrooms) 


hot water maximum 
flow rates range from 
0.25 to 0.75 gallons/ 
cycle and/or from 0.5 
gpm to 2.5 gpm, 
depending on confrols 
and hot water system 


CA: 7-1-92 
US: 1-1-94 


0.25 gallons/cycle 
(pertains to maximum 
water delivery per 
cycle) 


Tub Spout Diverter' 


0. 1 (new), to 0.3 gpm 
(after 15,000 cycles of 
diverting) 


CA: 3-20-92 


(does not appear to be 
included in FEPA) 


Water Closets 
(residential) 


1.6 gpf 


CA: 1-1-92 (new 
construction) 
CA: 1-1-94 (all toilets for 
sale or installation) 
US: 1-1-94 (non- 
commercial) 


1.6 gpf 


Flushometer valves' 


1.6 gpf 


CA: 1-1-92 (new 

construction) 

CA: 1-1-94 (all toilets) 

US: 1-1-94 (commercial) 

US: 1-1-97 (commercial) 


3.5 gpf 

1.6 gpf 


Water Closets ("For 
Commercial Use")' 


1.6 gpf 


CA: 1-1-94 (all toilets for 
sale or installation) 
US: 1-1-97 


1.6 gpf 


Urinals 


1.0 gpf 


CA: 1-1-92 (new) 
CA: 1-1-94 (all) 
US: 1-1-94 


1.0 gpf 



Indicates that California requirements are preexisting and more stringent than federal law; therefore California 

requirement prevail in California. 

Indicates that federal law is more stringent than California requirements. 



4-14 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

More than 200 urban water suppliers have signed the 1991 Memorandum of 
Understanding for Urban Water Conservation (described in Chapter 2) and are now members of 
the California Urban Water Conservation Council. (CUWCC membership also includes 
environmental organizations and other interest groups.) Water suppliers signing the urban MOU 
are committed to implementing BMPs unless a cost-benefit analysis conducted according to 
CUWCC guidelines showed individual BMPs not to be cost-effective or there is a legal barrier. 
The MOU also commits CUWCC to studying measures that could potentially be added as 
additional BMPs, such as establishing efficiency standards for water-using appliances. 



Landscape Water Use 

The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance was added to Title 23 of the 
California Code of Regulations in response to requirements of the 1990 Water Conservation 
in Landscaping Act. Local agencies that did not adopt their own such ordinances by 
January 1993 were required to begin enforcement of the model ordinance as of that date. 

The model ordinance applies to all new and rehabilitated landscaping (more than 
2,500 square feet in size) for public agency projects and private development projects that 
require a local agency permit, and to developer-installed landscaping for single-family and 
multi-family residential projects. The purpose of the ordinance was to promote water 
efficient landscape design, installation, and maintenance. The general approach of the 
ordinance is to use 0.8 ETq as a water use goal for new and renovated landscapes. Tools to 
help meet that goal include proper landscape and irrigation system design. 



Efforts to quantify demand reduction from implementation of some of the BMPs have 
been difficult (e.g., quantifying the results of public information programs and water education in 
schools. These actions contribute to implementation of other BMPs, such as plumbing retrofits, 
but do not by themselves save water). CUWCC reviewed implementation and quantification of 
the current BMPs, and developed a strategic plan in 1996 whose elements included evaluating 
the BMPs and revising them as necessary to make them easier to quantify. The revised BMPs 
(see sidebar) were adopted by CUWCC in September 1997. The revisions included restructuring 
the original 16 BMPs to 13 BMPs (two new BMPs were added - rebate programs for high 
efficiency washing machines and wholesale water agency assistance to retail water agencies), 
revising implementation schedules and coverage requirements, and adding new evaluation 

4-15 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

criteria. The implementation of some BMPs was extended beyond the original 10-year term of 
the existing MOU. Appendix 4B presents a synopsis of the revisions. 

For the purpose of making Bulletin urban per capita use forecasts, the Department 
assumes that the BMPs will be implemented by 2020, as described in the following section on 
forecasting. BMP implementation is estimated to result in a 2020 demand reduction of 1 .5 maf 
statewide. As discussed in Chapter 6, this demand reduction is not the same as creating new 
water supply. Only conservation actions that reduce irrecoverable losses (such as water 
discharged to the ocean or to saline perched groundwater) actually create new water supply from 
a statewide standpoint. We assume that BMPs will be implemented statewide because of their 
other potential benefits to local agencies, such as reduced costs for municipal water and 
wastewater treatment. 

Effects of Droughts on Water Use, After the severe, but brief, 1 976-77 drought, 
statewide water use data showed that urban per capita water use rates returned to their 
pre-drought levels within 3-4 years. During the longer 1987-92 drought, urban per capita water 
use rates declined by about 19 percent on the average statewide. The Department's data show 
increases in per capita water use following that drought, due to removal of mandatory water 
rationing and other short-term restrictions. In 1995, statewide per-capita urban water use 
remained about 8 percent below pre-drought levels. Figure 4-5 shows changes in statewide per 
capita use over time. At a local level, there may be factors other than drought contributing to this 
decline in per capita use, but when viewed at a statewide level the data show a strong response to 
hydrologic conditions. (As shown in Table 4-3, most of the new requirements for water- 
conserving plvmibing fixtures did not take effect until after the last drought.) 



4-16 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-5. Changes in Urban Per Capita Water Use Over Time 




1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 



4-17 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Urban Best Management Practices (1997 Revision) 

BMP #1, Water Audits Programs for single-family and multi-family residential customers 

BMP #2, Residential Plumbing Retrofit 

BMP #3, Distribution System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair 

BMP #4, Metering With Commodity Rates 

BMP #5, Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives 

BMP #6, High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs 

BMP #7, Public Information Programs 

BMP #8, School Education Programs 

BMP #9, Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts 

BMP #10, Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs 

BMP #11, Conservation Pricing 

BMP #12, Conservation Coordinator 

BMP #13, Residential ULFT Replacement Programs 



Urban Water Use Planning Activities 

The Department has surveyed retail water agencies and analyzed their water production 
data for more than 35 years, and has published the data in our Bulletin 166 series. Urban Water 
Use in California. Bulletin 166-4, published in 1994, summarized monthly urban water 
production data for nearly 300 retail water purveyors (distributed throughout the State's ten 
major hydrologic regions) from 1980-1990. This water use information, updated in annual 
surveys performed by the Department, forms the basis for water use estimates made for Bulletin 
160. The next update of Bulletin 166 will publish post- 1990 data. 

The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers with 3,000 or 
more connections, or that deliver over 3,000 af of water per year, to prepare urban water 
management plans and to submit them to the Department. The initial set of plans was due in 
1985, and the plans are to be updated every five years. Table 4-4 shows the number of agencies 
affected by the law, and those that had submitted their 1995 plans as of March 1997. The 1995 
plans received were from agencies representing almost 90 percent of all urban water deliveries. 
These plans have multiple purposes, including demonstrating how local agencies propose to 
implement water conservation measures and how the agencies plan to meet water supply 
reliability goals in drought years. 



4-18 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-4. 1995 Urban Water Management Plans 



Hydrologic Region 


Plans Expected 


Plans Filed 


North Coast 


13 


10 


San Francisco Bay 


60 


46 


Central Coast 


28 


17 


South Coast 


187 


152 


Sacramento River 


35 


33 


San Joaquin River 


29 


12 


Tulare Lake 


22 


13 


North I ^hontan 


5 


2 


South I ^hontan 


12 


11 


Colorado River 


13 


6 


Total 


404 


302 



The CALFED Bay-Delta program is including water use efficiency ~ in the urban, 
agricultural, and environmental sectors — as one of the common elements required for all its 
proposed Delta alternatives. Major elements of a potential urban water use efficiency program 
now under discussion could include: 

(1) Requirements that urban water management plans be implemented more vigorously 
and that the Department should review and certify those plans. 

(2) Revisions to the BMPs to make them more quantifiable. 

(3) Requirements that CUWCC certify BMP implementation. 

CALFED is also examining assurances that the urban water use efficiency program will 
be implemented vigorously. For example, urban water agencies that choose not to implement the 
program could be excluded from CALFED water transfers, from new supplies made available by 
CALFED actions, or from participating in certain loan and grant programs. In addition, 
CALFED has suggested that SWRCB could be asked to pursue its obligations to investigate 
waste and unreasonable use more vigorously. 



4-19 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Variation in Conservation Estimates - Bulletin 160 and CALFED 

This update of the California Water Plan presents the Department's estimates of 
reductions in water demand that may occur from the implementation of urban and agricultural 
water conservation. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program will also develop estimates of future 
reductions in water demand. The estimates prepared by the Department and CALFED will 
not be identical, because they are prepared for different planning purposes and they examine 
different future scenarios. 

Bulletin 160-98 is a framework for making water resources decisions. Base case 
estimates of future conservation savings are prudently conservative (limited to implementation 
of urban BMPs and agricultural EWMPs) so that the future gap between supply and demand is 
not underestimated. Additional options for potential future conservation savings, which may 
be more difficult to achieve, are also presented. 

CALFED will propose a comprehensive, long-term solution to interrelated resource 
problems of the Bay-Delta, including water supply reliability. Estimates of conservation 
savings under the CALFED "no-action" and "with-project" alternatives are being prepared. 
The no-action estimate will be similar to the base case described in Bulletin 160-98, but will 
describe more demand management than the more conservative Bulletin 160-98 estimate. 
The CALFED with-project estimate will be comparable to the options in the Bulletin, but will 
include more demand management water savings. This will reflect the sharp increases in 
funding and regulatory support that CALFED will propose for demand management 
programs. 



Urban Water Use Forecasting 

Urban water use forecasting techniques relate future water use to expected changes in 

factors knovm to influence water use. Early forecasting methods were relatively simple and 
relied only on service area population to explain water use, assuming a direct relationship 
between population growth and applied water demand. Such methods can provide acceptable 
results over the short term, especially during periods of abundant water supply and steady 
economic growth. However, mid- to long-term forecast accuracy may decrease sharply due to 
changes in other variables that influence water use. Among these determining factors are changes 
in the ratio of single to multifamily dwellings, climate, commercial and industrial growth, 
income, future water conservation actions, and water pricing. (Although the price of water 
currently plays a small role in water use, it could become more important if water prices increase 
significantly. The urban water price elasticity section in Appendix 4 A provides more detail on 
this subject.) New urban water supplies will be relatively expensive, so understanding the 
interactions between price and water use is important for forecasting urban use. 

4-20 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urbar). Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

The Department conducted an urban water use study for Bulletin 160-98 to forecast 
change in per capita water use by year 2020 in each hydrologic region. The results were used to 
estimate the 2020 urban applied water use by hydrologic region and statewide. The urban water 
use study relates future water use to expected change in population, income, economic activity, 
water price, and conservation measures (implementation of urban BMPs and changes to state and 
federal plumbing fixture standards). The relationships between water use and these variables 
were determined on the basis of local water agency data, economic forecasts, and literature 
review. 

The general forecasting procedure for the urban water use study was to (1) determine 
1995 base year per capita water use, (2) estimate the effects of conservation measures and 
socioeconomic change on future water use for 20 major representative water service areas in 
California, and (3) calculate 2020 per capita water use by hydrologic region using the results of 
the service area forecasts. Because of the regional scope of this study, the Department assumed a 
uniform implementation of BMPs in each service area. This assumption may not be consistent 
with the policies of the representative service areas. 

1995 per capita water use. The 1995 level per capita water use was calculated for each of 
the Department's detailed analysis units. In the South Lahontan and Colorado River regions, 
analyses were done at the planning subarea level due to the relatively sparse population in those 
regions. The 1995 per capita water use is based on the 1990 level used in Bulletin 160-93, 
adjusted to account for permanent effects of urban BMPs and post- 1990 changes to federal and 
state plumbing fixture standards. The most significant post- 1990 change to the plumbing fixture 
standards was that all toilets for sale or installation in California must use no more than 1 .6 
gallons per flush, compared to 3.5 gallons or more per flush for older toilets. The 1995 per capita 
water use estimates also reflect broader data collection and evaluation efforts for various areas of 
the State. 

Per capita water use forecast for 2020. Urban water use study forecasts were based on 
three types of input data: ( 1) Actual values of base-year water and socioeconomic variables, (2) 
forecasted values of socioeconomic variables for the year 2020, and (3) savings assumptions for 
each water conservation measure. Table 4-5 lists the menu of input variables specified for each 
water service area. 



4-21 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-5. Urban Water Use Study Input Variables 



Water Use 



Water use by sector, base year 



Single family 

Multi-family 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Landscape 



Seasonal water use, base year 



Socioeconomic 



Population, base-year and forecast-year 

Total population 

Population by dwelling type 

Persons per household by dwelling type 

Group quarters population 

Housing, base-year and forecast-year 

Number of housing units by dwelling type 

Growth rate of housing stock by dwelling type 

Employment, base-year and forecast-year 

Commercial 

Industrial 



[ Income, base-year and forecast year 

Water price, base-year and forecast year 



Table 4-6. Urban Water Use Study Data Sources 



Water Use 



Survey of Public Water System Statistics, Department of Water Resources 

Urban water management plans 

Regional and local water agency reports on water use and conservation 



Socioeconomic 



Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce 

California Statistical Abstract, Department of Finance 

California Population Characteristics, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy 

Population Projects by Race and Ethnicity for California and its Counties 1990-2040, Department of Finance 

Regional and local planning agencies 

Historical urban water use data were fi-om the Department's annual survey of public 
water system statistics and from urban water management plans prepared by local and regional 
water agencies. Base year socioeconomic data were obtained from a number of sources, 



4-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Dnft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

including federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Socioeconomic forecasts were made by the 
Department based on studies done by the DOF, the U.S. Department of Commerce, regional 
government associations, and others. Table 4-6 lists the primary sources of water use and 
socioeconomic information used. 

The urban water use study provided estimates of 2020 change in per capita water use in 
20 representative water service areas within each of the State's ten hydrologic regions (Table 
4-7). (The results in this, and the following two tables, display changes from 1990, rather than 
from the 1995 base year used for B 160-98, to illustrate all of the effects of water conservation 
implementation, including the changes in plumbing fixture standards in the early 1990s.) The 
results of the 20 individual model runs were extrapolated to estimate 2020 level per capita water 
use by hydrologic region (Tables 4-8 and 4-9). The forecast projects that statewide per capita 
water use will decline by about 10 percent by 2020. The difference between the 1995 and 2020 
levels reflect the influence of water conservation measures and socioeconomic change on per 
capita water use in each region. Per capita use level for 1990 is shown in these tables for 
comparison. 

The study results were used to estimate year 2020 urban applied water. The projected 
change in per capita water use in each region, expressed as a percentage, was applied to the 1995 
level per-capita water use for each DAU to estimate the 2020 level per capita water use. The 
2020 level per-capita water use then was multiplied by the population forecast to compute 2020 
urban applied water use for each DAU. These results were aggregated to compute the 2020 level 
urban applied water use by hydrologic region and statewide. 



4-23 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Cf)apter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-7. Per Capita Water Use With Economic 
Growth and Conservation Measures 







1990 


2020 


2020 


2020 




Base 


Economic 
Effects 


Conservation 
Effects 


Forecast 


Hydrologic 
Region 


Representative Water 
Service Area 


GPCD 


% Change 
From 1990 


% Change 
From 1990 


GPCD 



North Coast 


City of Santa Rosa 


156 


2% 


14% 


136 


San Francisco 


EBMUD 


196 


3% 


16% 


171 




Marin Municipal Water District 


153 


5% 


16% 


136 




City and county of San Francisco 


132 


3% 


16% 


115 


Central Coast 


California Water Service Company, 
Salinas 


153 


0% 


14% 


132 




City of Santa Barbara 


177 


4% 


15% 


156 


South Coast 


City of Los Angeles 


180 


4% 


16% 


158 




City of San Bernardino 


269 


1% 


11% 


243 




San Diego County Water Authority 


196 


4% 


14% 


176 


Sacramento 


California Water Service Company, 


296 


2% 


10% 


272 


River 


Chico 












City of Sacramento 


290 


3% 


13% 


263 


San Joaquin 


California Water Service Company, 


187 


1% 


12% 


162 


River 


Stockton 












City of Merced 


336 


0% 


-10% 


299 


Tulare Lake 


California Water Service Company, 
Visalia 


273 


3% 


-11% 


235 




City of Fresno 


285 


2% 


-10% 


262 


North Lahontan South Lake Tahoe PUD 


179 


2% 


15% 


147 


South Lahontan Indian Wells Valley Water District 


247 


3% 


10% 


230 




Victor Valley County Water Dis- 


340 


3% 


8% 


322 




trict 










Colorado River 


CityofBlythe 


349 


4% 


11% 


326 




CityofElCentro 


221 


2% 


13% 


197 



4-24 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-8. Per Capita Water Use^ by Hydrologic Region, 1995 and 2020 

(in gallons per capita per day) 

2020 Forecast 



Region 


1990 Base 


1995 Base 


without 
conservation 


with 
conservation 


North Coast 


263 


255 


267 


229 


San Francisco Bay 


193 


177 


199 


169 


Central Coast 


189 


180 


192 


164 


South Coast 


211 


208 


222 


192 


Sacramento River 


283 


274 


292 


257 


San Joaquin River 


309 


301 


306 


269 


Tulare Lake 


301 


311 


304 


274 


North Lahontan 


421 


409 


411 


347 


South Lahontan 


278 


284 


287 


262 


Colorado River 


579 


578 


594 


522 



Statewide 




230 224 


237 


203 


' Includes residential, commercial, 


industrial, and landscape use 






Table 4-9. 


Percent Change in Per Capita Use by Hydrologic Region 


Region 




Economic Effects 
% Change from 1990 


Conservation Efforts 
% Change from 1990 



North Coast 
San Francisco Bay 
Central Coast 
Sacramento River 
San Joaquin River 
Tulare Lake 
North Lahontan 
South Lahontan 
Colorado River 



2% 
3% 
2% 
3% 
-1% 
1% 
-2% 
3% 
3% 



-14% 
-16% 
-15% 
-12% 
-12% 
-10% 
-15% 
-9% 
-12% 



Statewide 



3% 



•15% 



Summary ~ Urban Water Demands 

Table 4-10 shows the summary of Bulletin 160-98 urban water demands by hydrologic 
region. Statewide urban demands at the 1995 base level are 8.8 maf in average water years, and 
9.0 maf in drought years. (Drought year demands are slightly higher because less precipitation is 



4-25 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



available to meet exterior urban water uses, such as landscape watering.) Projected 2020 
demands increase to 12.0 maf in average years and 12.4 maf in drought years. Full implementa- 
tion of urban BMPs is estimated to result in demand reduction of 1 .5 maf in average year water 
use by 2020. Without implementation of urban BMPs, average years demands would have 
increased to 13.5 maf. 

As indicated in the table, the South Coast and San Francisco Bay hydrologic regions 
together amount to about 64 percent of the State's total urban demands. 



Table 4-10. Urban Applied Water Use by Region 

(taf) 





1995 




2020 




Region 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 


169 


177 


201 


212 


San Francisco Bay 


1,255 


1,358 


1,317 


1,428 


Central Coast 


286 


294 


379 


391 


South Coast 


4,340 


4,382 


5,519 


5,612 


Sacramento River 


766 


830 


1,139 


1,236 


San Joaquin River 


574 


583 


954 


970 


Tulare Lake 


690 


690 


1,099 


1,099 


North Lahontan 


39 


40 


50 


51 


South Lahontan 


238 


238 


619 


619 


Colorado River 


418 


418 


740 


740 


Total 


8,773 


9,009 


12,017 


12,356 



4-26 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Water Use Impacts from Conversion of Agricultural Land Use to 
Urban Land Use for a San Joaquin Valley Example 

As discussed in the agricultural water use section of this chapter, the Department is projecting 
a decline in California's irrigated acreage in 2020, due in part to urbanization of agricultural lands. 
Much of this urbanization will occur in the South Coast region and in the San Joaquin Valley. This 
sidebar reviews potential changes in water use resulting from land use conversion, changes that are 
often of concern to local agencies responsible for land use planning or for provision of water supplies. 
Changes in water use must be evaluated on a site specific basis, as the following example for the San 
Joaquin Valley illustrates. 

Changes in water use due to land use changes depend on the kinds of crops grown and the 
density and type of urban development in a particular area. In the case of single-family dwellings, for 
example, applied water use varies with housing density. Numerous studies have shown that dwellings 
on larger lots use more water per dwelling unit due to the larger landscaped area. However, higher 
density developments (those with smaller lots) have the greater applied water per acre of land, A 
recent Department study revealed that, for a particular area (the Department's DAU 233), the applied 
water use of single-family dwellings and agricultural crops are often similar at low housing densities 
(four or five units per acre). However, higher density developments of single-family dwellings (six 
units or more per acre) that have become common in today's new home construction market tend to 
have greater applied water requirements than many crops. 

Growth in the Fresno area of the central San Joaquin Valley has caused expansion of urban 
development onto adjoining agricultural lands. Figure 4-6 is a plot of Department land use data that 
illustrates the long-term expansion of urban development onto agricultural lands in this area. 
Department data show that urban applied water use in the Fresno area, including that used for 
residential, commercial, and industrial purposes, is equivalent to about 3.2 acre-feet per acre. By 
comparison, agricultural applied water for the various crops grown in the area ranges from about 1 
acre foot per acre (grain) to about 4.7 acre-feet per acre (alfalfa), as shown in the comparison below 
for urban applied water use with the main crops grown in the area. They are, in order of planted 
acreage, grape vines, deciduous orchards, pasture (alfalfa and improve pasture), and cotton. 



Type of Use Applied Water 

Use (af/acre) 

Urban 3.2 

Agricultural 

Grapevines 2.9 

Deciduous orchard 3.5 

Alfalfa 4.7 

Pasture (improved) 4.5 

Cotton 3.2 

Other factors to consider when evaluating water use impacts associated with land use 
conversion include water supply depletion and water quality. For example, a water supply suitable for 
irrigating some crops may not be suitable for a purpose needing higher water quality, such as a potable 
water supply. 



4-27 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4 Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-6. Changes in Land Use Over Time, DAU 233 





4-28 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Agricultural Water Use 

In simplest terms, the Department's estimates of agricultural water use eire derived by 
multiplying water use requirements for different crop types by their corresponding statewide 
irrigated acreage, and summing the results to obtain a total for irrigated crops in the State. The 
details of estimating crop water use and irrigated acreage, however, are far from simple. 
This section begins by covering crop water use requirements, including demand reduction 
achievable through implementing water conservation programs. The concepts of irrigation 
efficiencies and distribution uniformity are discussed in some detail. We then describe the 
Department's process for forecasting future irrigated acreage, and factors such as agricultural 
drainage problems that affect acreage forecasts. A summary of 2020 agricultural water demands 
is provided at the end of the section. 
Crop Water Use 

The water requirement of a crop is directly related to the water lost through 
evapotranspiration. The amount of water that can be consumed through ET depends in the short 
term on local weather and, in the long term, on climate. Energy from solar radiation is the 
primary factor that determines the rate of crop ET. Also important are humidity, temperature, 
wind, stage of crop growth, and the size and aerodynamic roughness of the crop canopy. 
Irrigation frequency can affect ET after planting and during early growth, because evaporation 
increases when the soil surface is wet and exposed to sunlight. Generally, ET remains independ- 
ent of soil moisture content; however, as the soil dries and soil moisture tension approaches a 
plant's permanent wilting point, the flow of water into plant roots can fall below the rate needed 
to meet crop water needs. Growing season ET varies significantly among crop types, depending 
primarily on how long the crop actively grows. 

The amount of water applied to a given field for crop production is based on consider- 
ations such as crop water requirements, soil characteristics, the ability of an irrigation system to 
distribute water uniformly on a given field, and irrigation management practices. In addition to 
ET, other crop water requirements can include water needed to leach soluble salts below the crop 
root zone, and water that must be applied for frost protection or cooling. The amount required for 
these uses depends upon the crop, irrigation water quality, and weather conditions. 

Part of a crop's water requirements can be met by rainfall. The amount of rainfall 



4-29 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

beneficially used for crop production is called effective rainfall. Effective rainfall is stored in the 
soil and is available to satisfy crop evapotranspiration or to offset water needed for special 
cultural practices such as leaching of salts. The remainder of the crop water requirement must be 
provided through irrigation. Irrigation efficiency influences the amount of applied water needed, 
since a portion of each irrigation goes to system leaks and deep percolation of irrigation water 
below the crop root zone. 



4-30 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Uae 



Figure 4-7. Ranges of Applied Water and Evapotranspiration of Applied Water 

Acre feet/acre per year 

01 23456789 10 



Grain 



Rice 



Cotton 



Sugar beets 

Com 

Other field 

Alfalfa 

Pasture 

Tomatoes 

Other tmck 

Almonds/pistachios 

Other deciduous orchard 

Subtropical orchard 

Grapes 




innninimn 



ITTTl 



iiiiiii Ill iiiifintimi 



iiiiiitiiiiiiihiiiiiii iiiiiiii nimii inn 




iimiii iiiiiiii iinmniD 



iiiii)iiimii,iiiiiiiqni 



l^M Applied Water 

nnnETAW 



4-31 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

Figure 4-7 shows ranges of applied water and evapotranspiration of applied water for 
some common California crops or crop types. (ETAW is the portion of crop ET which is 
supplied by irrigation.) ETAW represents a major depletion of water supply, and therefore is an 
important component of statewide and local water supply planning, groundwater modeling, and 
water transfer feasibility studies. 

The range in the values for the crops shown is due to geographic variations in factors 
such as farming practices, soils, climate, and water availability and cost. Except in areas adjacent 
to the ocean, or areas where the groundwater or surface water is unacceptable for reuse, irrigation 
water applied in excess of ET and cultural requirements (e.g., frost protection) is available to 
downstream users, or to others pumping from groundwater. 

Direct measurement of crop ET requires costly investments in time and in sophisticated 
equipment. There are more than 9 million acres of irrigated crop land in California, encompass- 
ing a wide range of climate, soils, and crops. Even where annual evapotranspiration for two areas 
is similar, monthly totals may be significantly different. For example, average annual 
evapotranspiration for interior valleys of the central coast is similar to that of the Central Valley; 
however. Central Valley ET is lower than that in the coastal valleys during the winter fog season, 
and higher during the clear, hot summer weather. Obtaining actual measurements for every 
combination of environmental variables would be prohibitively difficult and expensive. A more 
practical approach is to estimate ET using methods based on correlation of measured ET with 
observed evaporation, temperature, and other climatologic conditions. Such methods can be 
used to transfer the results of measured ET to other areas with similar climates. 

The Department uses the ET/Evaporation correlation method to estimate growing season 
ET. Concurrent with field measurement of ET rates, the Department developed a network of 
agroclimate stations to determine the relationship between measured ET rates and pan evapora- 
tion. Data from agroclimatic studies reveal that water evaporation from a standard water surface 
(the Department uses the US Weather Bureau Class A evaporation pan) closely correlates to crop 
evapotranspiration. The ET/Evaporation method has estimated crop water use to within +/- 1 
percent of measured seasonal ET. 

Crop coefficients are applied to pan evaporation data to estimate evapotranspiration rates 
for specific crops. Crop coefficients vary by crop, stage of crop growth, planting and harvest 

4-32 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

dates, and growing season duration. The resulting data, combined with information on effective 
rainfall, form the basis for calculating ETAW and applied water demands. 
Factors Influencing Crop Water Use 

Agricultural Water Conservation Programs. Negotiations over a Memorandum of 
Understanding Regarding Efficient Water Management Practices by Agricultural Water 
Suppliers in California were completed in 1 996, and the MOU has been circulated for signatures. 
The Agricultural Water Management Council called for in the MOU to oversee endorsement of 
agricultural water management plans has begun meeting. As of November 1997, 29 agricultural 
water agencies serving about 2.8 million acres of land had signed the MOU. Signatories to the 
MOU have committed to implement specified EWMPs, based on their evaluation of the benefits 
of each practice. These EWMPs are listed below as shown in the MOU. 



4-33 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Efficient Water IVIanagement Practices for Agricultural Water 

Suppliers in California 

List A--Generally Applicable EWMPS: 

• Prepare and adopt a water management plan 

• Designate a water conservation coordinator 

• Support the availability of water management services to water users 

• Improve communication and cooperation among water suppliers, water users, and 
other agencies 

• Evaluate the need, if any, for changes in institutional policies to which the water 
supplier is subject 

• Evaluate and improve efficiencies of the water supplier's pumps 
List B~Conditionally Applicable EWMPs: 

• Facilitate alternative land use 

• Facilitate using available recycled water that otherwise would not be used benefi- 
cially, meets all health and safety criteria, and does not cause harm to crops or soil 

• Facilitate financing capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems 

• Facilitate voluntary water transfers that do not unreasonably affect the water user, 
water supplier, the environment, or third parties 

• Line or pipe ditches and canals 

• Increase flexibility in water ordering by, and delivery to, the water users within 
operational limits 

• Construct and operate water supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems 

• Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater 

• Automate canal structures 
List C--Other EWMPs: 

• Water measurement and water use report 

• Pricing or other incentives 



These EWMPs can lessen runoff and deep percolation of irrigation water, reducing the 
amount of water farmers must order from an irrigation district or pump from their wells. Table 4- 
1 1 shows that agricultural water conservation is expected to reduce applied water demands by 
about 800 taf annually by 2020. These reductions will come about through use of the EWMPs to 
improve the efficiency of irrigation water application over the growing season (discussed in the 
following section). Such reductions of applied water generally do not create new water supply; 
in most areas of California, excess irrigation water becomes available to other users. Even so, a 
reduction in applied water can serve other beneficial purposes such as reducing leaching of plant 
nutrients, reducing degradation of groundwater quality, and reducing agricultural drainage. 

Only practices that lessen evaporation fi"om water surfaces, reduce evapotranspiration, or 
diminish unrecoverable losses to saline water actually reduce depletions to water supply. 

4-34 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

Efficient water management practices have relatively little effect on evaporation and ET. 

Therefore, it is the location of water use, rather than the conservation measure employed, that is 

key to determining whether a reduction in irrigation water use translates into a depletion 

reduction. Agricultural lands adjacent to the ocean, or where the groundwater or surface water is 

unacceptable for reuse have the greatest potential for reducing depletions through efficient water 

management practices. In California, such agricultural lands are found in the south coast, the 

west side of the San Joaquin Valley, and the southeastern desert. Expected annual depletion 

reductions by 2020 are illustrated in Table 4-11. 

Table 4-11. Annual Reductions in Applied Water and Depletions Due to EWMP 

Implementation by 2020 (taf) 



Hydrologic Region 


Applied Water 
Reductions 


Depletion 
Reductions 


North Coast 


1 







San Francisco Bay 


1 







Central Coast 


82 







South Coast 


31 




10 


Sacramento River 


203 







San Joaquin River 


148 




1.7 


Tulare Lake 


45 




0.6 


North Lahontan 


17 







South Lahontan 


20 




10 


Colorado River 


249 




210 


Total 


797 




232 



Irrigation Efficiencies. Relationships between on-farm and regional efficiencies are 
complex. Often a portion of irrigation water applied to a field runs off the field or percolates into 
the groundwater. Runoff and/or deep percolation from a given field may be considered a water 
loss to that particular field; nevertheless, often this water is not a loss to the system. Where water 
quality is good, this water may be reused on that field or on other fields several times. Irrigation 
efficiency formulas developed for on-farm irrigation management cannot necessarily be applied 
to larger areas or regions. Numerical values of on-farm and regional efficiencies almost always 
differ. On-farm efficiencies are usually lower than regional efficiencies due to reuse of water in a 
region. 

On-farm irrigation efficiency equations do not consider water reuse from one farm to 



4-35 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

another. The implicit assumption is that fields, farms, and regions are hydrologically discon- 
nected. In reality, this is seldom the case. Water loss fi-om a field is not a water loss to the region, 
except where runoff goes directly to a nonreusable water source such as saline groundwater or 
the ocean. With reuse, regional efficiencies are higher than those of on- farm efficiencies. A 
region can reach very high efficiencies as a result of a few reuses, even if on-farm efficiencies 
remain fairly low. Practices that help reuse of water, such as tail water return and spill recovery 
systems, provide an opportunity to increase regional efficiency. Water reuse can be the fastest 
and most economical way to boost regional efficiencies. 

Distribution uniformity in an important element in achieving higher on-farm irrigation 
efficiencies. Distribution uniformity is defined as a measure of the variation in the amount of 
water applied to the soil surface throughout the irrigated area. Since no irrigation system is 
capable of applying and distributing water evenly and uniformly to all parts of a field, growers 
often apply enough water to meet crop water requirements of the driest part of the field to 
achieve optimum crop yields. Achieving a high DU requires excellent system design, mainte- 
nance, and management. Irrigation experts maintain that current hardware design and manufac- 
turing technology limit the DU of most systems to 80 percent. As design and manufacturing 
technology advance and more refined manufacturing processes and hardware are developed it 
may then be possible to achieve irrigation efficiencies up to 90 percent. 

Forecasts of agricultural demand are based in part on assumptions about future trends in 
seasonal application efficiency, a measure of the efficiency of irrigation water use over the 
growing season. Seasonal application efficiency is defined as the water beneficially used for 
ETAW and cultural practices divided by applied water. It is assumed that by 2020 seasonal 
application efficiency will reach 73 percent in all regions of California, averaged across crop 
types, farm land characteristics, and management practices. The distribution uniformity of 
irrigation methods is limiting to SAE. The average DU of irrigation systems in California is 
currently in the 70 to 75 percent range, based on numerous irrigation system evaluations 
conducted by the Department, resource conservation districts, water districts, and others. It is 
envisioned that by 2020, the average DU will be about 80 percent. An irrigation method with a 
DU of 80 percent can achieve a maximum SAE of about 73 percent, assuming that irrigation 
events are properly timed, the soil is well drained, and none of the field is under-irrigated. The 



4-36 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

annual water savings expected by 2020 that were shown in Table 4-11 are due to the expected 
increase in average SAE to 73 percent. 
Agricultural Acreage Forecasting 

This section describes how 1 995 base year irrigated acreage is established, and how that 
information is used to forecast 2020 irrigated acreage. 

Quantifying Present Irrigated Acreage. Forecasts of future agricultural acreage start 
with land use data that characterize existing crop acreages. The Department has been performing 
land use surveys since the 1950s to quantify acreage of irrigated land and corresponding crop 
types, and currently maps irrigated acreage in six to seven counties per year. Counties with 
significant amounts of irrigated land are normally surveyed at least once per decade, and the 
results of the surveys are published as county land use reports. 

The base data for the land use surveys is obtained from aerial photography or satellite 
imagery, which is superimposed on a cartographic base. Field boundaries are photo-interpreted 
on the base, and digitized. Site visits are used to identify or verify crop types growing in the 
fields. From this information, maps showing locations and acreage of crop types can be 
developed. Figure 4-8 is an example of a typical land use survey map, showing crop types in the 
Ceres 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle, from the Department's 1996 Stanislaus County survey. 



4-37 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4 Urbar), Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-8. Typical Land Use Map 



j 




^ 


»s^^^ 


^ 


1^ 


J 


m 


v^ 


^_^«ll»\. Hlli.r^ 




■'l^ 


' 1-1 ^ 


iHisv: 

1 




Mil 


3"" =*i; iX'i 


1 ■ MTi 

- — ]•*•»;■ Sk J»'i 


■ a.- a 
r lal J , .. 
i^a* 1 ibl.| 

•pi-" a^-fP 

9 «■ -■■■■sn 


1 


'» ^._ « rpW.Jfl^'-a ! 


. Ti 


■ • - 


|tky 

■ 


m 
5 


i"5 

Lfli 

hi 




il 




^ iii"?S|n 


. B^ ■i"' 


kaVr 


r S^ •^■i 




-1 


^ '■■ ■■li«' 


■ tSS 


rPlI 


i^ri 


1 ^^ 




Ik.- u "ii 


1 II II 


■-' 


■■■1 


-J 




.lia -J «-! 


» 


IP 


w~rK ^ m If i 

i 1 ^ % ^iJIMIkiw^ 


4f&Bi^^:^ .^n wmm ■ 


*r i 


■_ 


H: ..^imit^ 


■—■-■' 


■ k^k. -%. 


^^^^^1 i L.^H 


■■ "TtV 


iirik ^Bla 


-u .■ ^ in.ii«api a="'j 


Ull ' 


b.H 1 41 ^ Il ■■ ■ 


■s ^ 


n 






•-PB^>- Ifl 


S^l t.| 


r 


i 


I 




ii'b 


\ \H 




■^Hi..''**''' 


1 iE«n 


■ jI 




11 


§U^ 


=■» 1 il. 


■■■ 


:;'^ 


■_! 




■«■ ■ - 


1 1 i^^t^mv 


1 




n-r 




JJji 






1 1 


L 





□ No. Data 

□ Grain 

■ Rice 
I Cotton 

I Sugar Beets 
@ Corn 

□ Other Field 

■ Alfalfa 
I Pasture 
n Tomatoes 
I Other TVuck 

B Almond & Pistachio 
I Other Decidlous 
I Subtropical 
I Grapes 

■ Fallow & Idle 

I Non-irrigated Land 

■ Urban - 

■ Water 

Q Native Classes 



4-38 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

The Department's land use surveys focus on quantifying irrigated agricultural acreage. 
Thus, for example, fields of dry-farmed grains will be mapped in the land use surveys, but their 
acreage will not be tabulated for calculating water use. In some areas of the State, climate and 
market conditions are favorable for producing multiple crops per year on the same field (for 
example, winter vegetables followed by a summer cotton crop). For these cases, the annual 
irrigated acreage is counted as the sum of the acreage of the individual crop types for calculating 
water uses. In the years in between land use surveys of a particular county, the Department 
annually estimates crop types and acreage using data collected from county agricultural 
commissioners, local water agencies. University of California Cooperative Extension Programs, 
and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. 



California's Nursery Industry 

When people think of irrigated agriculture, crops that often come to mind are 
commodities such as hay, grains, rice, row crops, and cotton. However, based on 1996 
California Department of Food and Agriculture statistics, nursery products (flowers, plants, 
turf-grass) rank as the State's third largest farm product in gross value, behind milk and 
cream, grapes, and cattle, ahead of cotton, almonds, and hay. The prominence of the nursery 
industry reflects the extent of urbanization in California, as well as favorable climatic 
conditions. 

California nursery products had a $1.6 billion farmgate value (wholesale value at the 
farm) in 1996. San Diego is the leading California county in nursery product valuation, 
followed by Santa Barbara, San Mateo, and Los Angeles counties. California wholesale 
production represents about 26 percent of national sales. 

An important difference between the nursery industry and other agricultural sectors is 
the extent to which the industry's revenues are tied to urban, as well as to agricultural, water 
supplies. Bulletin 160 treats nursery water use as an agricultural use. However, many of the 
industry's products are destined for urban and commercial locations where urban water supply 
availability and price influence landscaping choices, and hence the market, for some types of 
nursery products. 

About 25,000 acres are devoted to nursery products in California. Much of the acreage 
is in proximity to urbanized, coastal regions of the State near markets and major transportation 
routes. 



The starting point for determining Bulletin 1 60-98 1 995 base acreage was normalized 
irrigated acreage for 1990 from Bulletin 160-93. Changes in crop acreage between 1990 and 
1995 were evaluated to determine if they were due to short-term causes (e.g., drought or 
abnormal spring rainfall), or if there was an actual change in cropping patterns. The base year 



4-39 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

was developed to represent normalized crop acreage (the acreage that would most likely be 
expected in the absence of all weather and market related abnormalities). (More detail on the 
concept of normalizing base year data is presented in Chapter 3.) Figure 4-9 illustrates some 
general trends in California cropping patterns over time. 

Crop acreage by region for the normalized 1995 base is presented in Table 4-12. The 
1995 base irrigated land acreage is about 9.1 million acres, which, when multiple cropped areas 
are tabulated, becomes a base irrigated cropped acreage of about 9.5 million acres. 



4-40 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-9. General Trends in Cropping Patterns Over Time 




(■FIELD CROPS 
;bTREES& VINES 
ID TRUCK CROPS 



1970 



1995 



2020 



4-41 



DRAFT 





•o 


o 


o> 


a 




H 


cT 


a 


o 


o 


D> 


k. 


Q> 


o 


o: 


■o 


.o 


c 


B) 


(0 


^ 


a 


o 


o 


i 


u 


^ 


O 


^ 
^ 


0) 
O) 

n 


Q) 

2! 


o 


O 


< 


'^ 


•D 


"D 


B 


£ 


n 


(« 


.O) 


D) 




•!^ 


'C 


s 


^ 


^ 






u> 


■0 


o> 


c 


O) 


CQ 


^ 


a 




p 


^ 


> 


CM 


o 


^ 


•5 


^ 


c 





1 


h- 


O 



o 

Hi. 

o 
o 

Q) 
<Q 

O 



I 



o 


t^ 


^ 


oo 


oo 


r~ 


TT 


m 


r^ 


o 


TJ- 


rj 


«/^ 


vo 


o 


^^ 


Ti- 


t^ 


r<^ 


VO 


Ov 


m 


v^ 


VO 


cn 


o 


>n 


m 


ON 


«n 


<N 


'-" 


"^ 


"^ 


O 


ON 


m 


o 


«o 


VO 


rf 


r~ 



OO-^OOONOvomONCNO 



r- o 



rsoooo — Ti-ooofnomoo 



r--'Oooo'^t^o<NOOoo 



oovoo^r-voov 
vo (N m — ON OS -^ 

(N O — (N 



■<^ r- — (N 00 

ON t-^ ON O t^ 

— ^ ^ CN f<-> 



O(N>or^fSO'-0N(NO^T}-00'<:t 

oofNOOTt — (NmONOom»nv-> oo 

^ ^ (N — (N— ^r4— — " 



OrtONTt(N«nOsfSOOVONOONOOt^ 

r~-ON w^ON>o^iofn>no^^(N — 



^ooo^r-^oor-r-om'-vo 

^ ^ CS 00 vo 



vOOOfOcnNO— lOOOfSOOOONVO 
fN -^(N — ^-OO — — iri 



(NOOO — — 0«nO^ONOOON 



fNOOvo — mm<NOfnor-ONo 



2 

o 



c 
o 

o 

u 



£i 




2 


















(/) 


V 




"3 






a> 


^ 




« 


M 


a 


O 


13 
00 


E 




v2 


1 




3 


o 


■^^ 




o 


C/5 


U 


o 


< 


(X 


H 



u 









t 

c 
o 

6 



3 
O 
3 
T3 



O < O 



Q. 

2 <>^ 

Si CO 

3 ^ 



«o r- 00 

»- Tf vo 

«0 rt O^ 

as" On" 



ON Tt »0 

■^ O Tt 

r^ -^ VO 



— o ^ 
vo vo 



-^ O '- 



r~- 


m 


""^ 


(N 


vo 


vo 






o 



v-1 

o 


vo 


ON 

On^ 


ON 

m 




00 


en 


O 


en 
oo 



(N <N O 

r~ -^ m 
^rt '-' -rt 



a. 
o 
w 

U 

.J 
< 

o 



b. e3 



3 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Forecasting Future Irrigated Acreage. The Department's 2020 irrigated acreage 
forecast was developed using information from three tools: (1) staff research, (2) a Crop Market 
Outlook study, and (3) results from a Central Valley Production Model. As with any forecast of 
future conditions, there are uncertainties associated with each of these approaches. The Depart- 
ment's method of integrating the results of three independent approaches is intended to represent 
our best estimate of future acreage, absent major changes from present conditions. It is important 
to emphasize that many of the factors affecting future cropped acreage are based on national 
(federal Farm Bill programs) or international (world export markets) circumstances. California 
agricultural products compete with products from other regions in the global economy, and are 
affected by trade policies and market conditions that reach far beyond the State's boundaries. 

Intrastate factors considered in making acreage forecasts included urban encroachment 
onto agricultural land and land retirement due to drainage problems (discussed in more detail in 
the following section). Urbanization on lands presently used for irrigated agriculture is a 
significant consideration in the South Coast region and in the San Joaquin Valley, based on 
projected patterns of population growth. DOF 2020 population forecasts, along with informa- 
tion gathered from local agency land use plans, were used to identify irrigated lands most likely 
to be affected by urbanization. Local water agencies and county farm advisors were interviewed 
to assess their perspective on land use changes affecting agricultural acreage. 

The Department's Crop Market Outlook, a form of Delphi analysis, was developed using 
information and expert opinions gathered from interviews with more than 1 30 University of 
California farm advisors, agricultural bankers, commodity marketing specialists, managers of 
cooperatives, and others. Three basic factors guided the CMO: (1) current and future demand for 
food and fiber by the world's consumers; (2) the share California could produce to meet this 
worldwide demand; and (3) technical factors, such as crop yields, pasture carrying capacities, 
and livestock feed conversion ratios that affect demand for agricultural products. (Milk and dairy 
products are California's largest agricultural product, in terms of gross value. The demand for 
these products is reflected in the markets for alfalfa and other fodder used by dairies.) The CMO 
forecasts a statewide crop mix and estimates corresponding irrigated acreage. The major findings 
of the CMO for year 2020 were that grain and field crop acreage would decrease, while the truck 
crops and permanent crops would increase. 

The Central Valley Production Model is a mathematical programming model of Central 



4^3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Valley farm production activities that simulates farming decisions by growers. Inputs include 
detailed information about production practices and costs as well as water availability and cost 
by source. The model also uses information on the relationship between production levels of 
individual crops and crop market prices. Figure 4-10 is an example of information used in the 
model, showing how crop yields are expected to increase. The model's geographic coverage is 
limited to the Central Valley, which represents about 80 percent of the State's irrigated agricul- 
tural acreage. The CVPM results also indicated future crop shifting, from crops with lower gross 
earning potentials (grains and field crops) to vegetables, trees, and vines. The CVPM forecast 
showed a small reduction in crop acreage from 1995 to 2020. The relative amounts of grain and 
field crops would drop, while the relative amount of truck crops and permanent crops (trees and 
vines) would increase. 



4-44 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-10. Crop Yield Increases (1995 to 2020) Estimated by the 
Central Valley Production Model 




CO 
(Q 

o> 



0) 

£ 
O 



15 

5 

w 
0) 

£ 
O 



o 
3 


m 


S 
a. 


(0 


■o 


p 


Q. 





is 


"2 


^ 


3 



tf) 

e 
o 



4-45 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

Other Factors Affecting Forecasted Irrigated Acreage. The process of estimating future 
irrigated acreage described in the previous section considered statewide factors such as crop 
markets and urban expansion onto agricultural lands. The Department considered an additional 
region-specific factor, the long-standing agricultural drainage management issues on the west 
side of the San Joaquin Valley. Drainage management issues in this area have had a dual focus ~ 
salt management to permit continued agricultural production on lands requiring drainage 
systems, and management of trace minerals (principally selenium) to limit adverse water quality 
and environmental impacts. 

The need for drainage systems to permit farming in some westside areas was recognized 
concurrently with the development of irrigated agriculture in the region. USBR's San Luis 
Drain, for example, was originally planned to convey drainage water out of the valley to the San 
Francisco Bay. The drain was instead terminated at Kesterson Reservoir, where waterfowl 
mortalities lead to the discovery of elevated selenium levels in the early 1980s, and the drain was 
subsequently closed. (A discussion of the trial reopening of part of the drain for the Grasslands 
bypass channel project is provided in Chapter 8.) Post-Kesterson studies of valley drainage 
problems have sought to quantify factors such as extent of areas with shallow depths to ground- 
water, tributary areas in Coast Range sediments from which trace minerals are derived, and water 
quality characteristics of drain water and shallow groundwater. 

The 1990 report of the interagency San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program concluded that 
as much as 460,000 acres of irrigated land would be abandoned by the year 2020 unless a 
comprehensive approach to manage the drainage problem could be implemented before then. 
The report recommended retirement of 75,000 acres of land with the worst drainage problems by 
2040. For the Bulletin 160-98 year 2020 acreage forecast, we have followed the same procedure 
used in Bulletin 160-93 and have assumed that the 75,000 acres would be retired at an average 
rate of 1,500 acres per year. Thus, 45,000 acres of land would be retired between 1990 and 2020. 
To put this amount into perspective, USBR's 1997 request for proposals for the CVPIA land 
retirement program (described in Chapter 6) elicited offers to sell 27,500 acres of drainage- 
impaired lands. 

Figure 4-11 shows areas of shallow groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley, based on 
1995 monitoring data. Monitoring of shallow groundwater in the drainage problem areas has 
indicated that slightly more than 1 million acres continue to have groundwater depths of less than 

4-46 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

10 feet. Within this 1 million-acre area, the zone of groundwater less than 5 feet from the land 
surface decreased from about 470,000 acres in 1992 to about 320,000 acres in 1994. The 
decrease in area between 1 992 and 1 994 was caused by drought-related water supply reductions 
and recently implemented programs to reduce the amount of water percolating to shallow 
groundwater. (The monitoring program was limited to measurement of groundwater levels. 
There has been no region-wide monitoring for selenium levels in shallow groundwater since that 
done for the 1990 management plan.) 

To implement recommendations of the 1990 Management Plan, four State agencies 
(DWR, SWRCB, DFG and Department of Food and Agriculture) and four federal agencies 
(USBR, USFWS, U. S. Geological Survey, and Natural Resource Conservation Service) signed a 
1991 memorandum of understanding to participate in a cooperative interagency program. The 
program was to address the management plan's eight major recommendations: source control, 
drainage reuse, evaporation ponds, land retirement, groundwater management, limiting discharge 
to the San Joaquin River, and institutional change. (The plan's recommendations did not address 
disposal of drain water outside of the Central Valley.) Significant progress has been made on 
source control programs by individual growers and water agencies, and regulatory actions by the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board have reduced the number and acreage of operating 
evaporation ponds. Some specific examples of drainage management activities are described in 
Chapters 7 through 9. 



4-47 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-11. Areas of Shallow Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley 




Depth to Free Water 
(Sprinc 1997 Data) 

I 1 0-5 Feet 

I I 8-10 Feet 

HI 10 - 15 Feet 

HB 15 - 20 Feet 



4-48 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Agroforestry Research 

One potential method for managing drainage impaired lands is agroforestry. Agrofore- 
stry systems integrate trees and shrubs into livestock and cropping activities to produce 
marketable products and/or provide resource conservation. Agroforestry principles could be 
applied to on-farm water management, where increasingly saline water would be applied to 
successively more salt-tolerant plants to reduce drainage volumes. For example, drainage 
water from salt-sensitive crops could be used to irrigate a salt-tolerant crop like cotton. 
Drainage water from the cotton would then be used to irrigate salt-tolerant trees, such as 
eucalyptus. Drainage water from the trees would be reused again to irrigate highly salt- 
tolerant plants such as saltgrass. Finally, the drainage water would be discharged into a solar 
evaporator where it would crystallize and be removed. 

In 1985, several growers in the San Joaquin Valley, with support from the Westside 
Resource Conservation District, Department of Food and Agriculture, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, and Westlands Water District, began using agroforestry for salinity 
management. Currently the Department, in cooperation with local growers, USBR, and the 
WRCD, is participating in two projects in the Tulare Lake region ~ a 27-acre Mendota 
agroforestry experimental project which began in 1985, and a 622-acre Red Rock Ranch 
agroforestry demonstration project which began in 1993. 



Results of 2020 Acreage Forecast. Table 4-13 shows the 2020 irrigated acreage forecast. 
The total change in irrigated crop acreage from 1995 to 2020 is forecasted to be a reduction of 
325,000 acres. The reduction in crop acreage is primarily in the San Joaquin River and South 
Coast regions. Reductions in crop acreage are due to urban encroachment, drainage problems in 
the westside San Joaquin Valley, and a more competitive economic market for California 
agricultural products. Grain and field crops, which have lower gross earning potentials, are 
forecasted to be reduced by about 631,000 acres. Truck crops and permanent crops, which have 
higher gross earning potentials, are forecasted to increase by about 238,000 and 68,000 acres, 
respectively. These statewide findings are used in developing the base year and forecasted 
agricultural water demands. 



4-49 



DRAFT 



e 
o 



1 

•a 

o 

S 
o 

< 



(0 <B 
O »*5 
^ g o 

i s S 

— S^ CO 

c ^ o 

u 

m 
E 

i 

«9 



|2 



(O 



o 
o 
oo 



o o o o 

O <N (N ON 

«/-\ <— — m 



m 


o 


o 


>n 


>n 


«/-> 


«n 


o 


o 


»o 


«n 


Tf 




o 


VO 


ON 


(N 


fS 


>n 


ON 


«o 


<^ 


O 


00 


m 


<N 


«o 


VO 


■«^ 


t^ 




«o 


so 



r~ovooNf<^mr-~(N-^ — 

On tTCS r<^^m^-c<^ 



oooooo'^ooo — orsioo 



00 — OO — OOr^OfNOOOO 

»n o 



— ooof*^ — ooovooooooNinvo 

O oo — O — C<^(Nc<-iOONON — VO 

(N oo ^- — (N — CO- — fSco 



(N«n^-ooooON^^>nfnt~~-omocn 

j/-^,^t^,-oomoo\oONONr->r) — oo 



^Tfincso^r-^- ONr~-TtmON 



«nooO(N— vovortmOr«^r~cn 

T3- — 



-^oofsm^o^oomoooow-^ 



— oooo— o>no — ovoo- 



vooovorsr^fNmoooot^ooo 
so NO (N fN m 



.S 
2 
O 



B 
O 
t! 
O 

U 



Si 

is 

00 

3 
(/3 



E 

O 

u 









u 

4-4 l-M -4 . , 



o < 



3 


6 


^ 


p 


a. 


H 



(N 


w-^ 


O 


>r» 


•Ti 


f*^ 


^^ 


«n 


-* 


o 






r-- 




^ 



ji: 


3 




u 


O 




«J 


3 




.^ 


IH 


, 


'S. 


o 






Q 


o 


o 


ka 


u, 


E 


4> 


Z 






3 


< 


6 


CO 



2 
O 



in o <o 



I/-) o >o 



>n O >r> 

00 o oo 
On — oo 



<N 



< 

a 
o 
u 

U 

< 
o 



rN 



lo o w-i 
m oo in 

ON 00 



o o o 
in r^ oo 

— o 



o o o 

ON -^ 00 



o o o 
r- in (N 

>r^ '- Tf 



»n o «n 

\0 vo 



m o in 



a. 
o 

k. 

U 

-4-* 

3 



< 

T3 



60 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Agricultural Water Demands 

Crop water use information and irrigated acreage data are combined to generate the 2020 
agricultural water demands by hydrologic region shown in Table 4-14. 

Table 4-14. Agricultural Demands by Hydrologic Region 

(taf) 







1995 




2020 


Region 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 


894 


973 


927 


1,011 


San Francisco Bay 


98 


108 


98 


108 


Central Coast 


1,192 


1,279 


1,127 


1,223 


South Coast 


784 


820 


462 


484 


Sacramento River 


8,065 


9,054 


7,939 


8,822 


San Joaquin River 


7,027 


7,244 


6,450 


6,719 


Tulare Lake 


10,736 


10,026 


10,123 


9,532 


North Lahontan 


530 


584 


536 


594 


South Lahontan 


332 


332 


257 


257 


Colorado River 


4,118 


4,118 


3,583 


3,583 


Total 


33,775 


34,538 


31,501 


32,333 



4-51 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Environmental Water Use 

The Department quantified environmental water use for the first time in Bulletin 160-93, 
defining it as the sum of: 

► dedicated flows in state and federal wild and scenic rivers 

► instream flow requirements contained in water right permits, DFG agreements, court 
actions, or other administrative documents 

► Bay-Delta outflows required by SWRCB water rights actions 

► water needs of managed freshwater wildlife areas 

Unlike urban and agricultural water use, much of the environmental water use as defined 
above is brought about by a legislative or regulatory process. Forecasting future legislative and 
regulatory actions is speculative. Bulletin 160-93 used a range of 1 to 3 maf to represent future 
environmental demands, reflecting the uncertainty of the direction of Bay-Delta regulatory 
actions at the time the Bulletin was published. With the subsequent signing of the Bay-Delta 
Accord, Delta outflow requirements are now quantified in SWRCB's Order WR 95-6. 

In the 1995 base year for Bulletin 160-98, the components of environmental water use are 
identical to those used in Bulletin 160-93. For the 2020 forecast, two additional sub-components 
have been added. The CALFED ecosystem restoration program and the CVPIA AFRP are both 
engaged in planning processes to identify quantities of water to be acquired throughout the 
Central Valley for fishery and wetland restoration and enhancement. Some of this water could 
be acquired through regulatory processes (e.g., the FERC relicensing process), but much of it 
would be acquired by water transfers. Environmental water needs identified in these planning 
processes have been added to the 2020 forecast. This approach does not change the Bulletin's 
basic definition of environmental water use, but broadens its scope by including water 
acquisition programs as a means of supplying environmental needs. 

The following discussion provides background on and covers factors affecting the four 
categories of environmental water use quantified in the Bulletin. As with urban and agricultural 
water use, options for meeting future environmental water needs — such as federal acquisition 
and transfer of water to meet CVPIA AFRP goals ~ are covered in Chapter 6 and in the regional 
water meinagement chapters. The environmental water use categories below are discussed in 
order of size ~ from greatest (wild and scenic rivers) to smallest (wildlife refuges). 
Flows in Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Flows in wild and scenic rivers constitute the largest environmental water use in the 
State. Figure 4-12 is a map of California's State and federal wild and scenic rivers. 



4-52 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-12. California Wild and Scenic Rivers 




LEGEND 

JT""^ Federal Decignetion 

^" "1 Slate Designation 

J^ *^ Federal and State Designation 

Noae: Porto™ of th« McCloud Wver. Dmt Creak and MM Creak hav« apadal ttata aMua 



4-53 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Envimnmental Water Use 



«- photo: Sespe Creek, or upper Sisquoc River 

The 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, codified to preserve the free-flowing 
characteristics of rivers having outstanding natural resources values, prohibits federal agencies 
from constructing, authorizing, or fiinding the construction of water resources projects having a 
direct or adverse effect on the values for which the river was designated. (This restriction also 
applies to rivers designated for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System.) There are two methods for having a river segment added to the federal system ~ 
congressional legislation, or a state's petition to the Secretary of Interior for federal designation 
of a river already protected under state statutes. No new federal designations have been made 
since publication of Bulletin 160-93. 

However, a number of river systems within lands managed by federal agencies have been 
studied as candidates. For example, U.S. Forest Service draft environmental impact statements 
in 1994 and 1996 recommended designation of 5 streams (129 river miles) in the Tahoe National 
Forest and recommended designation of 160 miles in the Stanislaus National Forest. These 
waterways drain to the Central Valley where their flows are being used for other purposes, and 
wild and scenic designation would not affect the existing downstream uses. 

The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972 prohibits construction of any 
dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment on a designated river. As shown on 
Figure 4-12, some California rivers are included in both federal and state systems. No new State 
designations have been made since Bulletin 160-93, although the Mill and Deer Creeks 
Protection Act of 1995 ( Section 5093.70 of the Public Resources Code) gave portions of these 
streams special status similar to wild and scenic designation by restricting construction of dams, 
reservoirs, diversions or other water impoundments on the streams. 

Table 4-15 shows the wild and scenic river flows used in Bulletin 160-98 water budgets. 
The figures shown are based on the rivers' natural flow. (The natural flow in a river is the flow 
measured or calculated at some specific location that is unaffected by stream diversions, storage, 
imports or exports, return flows, or changes in water use created by changes in land use.) For the 



4-54 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4- Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



average year condition, the long-term average natural flow from the Department's Bulletin 1 was 
used. The estimated average natural flow for water years 1989-90 and 1990-91 was used for the 
drought condition. 

As shown in the table, the North Coast wild and scenic rivers constitute the majority of 
the wild and scenic flows counted toward environmental water use. 

Table 4-15. Wild and Scenic Flows by Hydrologic Region (taf) 







1995 




2020 




Region 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 


17,800 


7,900 


17,800 




7,900 


San Francisco Bay 
















Central Coast 


88 


18 


88 




18 


South Coast 
















Sacramento River 


1,725 


735 


1,725 




735 


San Joaquin River 


880 


455 


880 




455 


Tulare Lake 


1,694 


769 


1,694 




769 


North Lahontan 


532 


239 


532 




239 


South Lahontan 
















Colorado River 
















Total 


22,719 


10,116 


22,719 




10,116 



Instream Flows 

Instream flow is the water maintained in a stream or river for instream beneficial uses 
such as fisheries, wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and navigation. Instream flow is one of the 
major factors influencing the productivity and diversity of California's rivers and streams. 

•^photo: shaded riverine habitat 

Instream flows may be established in a variety of ways — by agreements executed 
between DFG and a water agency, by terms and conditions in a water right permit from SWRCB, 
by terms and conditions in a FERC hydropower license, by a court order, or by an agreement 



4-55 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



among interested parties. Required flows on most rivers vary by month and by year type, with 
wet year requirements generally being higher than dry year requirements. 



CVPIA Anadromous Fish Restoration Program 

One provision of the 1992 CVPIA directed Interior to develop by October 1995, and to 
implement, a program "which makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that, by the year 2002, 
natural production of anadromous fish in Central Valley Rivers and streams will be 
sustainable, on a longterm basis, at levels not less than twice the average levels attained 
during the period of 1967-1991". (The San Joaquin River between Friant Dam and Mendota 
Pool is not covered by this goal.) In response to that provision, USFWS prepared a 1995 
working paper on restoration needs that was a listing of many possible restoration actions 
(some involving instream flows, and some not) without regard to their reasonableness. 
Elements of that working paper were subsequently incorporated in a December 1995 draft 
restoration plan, which was superseded by a revised draft prepared in May 1997. One 
function of the draft plans was to evaluate (at a programmatic level) the reasonableness of 
implementing potential restoration actions, given the authority and funding provided Interior 
by CVPIA. For example, a potential restoration action that would involve modifying the 
diversion works of a local water agency would only be reasonable if the local agency wished 
to participate with USBR or USFWS in the action. The revised draft plan is scheduled to be 
followed by an implementation plan that would review priority actions to be taken in the next 
three to five years. 

The CVPIA tools available to USFWS and USBR to carry out the AFRP include the 
800 taf of project water dedicated for environmental purposes, the authority to acquire 
supplemental water to achieve AFRP goals, and the many physical habitat restoration 
measures required in the act (e.g., restoring spawning gravel, screening diversions, improving 
fish passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam). The CVP dedicated water is only available to 
USFWS and USBR only on CVP-controlled rivers below the major project dams. For other 
Central Valley waterways, the agencies are proposing to carry out a water acquisition program 
to buy water to meet AFRP needs. The quantity of water to be acquired is subject to available 
federal funding and the availability of water on the market. USBR's 1997 draft programmatic 
EIS for the CVPIA illustrates the costs and impacts associated with different levels of 
supplemental water acquisition. 



Since the 1990 instream flow values used as base conditions in Bulletin 160-93, 
subsequent agreements or decisions have increased the instream flows used for this Bulletin's 
1 995 base year. The affected waterways were: the Trinity River, Mokelumne River, Stanislaus 
River, Tuolumne River, Owens River, Putah Creek, and Mono Lake tributaries. In addition, ten 
new waterways have been added to the Bulletin 160-98 instream flow water budgets — the Mad 
River, Eel River, Russian River, Truckee River, East Walker River, Nacimiento River, San 

4-56 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Joaquin River (at Vemalis), Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, and Piru Creek. 

Factors Affecting Future Instream Flows. As noted earlier, it is difficult to forecast 
future regulatory actions or agreements that could result in changes to existing instream flow 
requirements. Some factors likely to play a part affect decisions about future flow requirements 
include listings or potential listings of new fish species, habitat restoration programs, and 
programs to acquire water for environmental purposes. 

ESA Listings of Aquatic Species. Recent decisions on federal listing of coho salmon and 
steelhead trout (see Chapter 2) are likely to influence water management decisions affecting 
these species, but the specific actions will ultimately depend on the outcome of consultations, 
biological assessments, biological opinions, and habitat conservation plans conducted or 
prepared pursuant to the ESA. In July 1997, the Governor's Executive Order W- 159-97 created 
the Watershed Protection and Restoration Council. The Council is responsible for oversight of 
state activities aimed at watershed protection and enhancement, including restoration of 
anadromous salmonids. One of the goals of this effort is to provide sufficient protection to coho, 
steelhead, and other anadromous salmonids to satisfy ESA requirements. Successful 
implementation of this program could lessen water supply impacts of salmonid listings. 

Coho salmon are found in coastal streams, and in large river systems such as the Klamath 
River and its tributaries. Some of the greatest potential for water supply impacts could be on the 
Klamath River system (including the Trinity River tributary), where USFWS is finalizing 
instream flow studies for several anadromous salmonids. Steelhead populations are distributed 
throughout coastal streams and rivers, and are also found in the Sacramento Valley. (Wild stocks 
of steelhead in the Sacramento River system are mostly confined to upper watershed tributaries 
such as Antelope, Deer, and Mill Creeks, and the Yuba River. The San Joaquin River system no 
longer supports a significant natural steelhead population ~ most steelhead found in the system 
are hatchery fish.) Data from the SWF and CVP pumping plants in the southern Delta indicate 
that most juvenile steelhead move through the Delta during the winter and early spring, when 
Bay-Delta Accord restrictions to benefit other salmonids are already in place. Water supply 
impacts on coastal rivers and streams will have to be evaluated from a basin-specific standpoint. 

The spring-run chinook salmon, a candidate species under the California ESA, 
traditionally spawned in the upper reaches of Central Valley rivers and their tributaries. Today, 
Deer, Mill, and Butte creeks are considered crucial Sacramento River tributaries for spring-run 



4-57 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



spawning. Sustaining populations of spring-run are also found in Battle Creek, and the Feather 
and Yuba rivers, although there are questions about the genetic integrity of these populations 
because of interbreeding between fall-run and spring-run salmon. As described in the previous 
section, portions of Deer and Mill Creeks were given special status by State legislation, to help 
protect the fishery. Habitat restoration actions are also being carried out at the local conservancy 
level for Deer and Mill creeks. 

Habitat Restoration Actions. As described in Chapters 5 and 6, there are many habitat 
restoration programs underway, and a tremendous amount of funding is now available for 
restoration actions. Improving river and stream habitat through measures such as facilitating fish 
passage, replenishing spawning gravel, and restoring shaded riverine habitat will help in the 
efficient management of water dedicated or acquired for environmental purposes. Specific 
benefits of habitat restoration will have to be evaluated on a watershed-by-watershed basis — at a 
statewide level it is not possible to quantify potential water supply implications of ongoing and 
future habitat restoration actions. Examples of programs or projects now underway are 
described in later chapters. 

Water Acquisition for Instream Flows. The 1997 draft programmatic EIS for CVPIA 
implementation describes USBR/USFWS water acquisition alternatives for the AFRP. In 
developing our estimates of future environmental water needs for instream flows, we have used 
the amounts proposed in alternative 4 of the draft PEIS as placeholder values for this public 
review draft of the Bulletin. Quantification of alternative 4 flows was obtained from USBR's 
PROSIM operations studies. As described in the draft PEIS, these values are shown in Table 
4-16. 



4-58 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-16. Proposed Instream Flows, CVPIA PEIS 



Location 


Target 


Long-Term 




Quantity(taf) 


Average (taf) 


Merced River 


200 


194 


Tuolumne River 


200 


197 


Stanislaus River 


200 


194 


Calaveras River 


30 


27 


Mokelumne River 


70 


62 


Yuba River 


100 


87 



We have used PEIS alternative 4 flows for calculation of Bulletin 160-98 future 
environmental water demands because the flows represent the higher end of potential federal 
water acquisition actions, and hence provide a conservative estimate of future demands. Under 
USSR's assumptions for alternative 4, the instream flows are not allowed to be exported at the 
Delta. 

This public review draft of Bulletin 160-98 is being printed at the same time the draft 
CVPIA PEIS is also being reviewed by the public. USBR/USFWS have not made a final 
decision as to the proposed scope of CVPIA' s water acquisition program. If such a decision is 
available before Bulletin 160 is finalized, the Bulletin's environmental water demands will be 
modified to reflect the decision adopted by USBR/USFWS. 

CVPIA authorizes USBR/USFWS to acquire the supplemental water from willing sellers. 
At this time, no long-term sources (e.g., long-term contracts for water transfers) have been 
established - supplemental water acquired to date has been purchased on a year-to-year basis. It 
is thus not possible to identify specifically how and where the supplemental water would be 
obtained in the future, or what other water demands might be reduced as a result of CVPIA water 
transfers. Chapter 6 provides more detail on how water transfers are treated in Bulletin 160 
water budgets. 

Instream Flow Summary. Table 4-17 summarizes instream flow quantities counted as 
environmental water supply. The drought year scenario shown in the table represents the 
minimum annual volume required. For average water years, the annual volume is computed by 
combining the expected number of years in each year type (wet, above normal, normal, below 
normal, and/or dry, as specified in the existing agreement or order) to estimate the average year 

4-59 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



requirement over a long period of time. 

For the purposes of water budget computations, the Department counts instream flows as 
depleted if the flows go directly to a salt sink, such as the ocean. In the Central Valley where 
some instream flows may reach the ocean, any depletions are counted toward required Delta 
outflow (see following section). This approach avoids counting depletions twice ~ once as 
instream flow and once as Delta outflow. 

Table 4-17. Instream Flows by Hydrologic Region (taf) 





1995 




2020 




Region 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 


1,410 


1,285 


1,410 


1,285 


San Francisco 


17 


9 


17 


9 


Central Coast 


20 


9 


20 


9 


South Coast 


4 


4 


4 


4 


Sacramento River 


3,397 


2,784 


3,484 


2,871 


San Joaquin River 


1,169 


712 


1,843 


1,386 


Tulare Lake 














North Lahontan 


85 


84 


85 , 


84 


South Lahontan 


107 


81 


107 


81 


Colorado River 














Total 


6,208 


4,969 


6,969 


5,730 



Bay-Delta Outflow 

Environmental water demands for Bay-Delta outflow are computed by using operations 
studies to quantify SWRCB Order WR 95-6 requirements. This section briefly describes the 
hydrologic setting of the Delta and some of its environmental resource issues. Readers interested 
in detailed descriptions of Delta hydrodynamics, facilities, and environmental resources may 
wish to review the extensive materials prepared by the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Space 
constraints in this chapter do not permit us to do justice to the tremendous amount of data and 
information available on Delta resources. Figure 4-13 Is a location map of the Bay-Delta. 

«• aerial photo of Delta 



4-60 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-13. Bay -Delta Estuary 



Suwi Raource 
ConMtvtfon IMct 




SC4LE IN WLIS 



4-61 



DRAFT 



auimin itm-^a h'uoiic h<eview uran L,napier 4. uman, Mgncuiiurai, ana tnvironmentai water use 

Hydrologic Setting. The Bay-Delta Estuary is subject to mixed semidiurnal tides-two 
unequal high and two unequal low tides— every day. An enormous volume of water (an average 
of about one-fourth of the Estuary's total volume), moves in and out of the Estuary with each 
tidal cycle. Tidal action and Delta outflow are two important physical processes which establish 
salinity gradients and carry sediments through the system. Tidal action and Delta outflow cause 
seaward-flowing fresh water from the rivers to mix with denser landward-flowing salt water from 
the ocean. 

There are three major components to Delta water inflow: precipitation, inflow from the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and inflow from the east side streams (including the 
Calaveras, Mokelumne and Cosumnes rivers). Figure 4-14 shows annual inflow and outflow 
values for 1980-1996. For this period, the annual inflow to the Delta was 25.7 maf, more than 75 
percent of which was contributed by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. 

Delta outflow is the calculated amount of water flowing past Chipps Island, at the 
western edge of the Delta, into Suisun Bay. Delta outflow is small compared to the average tidal 
flow at the Golden Gate or Chipps Island. The magnitude of Delta outflow controls salt water 
intrusion from the ocean into the estuary. The magnitude of Delta outflow also influences the 
distribution of many estuarine fishes and invertebrates. Generally, the greater the outflow, the 
farther downstream estuarine fish and invertebrates occur. The relationship betw6en Delta 
outflow and abundance of fish and invertebrates is much less clear. However, species such as 
longfin smelt and juvenile splittail show strong correlations between abundance and Delta 
outflow. The effects of outflow on species can vary depending on the time of year and type of 
water year. 



4-62 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-14. Historic Delta Inflow and Outflow 1980-96 




I Inflow 
I Outflow 



o^rgcO'^tincoN-oooi 
cooooocoooaooocooooo 



^ <NI CO 5 If) 

Oi 0> ^ d Q) 

Oi Oi O) O) O) 



4-63 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



ra'photo: Suisun Marsh 

Suisun Bay, the first embayment below the Delta, receives a high freshwater inflow that 
contributes much of the dissolved nutrients needed to support estuarine food chains. The Bay's 
extensive areas of shallow water habitat are an important ecological feature of the Estuary. 
Adjacent to Suisun Bay is Suisun Marsh which includes about 58,600 acres of diked managed 
wetlands, tidal marsh, and adjacent grasslands; 29,500 acres of bays and waterways, and a buffer 
zone of 27,900 acres of varying land use. The Suisun Marsh is one of the largest contiguous 
brackish water marshes in the United States. Today, nearly half of the waterfowl and shorebirds 
migrating on the Pacific Flyway pass through the Estuary each year, using the marsh and 
wetlands as feeding and resting stations. 

•ts-photo: Delta smelt 

Delta Fish Species of Special Concern — Anadromous and Resident Delta Species, 
About two-thirds of California's salmon migrate through the Delta. These salmonids include 
those having commercial importance (fall-run chinook salmon), as well as listed or candidate 
species (winter-run chinook, spring-run chinook, and steelhead trout). Resident fish species of 
special concern include Delta smelt (listed as threatened under both the state and federal ESAs) 
and splittail (proposed for federal ESA listing). Habitat needs of anadromous and resident Delta 
species of special concern were reflected in actions taken in the Bay-Delta Accord and in 
SWRCB's Order WR 95-6. The Accord's provisions for coordination of CVP and SWF 
operations in the Delta with the presence offish species of concern have been reflected in actions 
by the CALFED Operations Group to reduce Delta exports at times when monitoring indicated 
that significant numbers of fish were present in the southern Delta. 

Managing CVP and SWP Delta operations under near real-time conditions requires 
extensive data collection and monitoring support. The Interagency Ecological Program, a 
cooperative effort of nine state and federal agencies (DWR, DFG, SWRCB, USBR, USFWS, 
USEPA, NMFS, USAGE, and USGS), acquires and disseminates near real-time fish distribution 
and abundance data used by the CALFED Operations Group. (The lEP also performs baseline 
monitoring of benthic, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish populations, and conducts studies 
on fish species of concern.) 



4-64 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Recovery Efforts for Winter-run Chinook Salmon 

As indicated by the plot of winter-run salmon escapement shown in Figure 4-15, there 
has been a long-term decline in the species' population. The ultimate goal for recovery of 
winter-run salmon would be restoration of a self-sustaining, naturally spawning population. 
Two efforts are being conducted to help achieve this goal - a captive broodstock program and 
an artificial propagation program. The purpose of the broodstock program is to maintain the 
genetic composition of the existing population, and that of the artificial propagation program 
is to stabilize and increase the naturally spawning population. 

Discussions among State and federal agencies and stakeholder groups in 1991 and 1992 
led to the creation of a program to evaluate the feasibility of rearing Sacramento River winter- 
run fiy in captivity, so that a broodstock would be available if wild winter-run fish were to 
disappear. (The population's small size makes it vulnerable to catastrophic loss of a year 
class, such as a loss that could be caused by a chemical spill in the vicinity of winter-run 
spawning areas. The captive broodstock would provide an alternate source of genetic material 
as insurance against such a loss.) Agencies participating in funding the program include 
USBR, USFWS, NOAA, DWR, and DFG. Rearing facilities were established at the 
University of California's Bodega Marine Laboratory and the California Academy of 
Sciences' Steinhart Aquarium. Juvenile fish from the 1991 year class were delivered to these 
facilities in 1992. The parent broodstock were wild winter-run captured in the Sacramento 
River. Presently, fish from four year classes are being held at the facility. 

The artificial propagation program entails trapping known wild adult winter-run fish, 
spawning them in a controlled environment, and rearing the offspring for release back to the 
river system. As adults, the artificially propagated fish would return to winter-run spawning 
areas and commingle with wild winter-run. Artificial propagation activities were originally 
begun at USFWS 's Coleman National Fish Hatchery on Battle Creek, but fish reared at 
Coleman imprinted on Battle Creek water and returned there to spawn, rather than going to 
the upper Sacramento River as desired. (There were also difficulties associated with 
distinguishing between winter-run and spring-run chinook, in selecting the fish to be 
propagated. Better genetic identification techniques have been developed to address this 
problem.) Construction of a temporary rearing facility on the Sacramento River mainstem has 
been proposed as a means to avoid the straying of returning adults. The rearing facility and 
the broodstock program would both be temporary actions to sustain the winter-run until 
natural spawning would be sufficient to allow the species to recover. 



L 



4-65 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-15. Winter-run Salmon Escapement 



120 



100 



^ 60 



c 
e 

E 
o 

a. 

(0 

o 

(A 
UJ 




1967 



1972 



1977 



1982 



1987 



1992 



1997 



4-66 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

•^photo: Coleman National Fish Hatchery 

Introduced Species in the Bay-Delta. Populations of native species of special concern are 
affected by a variety of factors, many of which are not related to Delta outflow. One nonflow 
factor now receiving more attention is competition from introduced aquatic species (see Chapter 
2 for a description of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996). Introduction of non-native 
species into an ecosystem can alter the pre-existing balance achieved among the native species. 
Native species' populations can be reduced, for example, when introduced species out-compete 
the native species for food or otherwise alter the food chain, or when introduced species prey 
upon native species. 

In the Bay-Delta, new introductions are occurring in a system that already has numerous 
introduced species. Researchers estimate that the Bay-Delta is now home to at least 150 
introduced plant and animal species, some of which were introduced deliberately (planting of 
game fish species such as striped bass) and others whose arrival was accidental (discharge of 
invertebrates in ship ballast water). The Asian clam, for example, was first detected in the Bay in 
1986, and has now become the most abundant mollusk in the northern part of the Bay. This clam 
is a voracious feeder on the phytoplankton upon which other aquatic species depend. The zebra 
mussel (see photo) ~ which has caused millions of dollars of damages in the Great Lakes states 
~ has not yet been detected in the Delta, but experts believe that it may be only a matter of time 
before the mussel arrives. 

•s'photo: zebra mussel 

Quantifying Delta Outflow Requirements, S WRCB Order WR 95-6 established 
numerical objectives for salinity, river flows, export limits, and Delta outflow. DWRSIM 
operations studies were used to translate these numerical objectives into Delta outflow 
requirements for average and drought year scenarios. The studies computed outflow 
requirements of approximately 5.6 maf in average years and 4.0 maf in critically dry years. 



467 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Wetlands 

The wetlands component of environmental water use is based on water use at freshwater 
managed wetlands, such as federal national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas. 
The following text reviews the status of wetland acreage in California and existing wetland 
management programs, then discusses quantification of water demands and supplies for 
wetlands. 

In general, wetlands can be divided into saltwater and brackish water marshes (usually 
located in coastal areas) and freshwater wetlands (generally located in inland areas). Five areas 
of California contain the largest remaining wetlands acreage in the State. These areas are the 
Central Valley, Himiboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, Suisun Marsh, and Klamath Basin. The 
majority of the State's wetland protection and restoration efforts are occurring in these areas. In 
California today, nontidal wetlands usually depend on a supplemental water supply. Thus, 
protecting and restoring nontidal wetlands may cause additional demands on freshwater supplies. 

«^ photo: managed wildlife refuge 

Wetlands Policies and Programs. Many programs and policies have been adopted by 
federal. State and regional agencies and private entities to protect and restore wetlands in 
California. These regulations and policies are intended to protect existing wetlands, improve 
wetland management practices and increase wetland habitats. Several of the more recent wetland 
programs and policies are discussed below. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Ecosystem restoration is a large part of the CALFED 
program. CALFED 's draft Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan proposes habitat restoration 
goals that include restoring 64,000 acres of seasonal and perennial wetlands and 2,000 acres of 
riparian habitat, returning 37,000 to 57,000 acres to tidal action and enhancing 8,000 acres of 
existing seasonal wetlands. About 1,700 acres of wetland restoration projects were funded under 
the Accord's Category III program in 1995 and 1996. 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Water is to be provided to 1 5 existing wildlife 
reftiges identified in USBR's Refuge Water Supply Report and to the five habitat areas identified 
in the USBR/DFG San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Plan. The Act directed 
the Secretary to provide firm water supplies for the 1 5 Central Valley refuges, and to provide 
two-thirds of the water supply needed for full habitat to the SJBAP refuges. By 2002, the 
Secretary is to provide, by purchases from willing sellers, the northern and southern wetlands .. 



4-68 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



areas with water supplies needed for optimal habitat development. 

USBR/USFWS were also required to prepare a report by September 1997 which 
investigates the method of improving water supplies in the Central Valley for existing private 
wetlands and for 120,000 acres of new wetlands. The 120,000 acres is based on the wetland 
restoration objective of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Report. USFWS's report is 
currently in preparation. 

Additionally, the act required that financial incentives be made available to farmers 
within the CVP service area for flooding agricultural lands to provide waterfowl habitat. The 
incentives represent cost-sharing for water purchases, pumping costs, facilities construction 
(water control structures, ditches, etc.) and upgrades or maintenance of existing facilities. CVPIA 
caps the funding for this program at $2 million per year, and the program terminates in 2002. 



California Wetlands Conservation Policy 

In August 1993, the Governor announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy." 
The goals of the policy are to establish a framework and strategy that will: 

• Ensure no overall net loss and achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, 
and permanence of wetlands acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters 
creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property 

• Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and federal wetlands 
conservation programs. 

• Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative 
planning efforts the primary focus of wetlands conservation and restoration. 

The policy recommends the completion of a statewide inventory of existing wetlands 
which will then lead to the establishment of a formal wetland acreage goal. This inventory is 
in progress and to date about one-half of the State has been inventoried. The Resources 
Agency expects these policies to result in improved status for 30 to 50 percent of the State's 
wetlands by the year 2010. Based on the estimate of 450,000 acres of existing wetland in the 
State, as much as 225,000 acres of wetland would be improved, restored or protected. 



BS'photo: waterfowl at wetlands 
North American Waterfowl Management Plan— Joint Ventures. In 1986, the North 
American Waterfowl Management Plan was signed by the United States and Canada. In 1996 the 
Plan was updated, and Mexico became a signatory. The NAWMP provides a broad framework 
for waterfowl management in North America through the year 2010; it also includes numerical 
goals for waterfowl populations and for wetland and upland habitat protection restoration, and 



4-69 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 

enhancement. Implementing the NAWMP is the responsibility of designated joint ventures, in 
which governmental agencies and private organizations pool their resources to solve waterfowl 
habitat problems and to address habitat needs for other species that benefit from wetlands. There 
are now four NAWMP joint ventures whose geographic boundaries include part of California. A 
fifth joint venture is being discussed for Southern California. The four existing joint ventures in 
California are described below. 

The Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. The CVHJV, established in 1988, was the first 
joint venture formed in California. The CVHJV adopted six goals for the Central Valley: 

• Protect 80,000 acres of existing wetlands through fee acquisition or conservation 
easement 

Restore (and protect) 120,000 acres of former wetlands 
Enhance 291,555 acres of existing wetlands 

Enhance water-based habitat on 443,000 acres of private agricultural land 
Secure 402,450 af of water for 15 existing refuges in the Central Valley 
Secure CVP preference power for public and private lands dedicated to wetland 
management (i.e., provide access to low-cost power generated at CVP facilities) 

In 1990, the Legislature authorized the Inland Wetlands Conservation Program within the 
Wildlife Conservation Board. This program carries out some of the objectives of CVHJV by 
administering a $2 million per year program to acquire, improve, buy, sell, or lease a wetland 
habitat. As of January 1996, $13.6 million has been authorized for the acquisition of 867 acres of 
existing wetlands, for acquisition and enhancement of 5,004 acres of degraded wetlands, and for 
enhancement of 46,622 acres of existing wetland and associated upland nesting habitat. 
Through 1996, the CVHJV has made the following progress toward its goals: 

• 67,000 existing wetland acres were protected through acquisition or easements 

• 42,000 acres were restored and protected, and 6,000 acres acquired for restoration 

• 45,000 acres of wetland per year have been enhanced. (In many cases, wetlands have 
received multiple, sometimes annual, enhancements because of their location or 
participation in various CVHJV programs.) 

• 1 52,000 acres of agricultural land were enhanced for wildlife in 1 995- 1 996 

• 399,000 acre feet of CVP water were delivered in the 1995-1996 irrigation season. 
The CVHJV projects that in the next ten years, 5,000-6,000 acres of wetlands per year 

4-70 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



will be restored, and approximately 50,000 acres per year will be affected by enhancement 
projects. In addition, the CVHJV anticipates that the objective to protect 80,000 acres of existing 
wetlands will be accomplished with fee or easement acquisition of an additional 12,200 acres. 

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture. This joint venture encompasses coastal wetlands, major 
rivers and adjacent uplands from northern British Columbia to the northern edge of San 
Francisco Bay. In California, there are two focus areas with strategic plans outlining specific 
target areas and acreage objectives. The objectives for the northern focus area (Del Norte and 
Humboldt counties) are shown below. Almost all the wetlands are coastal projects with little or 
no freshwater requirements. 

► Maintain 22,000 acres of seasonal wet pasture land in agricultural usage compatible 
with water-associated wildlife 

► Permanently protect an additional 10,500 acres of key wetlands through easements or fee 
acquisitions 

► Protect, restore and enhance 10,100 acres of wetlands on existing public lands 

► Assist landowners to protect, enhance and restore 5,000 acres through various cooperative 
projects 

Objectives of the southern focus area (Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin counties excepting 
watersheds draining to San Francisco Bay) are shown below. Approximately half of the acreages 
are inland (nontidal) habitats requiring fresh water. 

► Permanently secure through fee acquisition or easements an additional 20,000 acres of 
coastal and interior wetlands, riparian habitats and associated uplands. 

► Restore 3,500 acres of reclaimed coastal and interior wetlands on both private and public 
lands. 

► Enhance 5,500 acres of coastal and interior wetlands and riparian habitats on public and 
private lands. 

The Intermountain West Joint Venture. This Joint Venture encompasses parts of Canada 
and Mexico and all or part of eleven western states, including eastern California. The California 
action group has completed a working agreement and drafted plans for six focus areas. Acreage 
goals for acquisition, restoration and enhancement have not yet been determined. 

The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture. This joint venture was established in 1995 with the 
goal to protect, restore, increase and enhance wetlands, riparian habitat and associated uplands 



4-71 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 4. Urban. Agricultural, and Environrr^ental Water Use 



throughout the San Francisco Bay region to benefit waterfowl, other wildlife, and fish. The 
management board is working out a memorandum of understanding and drafting an 
implementation strategy. Formal acreage goals and time lines for acquisition and restoration 
projects will then be established. It is expected that many of the areas protected or restored by the 
SFBJV will be tidal areas with little or no fresh water requirement. 

Refuge Water Conservation Programs. In the spring of 1997, the Reftige Water Supply 
Interagency Coordinated Program Task Force was formed as an outgrowth of discussions in 
CALFED and CVPIA programs regarding the need to have best management practices for water 
conservation on wildlife refiiges. The goal of the task force is to develop a common 
methodology for water management planning, including water conservation actions, for the 
federal. State, and private refiiges covered in CVPIA' s refiige water supply provisions. A draft 
document containing BMPs or efficient water use guidelines for the refuges is scheduled to be 
released for public review in 1998. 

Wetlands Water Demands. The Bulletin quantifies applied water needs only for 
managed wetlands because other wetlands types such as vernal pool or coastal wetland habitats 
use naturally-occurring water supply such as precipitation or tidal action. Managed wetlands are 
defined for this purpose as impounded freshwater and nontidal brackish water wetlands or 
agricultural lands flooded to create v^ldlife habitat. Of the estimated 450,000 acres of wetlands 
in the State, approximately 75 percent (335,000 acres) are managed. (Although agricultural 
lands flooded for wildlife habitat are not usually considered wetlands, they provide important 
winter feeding habitat for migratory waterfowl.) Figure 4-16 shows California's publicly 
managed wetlands. 

Managed wetlands are owned and operated as State and federal wildlife areas, private 
wetland preserves owned by nonprofit organizations, or private duck clubs. Agricultural lands 
flooded to create waterfowl habitat are primarily rice fields in the Sacramento Valley and com or 
other small grain crops in the Delta. Managed wetlands receive water from several sources 
including groundwater, local surface water, imported surface water from the CVP, the SWP, and 
local projects, as well as agricultural return flows. Table 4-18 shows wetlands water demands by 
region. 



4-72 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Figure 4-16. Publicly Managed Fresh Water Wetlands 




.^ 



^18i 



120/ 



►26/ 



1. Shasta Valley WJ\. 

2. Butte Valley WA 

3. Lower Klamath N.W.R. 

4. Tula Lake N.W.R. 

5. aear Lake N.W.R. 

6. Modoc N.W.R. 

7. Ash Creek WA 

8. Willow Creek WA 

9. Honey Lake V^A. 

10. Upper Butte Basin WA 

11. Sacramento River N.W.R. 

12. Sacramento N.W.R. 

13. Delevan N.W.R. 

14. Gray Lodge WA 

15. Butte Sink N.W.R. 

16. Colusa N.W.R. 



17. Sutter N.W.R. 

18. Yolo Bypass WA 

19. Stone Lakes N.W.R. 

20. Suisun Marsh WA 

21. North Grassland WA 

22. Kesterson N.W.R. 

23. San Luis N.W.R. 

24. Merced N.W.R. 

25. Votta WA 

26. Los Banos WA 

27. Mendota WA 

28. Pixley N.W.R. 

29. Kern N.W.R. 

30. San Jadnto WA 

31. Imperial WA 

32. Salton Sea N.W.R. 



N.W.R - National Wildlife Refuge 

WA = State Wildlife & Ecological Reserve 



(27 



Tzg 



A-2d- 



X>'C^- 



>30 



ti 
V 



• 31 
• 32 



4-73 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 4. Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use 



Table 4-18. Wetlands Water Demands by Region (taf) 





1990 




1995 




Region 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 


325 


325 


325 


325 


San Francisco 


160 


160 


160 


160 


Central Coast 














South Coast 


27 


27 


31 


31 


Sacramento River 


632 


632 


665 


665 


San Joaquin River 


230 


230 


336 


336 


Tulare Lake 


50 


50 


68 


68 


North Lahontan 


18 


18 


18 


18 


South Lahontan 














Colorado River 


39 


38 


44 


43 


Total 


1,481 


1,480 


1,647 


1,646 



Summary of Environmental Water Demands 

Table 4-19 shows base 1995 and forecasted 2020 environmental water demands by 
hydrologic region. The large values in the North Coast region illustrate the magnitude of 
demands for wild and scenic rivers in comparison to other environmental water demands. 
Table 4-19. Summary of Environmental Water Demands by Hydrologic Region (taf) 





1995 




2020 




Region 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 


19,544 


9,518 


19,545 


9,518 


San Francisco 


5,762 


4,294 


5,762 


4,294 


Central Coast 


108 


27 


108 


27 


South Coast 


31 


31 


35 


35 


Sacramento River 


5,825 


4,222 


5,951 


4,344 


San Joaquin 


2,302 


1,420 


3,087 


2,205 


Tulare Lake 


1,752 


827 


1,771 


846 


North Lahontan 


635 


341 


635 


341 


South Lahontan 


107 


81 


107 


81 


Colorado River 


39 


38 


44 


43 


Total 


36,104 


20,799 


37,043 


21,734 



4-74 



DRAFT 



Mini" 








Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

This chapter highlights the present status and anticipated development of water 
management technologies, in counterpart to Chapter 2, which focuses on the status of 
institutional and programmatic water management actions. Review of water management 
technologies provides an important foundation for the evaluation of water management options 
described in later chapters of the Bulletin. For example, it is a common public perception that 
desalting will solve most of California's future water problems. However, the current and 
reasonably foreseen state of the technology suggests that it will be used to meet relatively small, 
specialized needs. This chapter provides some pase histories of application of selected 
technologies, and illustrates a few innovative examples. 

Demand Management Technologies 
Urban Residential Technology 

Technology will further improve residential water use efficiency. As discussed in 
Chapter 4, advances over the past twenty years have come primarily from redesign of plumbing 
fixtures to meet new State and federal standards. In the future, there will be further improvement 
to fixtures, along with water-efficient home appliances such as clothes washers and water heating 
systems. In addition, technology is emerging to better quantify the end uses of water in the 
residential sector, yielding data to more accurately forecast urban water demand and optimize the 
allocation of demand management program resources. 

Plumbing Fixtures. State law requires all toilets sold or installed in California to use no 
more than 1 .6 gallons per flush. However, these standards have pushed traditional gravity 
operated toilets to the limit of acceptable operation. Significant additional savings could come 
fi-om the use of pressure-assisted toilet design in the residential sector. 

Gravity toilets rely on the force of gravity to flush waste from the toilet bowl. When the 
flush mechanism is activated, water held in storage above the bowl flows through the rim holes 
and center jet. The water level in the bowl and trap way rises to flow over the crest of the trap 
way, creating a siphon action which empties the bowl. As the water level in the bowl drops, air 
enters the trap way and the siphon is broken. Performance of the gravity flow design is limited 

5-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

by the flow rate achieved through the bowl under the force of gravity, placing a limit on the 
potential for reducing the amount of water used in each flush. 

Pressure-assisted toilets employ pressurized flow into the bowl in conjunction with 
siphon action to give acceptable operation with less flushing water. The increased flow rate 
(more than 70 gallons per minute compared to about 25 GPM for gravity designs) provides 
greater force to remove solids from the bowl and hastens the start of the siphon action. In 
addition, the surge of water from a pressure-assisted toilet is more effective at pushing waste 
through the drain line. 

In the past, use of pressure-assisted technology was limited to the commercial sector due 
to cost and increased noise associated with the design. However, current residential designs 
using 1 .6 gallons or less per flush are less expensive than previous models and only slightly 
noisier than gravity toilets. Future residential designs are expected to require 0.5 gallons or less 
per flush, saving more than one gallon per flush compared to current 1 .6 GPF models. 

Clothes Washers, Horizontal-axis clothes washers, also referred to as tumble washers, 
use significantly less water than the traditional vertical-axis, central agitator machines. Rather 
than frilly immersing the clothes to wash them, the tub of the tumble washer rotates through a 
horizontal axis in alternating directions to lift and tumble the clothes through a pool of water. 
Recent studies show that tumble washers use about 25 to30 percent less water than central 
agitator models. The horizontal orientation of the wash tub allows for faster spin cycles, 
resulting in 30 percent better moisture removal over conventional models. 

As of 1997, five American manufacturers, and three overseas manufacturers produce 
horizontal-axis tumble washers that meet Consortium for Energy Efficiency specifications. The 
criteria include an energy factor, water factor, and estimated remaining moisture content. Table 
5-1 summarizes the results of a recent study comparing the water and energy use of tumble 
washers to traditional central agitator machines. 



5-2 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Electricity 


1,200 kWh 


Natural Gas 


43 therms 


Water 


15,300 gal 



Table 5-1. Potential Estimated Annual Water & Energy Use and Potential 
Savings for Horizontal Axis Washers^ 

Uso Uso 
(Standard Washers) (Horizontal Axis Washers) ^°^^"^'^' ^^^^"9^ 

600-900 kWh 300-600 kWh 

20-30 therms 1 3-23 therms 

9,800-12,000 gal 3,300-5,500 gal^ 

1 . Includes estimated savings for annual clothes dryer use. "Electricity" assumes electric water heating and electric drying. "Natural Gas" 
assumes gas water heating and gas drying. These energy saving estimates do not apply to machines using cold water cycles. 

2. The high end of estimated annual savings per household is based on DOE standards and a 1994 Proctor & Gamble survey with an average 
cumulative total of seven to eight wash loads weekly. 

Currently tumble washers in the United States range in price from about $900 to $ 1 ,200, 
about 2 to 3 times that of central agitator machines. However, as the market grows, prices are 
expected to decrease to within about $200 dollars of central agitator models. A recent survey of 
appliance retailers showed the residential market for tumble washers could increase from about 2 
percent at present to between 5 and 20 percent over the next five years. 

Water Heating. Hot water demand systems save water by eliminating the need to dr£iin 
cold water sitting in the pipe between the water heater and the plumbing fixture, or by reducing 
the distance between the heater and fixture. Demand systems come in two basic configurations: 
central storage tank and tankless systems. Central storage tank systems are based on traditional 
water heater and plumbing systems, modified with the addition of a valve to open a loop back to 
the hot water tank, and a pump to push the cold water back to the water heater while drawing hot 
water into the pipe. When hot water reaches the fixture, the loop closes and hot water exits the 
fixture. Tankless systems, also known as instantaneous or on-demand water heaters, heat water 
only when needed. They can be located near the plumbing fixture to reduce the amount of cold 
water that must be displaced for hot water to reach the fixture. Because they do not store hot 
water, tankless systems can save energy by eliminating standby losses. 

Water savings depend on the amount of water to be displaced before hot water reaches 
the fixture (or the amount of water that would have been displaced, in the case of tankless 
systems). Measurements by the California Energy Commission show that about 2 times the pipe 
volume between the water heater and the fixture must be replaced before hot water reaches the 
fixture, due to heat lost to the pipe. A study of potential water savings in southern California 



5-3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter. 5. Technology in Water Management 

showed that hot water demand systems could save approximately 30 gallons per day per unit, or 
about 10,000 gallons per year. 

Flow Trace Analysis. Water resource planners use information on the breakdown of 
water use within the residential sector to forecast future demand and to allocate demand 
management program resources. In the past, the breakdown was estimated from aggregate data 
obtained from water meters and assumptions about the water use of various fixtures and 
appliances. However, a 1995 study in Boulder, Colorado showed that detailed information on 
water use patterns could be gathered through analysis of data obtained from data loggers attached 
to residential water meters. The traces have sufficient detail to recognize flow signatures of 
individual fixtures and appliances. The technique also provides information on the breakdown 
between indoor and outdoor water use. Based on the success of the Boulder study, a larger study 
was organized. The goal of the North American Residential End Use Study is to collect a two- 
week data sample from 1,200 homes in 12 cities. The flow trace data will be disaggregated into 
the major end use components of residential use: toilets, showers, baths, faucets, dishwashers, 
clothes washers, and leaks. This data will be combined with information from a survey of study 
participants to construct a residential water model. The data collection phase of the study is 
scheduled to conclude in March 1998. 
Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Technology 

Plumbing Fixtures, The water savings potential of 0.5 gallon per flush toilets also 
applies to the commercial sector. In addition, while State law requires that urinals use no more 
than an average of 1 .0 gallon per flush, this water requirement could be further reduced or 
eliminated through the use of waterless urinals. Waterless urinals attach to standard plumbing 
stubs, but require no flushing water to operate. Urine drains by gravity from the bowl through a 
liquid seal that provides a barrier to bacteria and odor. The specific gravity of the liquid seal is 
lower than that of the urine, which flows through the seal and into the sewer pipe. Also, there is 
no need for a water supply line or flush valve. 

Water savings from waterless urinals depends on the frequency of use and the flushing 
water requirement of the fixture that is replaced. A study in southern California showed potential 
savings ranging from about 4,000 gallons per fixture per year in office buildings, to about 20,000 
in airports and movie theaters. Savings could be greater in more frequently- used facilities. In 

5^ DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

1995, the U.S. Navy equipped sample bathroom facilities at the Naval Air Station North Island in 
San Diego with waterless urinals. The study found that replacement saved about 45,000 gallons 
of water per year, with a pay-back period of about 3 years. Based on the success of the trial, more 
than 200 waterless urinals were later installed at the station. 

'S'Photo: Cooling Tower 

Cooling Towers. The largest use of water in the industrial sector is for cooling. Water is 
used to cool heat-generating equipment in locations such as power plants, products such as 
injected plastics and forged metals, and food products and containers in canneries. The most 
water-intensive cooling method is once-through cooling, where water contacts and lowers the 
temperature of a heat source, then is discharged to waste. Recirculating cooling tower systems 
reduce water use by using the same water for several cycles. 

The majority of cooling towers in California are recirculating evaporative systems, where 
the temperature of the cooling water is reduced through evaporation. As cooling water is 
recycled through the tower, the concentration of salts in the water increases. Salt build up must 
be managed to avoid scaling on condenser tubes, which results in reduced heat transfer 
efficiency. "Blowdown" is the release of some of the circulating water to remove the suspended 
and dissolved solids left behind due to evaporation. Make-up water is added in place of the 
blowdown to reduce the total dissolved solids. Water savings can accrue by minimizing 
blowdown or by converting to a dry cooling process based on air heat exchangers. 

Blowdown can by minimized by treating the recirculating water with sulfuric acid or 
ozone to control scaling and biological fouling, mechanical filtration of solids, and the use of 
conductivity sensors and automatic valves to precisely control the blowdown/makeup process. 
Savings can be maintained through regular calibration of the conductivity sensors. A 1996 study 
conducted for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California suggested that the majority 
of cooling tower water savings in southern California could be realized through the addition 
and/or calibration of conductivity controllers. Water savings estimates ranged from about 400 to 
more than 900 gallons per day, per site. 

Air heat exchangers use fans to blow air past finned tubes carrying the recirculating 
cooling water. The Pacific Power and Light Company's Wyodak Generating Station in Wyoming 
uses dry cooling to eliminate water losses from cooling-water blowdown and evaporation. The 

5-5 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

processed steam is condensed by routing it through finned carbon steel tubes as fans force air, at 
a rate of 45 million cubic feet per minute, through an 8 million square foot fmned-tube surface. 
This technique results in a water requirement of 300 gallons per minute, compared to about 4,000 
GPM of make-up water for equivalent evaporative cooling. 
Agricultural Technology 

Irrigation Systems. Many terms are used in describing the performance of irrigation 
systems, but the two most important are Distribution Uniformity and Seasonal Application 
Efficiency, as defined in Chapter 4. Irrigation experts generally agree that an 80 percent DU is 
achievable by all irrigation systems and is an upper limit for existing systems. With a maximum 
DU of 80 percent, an SAE of between 73 to 80 percent is possible. With today's systems, SAEs 
of more than 80 percent indicate under-irrigation, potentially resulting in a reduction of crop 
production and an increase in soil salinization. Whether a gravity or pressurized system, a well- 
designed and well-managed irrigation system appropriate to the field's terrain, soil, crop, and 
flow constraints can achieve the maximum DU and result high SAE, provided the irrigation 
water supply is of adequate quality and is available when needed at the proper rate of delivery. 

Adoption of new irrigation technology to reduce applied water must result in a reduction 
in at least one of the following: deep percolation, tailwater runoff, evapotranspifation, or 
leaching requirement. Reduced deep percolation and tailwater runoff could be achieved through 
improvement in DUs and irrigation management. Evapotranspiration could be reduced by either 
minimizing losses from surface evaporation, or intentional underirrigation with no loss in 
production or quality. Reducing the leaching requirement (the amount of water used to leach 
salts fi-om the soil) is not a goal because insufficient leaching results in salinization of the soil, 
rendering it less productive. 

Gravity (Surface) Irrigation Systems. These systems use the soil surface to spread and 
move water on and over a field. The field is optimally rectangular in shape, with the water 
entering the field fi-om the highest comer. The water moves over the surface of the soil, 
eventually covering the whole soil area that is intended to be irrigated. While the water is in 
contact with the soil, it infiltrates the soil to replenish soil moisture. The rate of infiltration 
varies by soil type and time (a sandy soil has a much higher infiltration rate than a clay soil). All 
soils have a maximum infiltration rate at the beginning of irrigation. The longer the water is in 

5-6 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

contact with the soil, the more the infiltration rate decreases, and in some soils it decreases to 
where almost no water infiltrates. 

The most important factors for achieving high DUs are intake opportunity time and the 
variability of soil infiltration rate. The lOT is the amount of time that the applied irrigation water 
is in contact with the soil. The lOT varies within an irrigated field. On some furrow systems, 
usually the part of the field closest to the source of water would have the highest lOT, and the 
lower half of the field the lowest. For high DUs, the lOT within a field must have a high 
uniformity. In addition, the homogeneity of the soil within a field will affect the DU. All fields 
have some variability in soils, which means the infiltration rate will vary. Different soils with 
the same lOT will have a different amount of water that infiltrates the soil. The greater the soil 
variability, the more soils infiltration rates will vary, resulting in a lower DU. 

The most important considerations for achieving high S AE are the timing of irrigation 
and applying the correct amount of water (and having a high DU). With most surface systems, 
the grower must make a decision as to how dry the soil can become before an irrigation is 
applied. This is called the allowable depletion. It is a decision by the grower based on the field, 
the irrigation system design, the crop, the soil depth, and other factors. If a grower has an AD of 
3 inches (i.e., the soil must be infiltrated to a depth of 3 inches to bring the soil moisture back up 
to field capacity), then the irrigation should occur when the soil in the field has dried to that 
level. The amount of water to be applied over the field should be more than 3 inches (due to the 
fact that water cannot be applied with a DU of 100 percent). Irrigating before reaching the AD 
could result in an over-application of water, and a lower SAE. Irrigating after reaching the AD 
might result in an under application, and an overly high SAE, which is not desirable, because 
plant stress due to underirrigation may occur, with potential loss in production and/or quality. 

The major types of gravity surface systems used in California ~ furrow, border strip, and 
level basin ~ are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Furrow is the most common type of gravity system, and is generally used for trees, vines, 
truck crops, and some field crops. Channels or corrugations are cut or pressed into the soil of a 
field, usually one furrow between planted rows of crops. Furrow shapes and depths vary, 
depending on the crop and field. Furrow lengths vary, depending on soil infiltration rates and 
slopes (among other factors). Efficient furrow systems have a slight grade, sloping down from 

5-7 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

the head of the field (where water enters the furrows), to the bottom of the field. Water is 
delivered to the furrows either using an earthen ditch and siphon tubes, gated pipe, or 
underground piping and above ground valves. In furrow systems the only portion of the soil 
surface in the field in contact with irrigation water is soil in the channel itself Usually, between 
20 to 50 percent of the soil surface in a furrow irrigated field comes in contact with the irrigation 
water. 

When irrigating sloping furrow systems, tailwater runs off the end of the furrows. A 
tailwater recovery system is needed to reuse this tailwater, either on the same field, or on another 
field. Efficient furrow management requires a relatively high flow at the beginning of the 
irrigation, to get the water down the furrow quickly, then the flow is cutback to reduce tailwater 
losses. 

Furrow systems can be designed and operated to achieve good SAE for a range of ADs, 
except for very small ADs. For instance, a furrow system used to irrigate at an AD of 4 inches 
could result in a DU of 80 percent. If irrigations were scheduled correctly, a high SAE would 
result (up to 80 percent). If this same system were used to irrigate at an AD of 6 inches, the DU 
would probably be about the same, as would the SAE (if the irrigations were scheduled 
correctly). The AD changes as the root zone changes. Therefore, the early season irrigation of 
annual crops will not be as efficient as later season irrigations, because the early season AD 
would be small (shallow root depths), while the later season AD would be large (deep roots). 
Technologies and actions to optimize DUs and increase SAEs for furrow systems are outlined 
below: 

(1) Increasing the advance rate by dragging torpedoes (heavy metal cylindrical devices) 
within a furrow smooths and compacts the soil surface. This is most effective for early 
season irrigations, where the soil surface is rough due to tillage, and the soil intake rate is 
high. 

(2) Shortening the length of the furrow will result in an improved advance ratio. 
(Shortening furrows results in an increase in the number of furrows, which can also 
increase the cost (labor, hardware, preparation) of irrigation.) 

(3) Laser leveling of fields to achieve a uniform slope, and a steeper slope (if possible), 
will increase the advance rate. 

5-8 DRAFT 



I 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

(4) Increasing the initial flow into each furrow can improve the advance ratio. The flow 
rate must not be high enough to cause furrow erosion. 

(5) Using surge irrigation, a technique where short term opening and closing of valves 
provides water to the furrows, resulting in the water "surging" down the furrow. (This 
technique is better suited to some soil types than others.) This technique will improve the 
uniformity of lOT in a furrow. It requires a surge valve designed for this application, and 
can easily be automated. 

(6) Reducing the flow rates in each furrow after the water has reached the end of the 
furrow is essential to reducing the amount of tailwater produced. 

(7) Using a properly planned and designed tailwater recovery system, along with using 
the captured tailwater efficiently on the same field or other irrigated fields, is essential to 
optimizing SAE. 

Border^Strip systems are generally used for alfalfa and pasture, but can be used on 
various field crops and trees and vines. A field is divided into a number of strips, usually 
between 20 to 100 feet wide. Low levees, or borders, divide each strip. Each strip has a slight 
slope from the head of the strip to the bottom, and ideally little or no slope between the sides. 
Water is delivered to each strip using either an earthen ditch and siphon tubes, gated pipe, or 
underground piping and above ground valves. Usually, other than that in the borders, all the soil 
surface in the strip comes in contact with the irrigation water, unlike the furrow method. 

During an irrigation, a relatively large flow of water is directed into each strip. The time it 
takes for the water to reach the end of the field is the advance rate. When the water is 
somewhere between 60 to 90 percent of the way down the strip, the water is shut off, and the 
water already in the strip continues to move down the strip. The time it takes for the water to 
recede from the soil surface (from the top of the strip to the bottom) is the recession rate. To 
achieve a high DU, the advance rate must be very similar to the recession rate, which results in a 
uniform lOT over the strip. Generally, a border-strip system is designed and operated to have a 
small amount of tailwater, which requires a tailwater recovery system for reducing applied water. 
Border-strip systems are designed to have a high DU and can achieve a high SAE, but only for a 
specific AD. Border-strip systems are well suited to crops with a constant deep root zone, such 



5-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

as alfalfa, pasture, trees, and vines. Technologies and actions for border-strip systems to 
optimize DUs and increase SAEs include: 

(1) Modify the advance rate to match the recession rate by either increasing or decreasing 
the onflow rate, changing border spacing, and using laser leveling to achieve a uniform 
slope and minimize cross slope. 

(2) Use a properly planned and designed tailwater recovery system, and use the captured 
tailwater efficiently on the same field or on other irrigated fields. Tailwater recovery is 
essential to optimizing SAE. 

Level Basin systems can be used on alfalfa, pasture, trees, vines, and various field crops. 
The size of each basin is variable and the design is dependent upon the infiltration rate of the soil 
in the basin, and the flow of water available for the basin. Basins can vary from small (50 x 50 
feet) to very large (10 or more acres). There should be little or no slope within a basin. Earthen 
berms are built up on all sides of the basin. Water is delivered into each basin from pipelines and 
valves (for smaller basins) or fi-om lined or unlined ditches with large gates. Normally, level 
basins are designed to have no tailwater. However, they can be designed to have an outflow, for 
the situation where too much water was applied. To achieve a high DU, the basin must be level, 
the flow of water must be high enough to cover the soil surface in a very short time (without any 
soil erosion from the flow), and the soils must be very uniform within the basin. Technologies 
and actions to optimize DUs and increase SAEs for level basin systems are outlined below: 

(1) Use laser leveling to achieve a precise grade. 

(2) Minimize soil variability within a basin. Large basins can be redesigned into smaller 
basins, each with more uniform soil characteristics. 

Pressurized (Piped) Irrigation Systems. These systems use pipelines and water emission 
devices (connected to the pipelines) to discharge water into the field and onto (or under) the soil 
surface. Water is pressurized using a pump, usually passes through a filter to reduce the chance 
of clogging the emission devices, and is fed into a main pipeline system to sub-mains, which 
feed water to lateral pipelines (with the emission devices attached) in the cropped field. The 
water flowing fi-om the devices is in the form of either a spray or a very small continuous stream. 
As the water meets the soil, the water infiltrates the soil to replenish soil moisture. 



5-10 DRAFT 



b 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

Pressurized systems are very different from surface systems. The performance of surface 
systems is dependent upon soil infiltration rates, lOT, and the amount of water applied. With 
pressurized systems, the DU is constant and depends on the design of the hardware. The DU will 
not change, unless pipeline leaks or clogging of devices occur or winds distort the spray pattern. 
Pressurized systems can apply water at a constant DU, and can apply almost any amount of water 
during an irrigation. One of the most important design considerations for achieving high DUs is 
pressure regulation. Almost all pressurized emission devices have a flow rate that changes with 
pressure. More pressure means a higher flow, a lower pressure means a lower flow. Excessive 
pressure variations in the design will result in a low DU. 

The most important considerations for achieving high SAE with pressurized systems are 
applying the correct amount of water during an irrigation, and maintaining a high DU. Since a 
pressurized system can apply any amount of water with the same uniformity, the amount of water 
that is needed to replenish the crop root zone must be determined before the irrigation. Then the 
irrigation can be operated for the correct amount of time to apply the required water. The major 
types of pressure irrigation systems used in California - sprinkler and micro-irrigation - are 
discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Sprinkler systems are the most common type of pressurized systems and can be used for 
almost all crops. With sprinkler systems, the emission devices are sprinkler heads, which create 
a spray that falls on the soil surface where it infiltrates into the soil. There are many different 
sprinkler head designs with flow rates that can vary from 10 gallons per minute to less than 
1 gallon per minute. The spacing of the sprinkler heads in the field is dependent upon the flow 
rates and the radius of the area where the spray contacts the soil. To achieve high DUs, systems 
are designed to space sprinkler heads close enough so that there is the proper amount of overlap 
of their wetted areas. 

There are two main considerations for achieving high DUs. A system must be designed 
to have a minimal pressure variation, which ensures uniform flow rates from the sprinkler heads. 
The sprinkler nozzles must be maintained, because clogged or partially clogged nozzles lower 
DU, and worn nozzles will change flow rates, resulting in larger variations in pressure in the 
system, and reducing DU. 



5-11 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

To achieve high SAEs, the correct amount of water needs to be appHed during an 
irrigation. Also, the application rate, which is the rate (in inches per hour) at which the spray 
falls onto the soil sloping, must be the same or less than the soil's infiltration rate. This latter 
point is especially important in fields, because the applied water would begin to puddle and flow 
over the surface and off the field. There are many variations in sprinkler systems used in 
California. Following are most commonly used types: 

(1) Permanent systems use underground pipelines. Risers connect to an underground 
lateral usually with a sprinkler head attached less than a foot from the surface. These 
systems are commonly used for orchard irrigation (under tree), but with taller risers, are 
used for vines. 

(2) Solid set systems are those that use above ground aluminum pipelines, usually in 20 
to 30 foot sections. Short risers connect the aluminum laterals to the sprinkler heads. 
With solid set system, the irrigation system covers a complete field. The system stays in 
the field for the whole growing season, and is removed before harvest. These systems are 
used mainly for field and truck crops. 

(3) Hand move systems are similar to the solid set systems, using the same aluminum 
pipelines, but do not normally cover a whole field. After an irrigation, the sprinkler 
laterals are disconnected from the submains, and moved by hand to the next location in 
the field. After each irrigation, the laterals are systematically moved to the next location. 
These systems are usually designed for each part of the field to receive irrigation water 
every 7 to 14 days. These systems are used on field crops, truck crops, and orchards. 

(4) Wheeled systems have the lateral, risers, and sprinkler heads all mounted on wheels 
that can be moved throughout the field during the irrigation season. Side roll systems are 
designed to be stationary during the irrigation. After the irrigation, they are moved (using 
an on-board engine or by hand) to the next location. 

(5) Linear move systems have the lateral, risers, and sprinklers mounted on large wheeled 
towers. The system continuously travels down the field during irrigations. The water is 
usually supplied to the system using a canal parallel to the travel of the system. 

"s-Photo: Center Pivot or Linear Move Sprinkler System 



5-12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

(6) Center pivot systems are similar in structure to linear move systems, except instead of 
the lateral traveling down the field, it travels in a circle in the field. One end of the lateral 
is fixed in the middle of the field, where the water enters the lateral. The entire lateral 
rotates around this pivot, and is continuously moving during irrigations. 
Technologies and actions for sprinkler systems to optimize DUs and increase SAEs are 
outlined below: 

(1) Ensure that pressure variation within the system is minimized and that sprinkler 
heads, nozzles, and spacings are adequate for the proper amount of overlap in spray. 
Ensure that application rates are lower than the soil infiltration rate, and that filtration is 
adequate for the system. The sprinkler system must be designed properly, and must be 
properly maintained. 

(2) To avoid spray losses, avoid irrigation during windy conditions, and ensure pressures 
and nozzles are compatible to avoid misting (excessively small droplet size). 

(3) Where appropriate, use flow control nozzles. 

Micro-Irrigation (Low volume) systems were first used in California in the 1 970s and 
their use increases each yeeir. Low volume systems have many of the same components of 
sprinkler systems: source of pressurized water, filter, main pipelines, sub-mains, and laterals. 
The main difference is in the devices that emit the water to the soil. These emit water at a very 
low flow rate (from 0.5 to 10 gallons per hour). There are two type of devices used, drip and 
micro-spray. With drip devices (emitters), the water flows out as a constant stream (0.5 to 2 
gallons per hour) directly to the soil, whereas with micro-spray, the devices (spray heads) 
produce a spray (4 to 20 gallons per hour) over the soil surface. Among differences from 
sprinkler systems are that usually the entire main and sub-main pipelines are underground rigid 
plastic pipe, the laterals are flexible plastic hose, and the filtration devices are designed to filter 
much smaller particles to prevent clogging. Emitter and spray heads use small orifices, channels, 
or nozzles to regulate the low flow rates, and thus are more subject to clogging by particulate 
matter and biological growth. 

Drip systems use emitters that are usually spaced 2 to 5 feet apart (closer spacings are 
possible with drop type). Drip systems can either be buried or placed on the soil surface. 
Because the water is not spread over the soil surface (as in a surface or sprinkler system) the soil 

5-13 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

directly underneath the emitters becomes wet, and the water moves both laterally and downward 
in the soil. As a result, the wetted area under the soil surface is somewhat spherical, with a 
wetted radius of up to 3 feet. Emitter spacing is based upon the soil type being irrigated, with 
sandier soils needing a closer spacing, and clay soils using the farthest spacing. Drip systems are 
mostly used in orchards and vines, strawberries, and nurseries. 

Micro-spray systems use small plastic sprinklers or jets that spray water over the soil 
surface, creating a wetted area up to 12 feet or more in diameter or more. The droplet sizes are 
small compared to a sprinkler system, and the application rate is also low. Micro-spray heads are 
connected to the plastic lateral hoses, usually one hose per row of trees. These systems are not 
designed to wet the entire soil surface like a typical sprinkler system. These systems are used 
almost exclusively in orchards. 

Both drip and micro-spray systems can achieve high DUs if pressure variation is 
minimized. Because of the small nozzles and emitter pathways, partial or full clogging is always 
a potential problem, and can significantly reduce DU. These systems require regular 
maintenance to reduce clogging, including frequent flushing of pipelines and lateral hoses, and 
addition of chemicals (such as chlorine and acids) to kill bacteria and other life forms that can 
grow in the hoses and emitters and to reduce scale buildup. The systems require filtration, and 
the filters need regular maintenance to ensure that they operate as designed. 

Achieving a high S AE with these systems is dependent on maintaining a high DU, and on 
proper irrigation scheduling. One advantage to these systems is that they are more easily 
controlled than most sprinkler and surface systems. They can be started and stopped easily 
(providing the water delivery system can accommodate rapid starting and stopping of flow), and 
are easier to automate, even to the extent of using remotely sensed field information for making 
irrigation timing decisions. Technologies and actions for optimizing DUs and increasing SAEs 
of micro-irrigation systems are outlined below: 

(1) Ensure that pressure variation within the system is minimized, the filtration system is 
adequate, and prevent emitter clogging. 

(2) Perform regular inspections of filters, emitters/spray heads, pressure levels, and 
tubing/pipelines, and provide regular maintenance, including filter cleaning and 
hose/pipeline flushing. 

5-14 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

Irrigation Scheduling, All irrigation systems require proper irrigation scheduling (the 
determination of timing of irrigation and the amount to be applied) to achieve high IE. 
Scheduling is a decision made by the grower, using information from various sources. To 
develop an optimized irrigation schedule, the grower must consider several factors: allowable or 
desirable crop water stress, the water holding capacity of the soil within the crop's root zone, 
water availability and/or delivery constraints, amount of effective rainfall, and application rate. 

With this information, along with soil moisture determinations, plant stress indices, 
and/or estimates of crop evapotranspiration, a grower can develop a water budget schedule. The 
water budget monitors how much water is leaving the soil (evapotranspiration), in order to make 
a decision to irrigate when the soil moisture reaches to a predetermined point (allowable 
depletion), and to operate the irrigation system for the correct amount of time to refill the 
moisture in the crop's root zone. 

Soil Moisture. Soil moisture status can be monitored many ways. Subsurface soil 
samples can be taken and visually inspected to estimate the moisture status. Tensiometers can be 
used. Tensiometers are plastic tubes with a ceramic porous cup at the bottom and a cap and a 
vacuum gauge at the top. Tensiometers are installed in the soil, porous cup down, at different 
depths (usually 1 to 4 feet). When filled with water, the tensiometer gives a gauge reading in 
centibars, between (wet) and 100 (dry). The readings are recorded, and when graphed, provide 
important information on when to irrigate. Moisture content can be estimated from electrical 
resistance devices (such as gypsum blocks) that rely on the change in electrical conductivity of 
water in the device. The devices are buried beneath the soil surface, wdth the wires protruding at 
the surface, and using a meter connected to the wires, the resistance is measured and recorded. 
Neutron probes are another moisture-sensing device. A probe measures the amount of neutrons 
reflected from water molecules in the soil. These readings can be used with a calibration curve 
to estimate the soil water content. 

Plant Moisture. Plant stress indicator devices include pressure bombs and infrared 
thermometers. A pressure bomb is used to determine the turgor pressure within the cells of a 
plant's leaf. A leaf is taken off a plant and the petiole is inserted into a small hole in a rubber 
stopper. The leaf is put into the device's pressure chamber with the end of the leaf stem exposed. 
Pressurized nitrogen enters the chamber slowly while the end of the stem is observed. When a 

5-15 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

fluid begins to emerge from the stem end, the pressure reading is recorded. This pressure is an 
estimate of the turgor pressure within the leaf, and indicates of the moisture status of the plant. 

Infrared thermometers are hand-held devices used to measure plant canopy temperature. 
Plants can control water loss by regulating the stomatal openings in their leaves. With the 
stomata closed, less water is evaporated and the leaf temperature rises. The difference between 
the plant canopy temperature and the ambient air temperature, with adjustments for humidity and 
wind, provides a measure of plant stress. Monitoring temperatures with this device aids in 
determining if crop stress is occurring, and can be an indication of the status of soil moisture. 

Estimating ET. Evapotranspiration estimates of crops are developed using either 
evaporation pans or weather information. Class A evaporation pans are commonly used for 
measuring evaporation. The pans, constructed of galvanized steel or aluminum, are four feet in 
diameter and 10 inches tall. Pans are situated in the center of a large irrigated turf area. The pan 
station includes devices to measure rainfall, temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity. 
Evaporation is measured by monitoring the change in height of the water in the pan. The 
evaporation readings are multiplied by crop coefficients to estimate evapotranspiration of a 
specific crop. 

'^hoto: Evaporation Pan 

Many growers use automated weather station data for determining crop 
evapotranspiration, such as the California Irrigation Management Information System. CIMIS is 
a repository of climatological data collected at over 80 computerized weather stations located 
throughout the State. CIMIS was developed by DWR and the University of California at Davis. 
Weather data are collected daily from each weather station site and automatically transmitted to a 
central computer located in Sacramento. The weather data (solar radiation, temperature, relative 
humidity, and wind speed) are used with a modified Penman equation to calculate reference 
evapotranspiration, ETq. ETq is the estimate of evapotranspiration of well-watered 4 to 6 inch 
tall turf. ETq is used in a grower's irrigation scheduling to estimate crop evapotranspiration, by 
multiplying ET^, by the appropriate crop coefficient. 

Reducing Crop ET. Regulated deficit irrigation is a technique to reduce crop 
evapotranspiration. Irrigation is reduced during a specific stage of the crop's growth, resulting in 
some crop stress at the time, but with little or no negative effects on production, quality, or on 

5-16 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Techrmlogy in Water Management 

future growth. Research has shown that this management technique may be applied to some tree 
crops such as pistachios, almonds, and olives. This irrigation strategy may have its greatest 
value in drought situations, where a grower may have to underirrigate. 

Summary - Agricultural Technologies. Growers will continue to optimize and improve 
their operations, including irrigation, as new technologies become available that have potential 
benefits. To further reduce applied water above what could be achieved with available 
technology, DU would have to increase above 80 percent. Increasing DUs in gravity surface 
systems becomes more difficult at higher DU values. It is cost-effective and not difficult to 
improve DU from 50 percent to 70 percent with any system. Moving above 80 percent may not 
be attainable, due mainly to variability in soil infiltration rates. Achieving DUs up to 90 percent 
would probably be possible only with micro irrigation systems and good irrigation management. 

Emitters and spray heads will probably be improved, including designs having higher 
levels of pressure compensation capabilities. Research will be done to determine what chemicals 
could be effectively used to inhibit emitter clogging. There will be more use of computer 
controlled systems, to monitor weather, soil moisture, crop moisture status, irrigation system 
leaks, and system pressures. These advanced irrigation systems are most likely to be adopted for 
high value crops (e.g., strawberries and wine grapes). 

There is potential for more use of existing low-energy precision application systems. 
LEPA is a traveling system similar to a linear move sprinkler system, except that instead of 
sprinklers, it has drop tubes from the lateral down to the soil surface. These systems are used in 
fields that have furrows with small checks or dams in the furrow about 3 to 5 feet apart. The 
LEPA travels perpendicularly to the fiirrows, and the drop tubes emit water uniformly into the 
furrows. 

Water Supply Treatment Technologies 
Description of Water Treatment Technologies 

Water supplies fi-om water recycling, groundwater recovery and desalting are becoming a 
larger component of potential future supplies, especially in urban areas. These water supply 
options rely on the basic water treatment technologies described below. Following a description 
of the technologies, their application to specific options, such as treating contaminated 
groundwater and desalting, are described. 

5-17 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

Activated Carbon Adsorption, Treatment by activated carbon adsorption is most 
applicable to organic contaminants. By bringing the contaminated water in contact with activated 
carbon in either granular or powdered form, the contaminants are adsorbed onto the carbon. The 
process may be accomplished by batch, column, or fluidized-bed operations. Spent carbon may 
be regenerated or may be disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. In addition to 
the traditional use of activated carbon in taste and odor control and dechlorination, carbon 
adsorption is widely used for removal of volatile organic chemicals and synthetic organic 
chemicals. 

Granular Activated Carbon. Granular activated carbon adsorption is a unit process with 
a proven ability to remove a broad spectrum of organic chemicals from water. EPA considers 
GAC adsorption as the best available technology for removal of VOCs and SOCs. 

Powdered Activated Carbon. PAC has traditionally been used to control taste and odor in 
water, and is also used for removal of certain SOCs, especially pesticides. PAC, in combination 
with conventional water treatment technology, can provide acceptable levels of pesticide removal 
in surface waters. A typical application of PAC would be for seasonal removal of pesticides 
found in municipal treatment plant raw water supplies during wet weather. Some limitations to 
the use of PAC include the potential need for large doses of carbon to achieve tfie desired levels 
of treatment, and the resultant high sludge production. 

Air-stripping, This treatment technique removes volatile organic compounds from 
contaminated water. Countercurrent air-stripping in a packed tower is the most common process. 
The conventional configuration of a unit consists of a tower with water inflow at the top and air 
inflow at the bottom. The tower is filled with small diameter random packing. As clean air 
moves upward, the VOCs transfer from the water phase into the air phase. Treated water exits 
from the bottom, and air-containing VOCs is discharged from the top of the tower, either into the 
atmosphere or into a gas treatment system. 

'^^ Photo: Air Stripping Tower 

Since the air-stripping process transfers contaminants from one phase (aqueous) to 
another (gaseous), air-stripping projects must take into consideration the allowable emissions of 
VOCs . In some parts of the State, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 
such emissions are strictly regulated, and additional treatment (see below) to reduce emissions to 

5-18 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

acceptable levels will be needed. Granular activated carbon adsorption may be used with air- 
stripping to control emissions from the packed-tower aeration system. 

The closed-loop air-stripping process is an innovation to the traditional air-stripping 
treatment. The closed-loop air-stripping process combines air-stripping with an ultraviolet 
photo-oxidation process, destroying the VOCs and thereby controlling emission. In this process, 
the exhaust air from the PTA unit is irradiated with UV light in a photo-oxidation chamber, and 
the VOCs are destroyed. The end products are carbon dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and ozone. The 
treated air is recycled to the PTA unit. 

Advanced Oxidation Process. Unlike GAC or air-stripping, where contaminants are 
transferred from one medium to another, advanced oxidation processes can destroy organic 
contaminants. Examples of AOPs include treatment with ultraviolet radiation, ozone/hydrogen 
peroxide, and ozone/UV. AOPs provide more powerfril oxidation and at faster rates than 
conventional oxidants such as chlorine. As a result, they can remove compounds which have not 
been treatable with conventional oxidants. These oxidants can also reduce disinfection by- 
products created by processes such as chlorination. To date, much AOP work has focused on 
removing low-molecular weight solvents such as TCE and PCE that are found as contaminants in 
groundwater by-products, and on reduction of DBPs. 

Membrane Technologies. Membrane technologies include reverse osmosis, 
electrodialysis, micro filtration, ultrafiltration, and nanofiltration. RO, MF, UF, and NF are 
pressure-driven processes of barrier separation; electrodialysis employs electrical potential as the 
driving force. Membrane processes have been used for desalting, removal of dissolved organic 
materials, softening, liquid-solid separation, pathogens removal, and heavy metals removal. 
Another group of promising membrane technologies is the membrane phase-contact processes. 
These processes are not pressure driven but remove contaminants by extraction into another 
phase, like air-stripping and solvent extraction. Applications include membrane air-stripping of 
volatile organics, and denitrification using microporous membrane immobilized biofilm to 
selectively remove nitrate ions from water. 

Reverse Osmosis. This process uses specially prepared membranes which permit water 
to flow through the membrane while rejecting the passage of dissolved contaminants. This is 
based on the natural osmotic process where water passes through a semipermeable membrane 

5-19 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

from a solution of higher concentration to a lower one. In reverse osmosis, a pressure greater 
than osmotic pressure is applied to the contaminated water. Water passes through the membrane 
but the contaminants are retained. RO systems using newer membranes operate at about 250 psi 
for desalting brackish groundwater to 1 ,000 psi for seawater desalting. 

Electrodialysis. This electrically driven technology induces contaminant ions to migrate 
through a membrane, removing them from the water solution. In an electrodialysis unit 
contaminated water is pumped into narrow compartments, separated by alternating cation- 
exchange and anion-exchange membranes, selectively permeable to positive and negative ions. 
A variation of this process is called electrodialysis reversal. In electrodialysis, the electrical 
current flow is always in the same direction. In EDR, the electrical polarity is periodically 
reversed. This results in the reversal of ion movement and flushes scale-forming ions from the 
membrane surfaces. 

Microfiltration, Ultrafiltration, and Nanofiltration. These technologies operate 
comparably to reverse osmosis, but at lower pressures. More stringent regulations in drinking 
water coupled with diminishing sources of pristine waters, have stimulated interest in the use of 
membrane technologies in drinking water treatment. The use of low-pressure membrane 
filtration for municipal water treatment is a relatively new concept in the water industry, which 
has traditionally used membranes for removing salts or organic materials. MF operates at 
pressures ranging from 20 to 100 psi and is capable of removing micron-sized (10'^ m ) 
materials. Colloidal species are physically rejected by MF membranes. UF operates at pressures 
ranging from 3 to 150 psi and is capable of removing materials that are in the order of a 
nanometer in size (lO'^m) or larger from water. Dissolved inorganic contaminants are not 
retained by MF and UF membranes. One of the most novel applications of low-pressure 
membrane technology is the removal of microorganisms such as total coliform bacteria, viruses, 
giardia, and Cryptosporidium from drinking water sources without using chemicals for primary 
disinfection. The efficiency of low-pressure membranes in removing particles from untreated 
water supplies has been well documented. MF and UF have shown to be capable of consistently 
reducing turbidities to <0.1 NTU, regardless of the influent turbidity level. NF operates at 
pressures ranging from 150 to 300 psi and has characteristics between those of RO and MF. NF 
membranes are often considered to be "loose" RO membranes. The capital cost of an NF plant is 



5-20 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

typically high compared with conventional treatment processes because of the cost of membranes 
and high-pressure equipment. Pilot and bench-scale studies have demonstrated that 
nanofiltration is effective in removing disinfection by-product organic precursors and synthetic 
organic chemicals such as pesticides. Nanofiltration is also frequently used for water softening 
applications. 

Ion-Exchange Process. The process passes contaminated water through a packed bed of 
anion or cation resins. The resin type is selected based on the contaminant to be removed. The 
treatment process exchanges ions between the resin bed and contaminated water. By displacing 
the ions in the resin, the contaminant ions become part of the resin and are removed from the 
process water. During the ion-exchange process, the exchange capacity of the resin becomes 
depleted and needs regeneration to become effective. Sodium chloride brine is used to regenerate 
the resin. Ion-exchange is widely used for removing nitrates in groundwater and for removal of 
some metals. Currently, its effectiveness in removing radionuclides is being investigated in a 
number of full scale applications. 

Chemical Precipitation. Chemical precipitation is used for removing heavy metals from 
water. The contaminants are precipitated from solution and removed by settling. There are 
several types of chemical addition systems including: the carbonate system, the hydroxide 
system, and the sulfide system. The carbonate system relies on the use of soda ash and pH 
adjustment. The hydroxide system is most widely used for removing inorganics and metals. The 
system responds to pH adjustment, and uses either lime or sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH 
upward. The sulfide system removes most inorganics (except arsenic) because of the low 
solubility of sulfide compounds. The disadvantage is that sulfide sludges are susceptible to 
oxidation to sulfate when exposed to air, resulting in resolubilization of the contaminants. 

Biological Treatment. Biological treatment is a technique that uses microorganisms to 
remove contaminants in water through metabolic processes. The process can be a suspended 
growth system where the microorganisms and nutrients are introduced in an aeration basin as 
suspended material in a water-based solution, or a fixed-film system where the microorganisms 
attach to a medium which provides inert support. Biological treatment is used in domestic 
wastewater treatment and is applied to the treatment of water contaminated with organic 



5-21 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

compounds, such as petroleum hydrocarbons. Biological treatment is often used for remediation 
of leaking ftael tank sites, either above ground, or in situ. 

Disinfection. This treatment inactivates pathogenic organisms in water. The common 
disinfection process is chlorination, often used to treat wastewater and drinking water. Two 
relatively new disinfection processes applied in wastewater reclamation include ultraviolet 
radiation and ozonation. Ultraviolet radiation has recently been approved by the Department of 
Health Services for use in disinfecting recycled water. UV has been shown to be as effective as 
chlorine or ozone in reducing coliform bacteria and is more effective at virus removal. 
Ultraviolet radiation has the potential to be more cost effective than chlorine disinfection, and 
eliminates the disinfection byproducts and handling hazards associated with chlorination. 
Ozonation offers another alternative to chlorination of water. 

Innovative Treatment Technologies. Many of these innovative technologies are being 
used in remediation of hazardous waste sites, for treating contaminated groundwater. 
Combining basic technologies with a few innovative techniques are characteristics of these 
technologies. In the ftiture, use of such technologies may see broader application in groundwater 
recovery projects. Some examples of technologies, primarily those applied at pilot or full scales, 
are covered here. 

EnviroMetal Process. This proprietary technology treats groundwater using reactive 
metal (usually iron) to enhance the abiotic degradation of dissolved halogenated organic 
compounds. A permeable treatment wall of the coarse-grained reactive metallic media is 
installed across the plume, breaking down the contaminants as they migrate through the aquifer. 
This technology has received regulatory approval for use in at least two industrial facilities in 
California, for treating shallow plumes with elevated levels of volatile organic compounds. 

Integrated Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum Stripping. This technology removes 
volatile organic chemicals, including chlorinated hydrocarbons, in groundwater and soil. The 
integrated system has a vacuum countercurrent stripping tower that uses low-pressure steam to 
treat contaminated groundwater, and a soil vapor extraction process to treat the soil. The stripper 
and the soil vapor extraction systems share a granulated carbon unit to decontaminate the 
combined vapors. The technology has been used to treat trichloroethylene contaminated 
groundwater and soil at Lockheed Aeronautical Systems in Burbank. 



5-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction . This technology uses injection wells to force steam 
through the soil to enhance vapor and liquid extraction thermally. The process extracts volatile 
and semivolatile organic compounds from contaminated soil and groundwater. The recovered 
contaminants are condensed or trapped by activated carbon filters. After treatment is complete, 
subsurface conditions are excellent for biodegradatioa 

Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation System. This technology uses a network of 
injection and extraction wells to treat subsurface organic contamination through soil vapor 
extraction and in situ biodegradation. A vacuum pump extracts vapors while an air compressor 
injects air in the subsurface. In most sites, extraction wells are placed above the water table and 
injection wells are placed below the groundwater level. Because it provides oxygen to the 
subsurface, the process can enhance in situ bioremediation. 

PACT Wastewater Treatment System. Zimpro Environmental, Inc. developed this 
proprietary technology combining biological treatment and powdered activated carbon 
adsorption to achieve treatment of contaminated water. Live microorganisms and PAC contact 
wastewater in the aeration tank. The biomass removes biodegradable organic contaminants, 
while PAC enhances adsorption of organic compounds. PACT systems treating up to 53 mgd of 
wastewater are in operation. This process is applicable to groundwater contamination from 
hazardous waste sites. 

Capacitive Deionization. The development of carbon aerogel electrodes has created new 
interest in using capacitative deionization for desalting applications. The technology offers the 
potential for reducing the cost of desalting applications. 

The CDI desalting process is an experimental process being researched at Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory. It involves passing water through a stack of electrodes made of 
carbon aerogel and generating a small voltage differential, approximately one volt, between 
alternating positive and negative electrodes, thus drawing ions out of the solution. The ions are 
removed by electrostatic attraction and are retained on the electrode until the polarity is reversed. 
The ions are then captured with a small amount of water. Other dissolved materials such as trace 
metals and suspended colloids are removed by electrodeposition and electrophoresis. 

For the past two years, the process has been operating in a laboratory. NaCl, NaNOj, and 
NH4CIO4 solutions have been tested with excellent results. Electrode life has been successftil in 

5-23 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

the laboratory with electrodes operating for more than two years with little degradation. The 
electrodes appear to be regenerable with little loss of capability. Energy requirements appear less 
than current desalting technologies. Field testing has begun in Northern California, and will later 
be moved to Southern California. 
Applications of Water Treatment Technologies 

Wastewater Reclamation. Reclamation and reuse applications include agricultural 
irrigation, groundwater recharge, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, industrial 
use, and recreational impoundments. Agricultural irrigation, groundwater recharge and landscape 
irrigation constitute the greatest use of reclaimed water in the State. Additionally, a proposed 
project in San Diego would use reclaimed water for indirect potable reuse (see sidebar). 



San Diego Water Repurification Program 

The city of San Diego, in conjunction with the San Diego County Water Authority, is 
proposing to reclaim 15,700 af per year of wastewater for potable purposes. Results of the 
pilot studies conducted by the agencies show that wastewater can be repurified to a level 
suitable for human consumption. Under this proposal, the agencies would construct an 1 8- 
mgd wastewater repurification facility using state-of-the-art technology to treat reclaimed 
water from the city of San Diego's North City Water Reclamation Plant. The repurified 
water would be transported over 20 miles to the San Vicente Reservoir, where it would be 
blended with imported raw water supplies and stored for a period of time. The'blended water 
would eventually be conveyed via the existing El Monte Pipeline to the city's Alvarado 
Filtration Plant for traditional treatment before being delivered to the city's drinking water 
system. 

^ Photo: San Vicente Reservoir 

Repurified water is based on a concept of multiple barriers. Reclaimed water, 
effluent from the North City Water Reclamation Plant which has been treated to levels 
acceptable for landscape irrigation and for other nondrinking purposes, will be treated further 
at the proposed 20-mgd wastewater repurification facility. The repurification process 
includes subjecting the reclaimed water to four more treatment processes including low- 
pressure filtration, reverse osmosis, ion-exchange, and ozone treatment. These treatment 
processes, while redundant in their functions, ensure the reliability of the overall 
repurification system and produce an end product that exceeds current health and safety 
standards. 

The pilot studies show that from both a technological and an operational perspective, 
the city of San Diego could turn reclaimed water into an alternative source of drinking water. 
The city is preparing an environmental document and has begun design of the project. The 
project is expected to begin operation in late 2001. 



5-24 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Criteria for Indirect Potable Reuse 

The California Potable Reuse Committee was formed in 1993 to look into the viability 
and safety of reuse. The committee, commissioned by the Department of Health Services and 
DWR, developed six criteria that must be met before indirect potable reuse is allowed. These are: 

(1) Application of the best available technology in advanced wastewater treatment with 
the treatment plant meeting operating criteria. BAT must include a membrane 
component with the functional equivalency of reverse osmosis. 

(2) Maintenance of appropriate reservoir retention times based on reservoir dynamics. 

(3) Maintenance of advanced wastewater treatment plant reliability to meet consistently 
primary microbiological, chemical and physical drinking water standards. 

(4) Compliance of surface water augmentation projects using advanced treated reclaimed 
water with applicable State criteria for groundwater recharge for direct injection with 
reclaimed water. 

(5) Maintenance of reservoir water quality. In addition to meeting drinking water 
standards, recycled water used for reservoir augmentation shall be of equal or better 
quality than that in the storage reservoir on a constituent-by-constituent basis. 

(6) Provision for an effective source control program. The source control program is to 
include pretreatment/pollution prevention measures that prohibit the discharge of any 
substance which, whether alone or in combination with other wastewater constituents, 
causes or threatens malfunction or interference with the wastewater treatment process, 
constitutes a hazard to human health or safety or affects the water quality of the potable 
storage reservoir. 

Treatment criteria for reuse of municipal wastewater are mandated in Title 22 of the 
California Code of Regulations. These criteria specify the treatment level for specific reuse 
applications. Treatment technologies used for reclaiming wastewater depend on the reuse 
application. For most nonpotable reuse applications at least secondary treatment is required. To 
achieve secondary treatment, conventional biological treatment processes are used such as 
activated sludge process, trickling filters, and oxidation ponds, followed by sedimentation, and 
disinfection with chlorine. 



5-25 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 

Tertiary treatment is often standard for recycled water. Tertiary treatment is achieved by 
adding a filtration step after secondary treatment, and before final disinfection. Two major types 
of filtration technology are applied in tertiary treatment plants: conventional and direct filtration. 
Conventional filtration, as defined in Title 22, includes coagulation, sedimentation and filtration 
to condition the water. Conventional filtration technology requires that the filters be backwashed 
to prevent turbidity breakthroughs. The backwash requirements with Title 22 requirements result 
in an equipment-intensive process. Direct filtration provides a cost effective and convenient 
tertiary technology when secondary effluent quality is high. The technology will likely be 
incorporated in areas where effluent fi^om residential areas provides the process water. Newer 
water recycling facilities use direct filtration as part of the tertiary treatment process. Direct 
filtration bypasses the sedimentation step. Continuously backwashed direct filtration technology 
is available, minimizing equipment needs. 

The ability to achieve the maximum use of tertiary treated water for landscape irrigation 
and other outdoor applications hinges on the ability to store the treated water supply when it is 
not needed. Landscape irrigation demands, for example, have a wide seasonal variation in the 
State's inland areas. An aquifer storage and recovery approach may be a cost-effective solution 
to the storage needs. ASR stores recycled water in a slightly depleted aquifer during the winter 
and withdraws the stored water in the summer. Because significant groundwater recharge is 
intentionally avoided, ASR can be used by agencies that produce tertiary treated water, but do 
not invest in the additional nutrient removal steps required for groundwater recharge. When 
successful, ASR allows the storage of relatively large quantities of recycled water without the 
capital cost investment associated with above-ground reservoirs. Other treatment technologies 
recently used for enhanced treatment include the use of chemical precipitation, carbon 
adsorption, reverse osmosis, micro filtration and ultrafiltration, radiation and ozonation. 
Advanced treatment (treatment beyond the tertiary level) allows additional removal of pathogens, 
nutrients, trace metals, organics and total dissolved solids. 

Table 5-2, taken from S WRCB data, is an example of reclamation plants having a 
capacity of at least 10 mgd. (As of the date of this Bulletin, there are several additional plants of 
this size now under construction, but not yet in operation.) 



5-26 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Table 5-2. Reclamation Plants with a Capacity of at least 10 mgd 



Name 



Capacity 
(mgd) 



Treatment Process 



Type Of Reuse 



Annual Use 
(acre-feet) 



San Jose Creek Water 
Reclamation Plant (Los 
Angeles County 
Sanitation District) 



100 Primary Sedimentation, 

Activated Sludge, 
Coagulation, Filtration and 
Chlorination 



Groundwater recharge, 
agricultural and landscape 
irrigation, and nursery stock 
irrigation 



15,400 



Fresno-Clovis 
Metropolitan Area 
Regional Wastewater 
Facilities 



60 Primary Sedimentation, 

trickling filter and activated 
sludge 



Agricultural Irrigation 



13,700 



Donald C. Tillman Water 
Reclamation Plant (city of 
Los Angeles) 



40 Activated sludge, 

coagulation, filtration, 
chlorination, and 
dechlorination 



Recreational lake and 
landscape irrigation 



2,802 



Los Coyotes Water 
Reclamation Plant (Los 
Angeles County 
Sanitation District) 



37 Primary sedimentation, 

activated sludge, 
coagulation, filtration, and 
chlorination 



Landscape irrigation, 
industrial reuse such as 
process water, concrete mix 
and dust control, and crop 
irrigation 



4,500 



Chino Basin Municipal 
Water District Regional 
Plant No. 1 



32 Activated sludge, 

coagulation, filtration, 
chlorination, and 
dechlorination 



Landscape irrigation and 
recreational lakes 



1,700 



Long Beach Water 
Reclamation Plant 



Laguna Treatment Plant 
(city of Santa Rosa) 



25 Primary Sedimentation, 

activated sludge, 
coagulation, filtration and 
disinfection 



Landscape irrigation, nursery 
irrigation, and 
repressurization of oil- 
bearing strata 



18 Primary sedimentation, 

activated sludge, 
coagulation, filtration and 
chlorination 



Fodder irrigation 



3,000 



city of Modesto 
Wastewater Quality 
Control Facility 


25 


Primary sedimentation, 
trickling filter, oxidation 
ponds, and chlorination 


Fodder crop irrigation 


14,400 


city of Bakersfield 
Wastewater Treatment 
Plant No. 2 


19 


Primary sedimentation and 
oxidation ponds 


Crop irrigation 


16,800 



9,300 



Fairfield-Suisun 
Subregional Wastewater 
Treatment Plant 



1 7 Activated sludge, 

coagulation, filtration, 
chlorination, and 
dechlorination 



Sod farming and maintenance 
of hunting marsh 



2,400 



Michelson Water 
Reclamation Plant (Irvine 
Ranch Water District) 



17 Primary sedimentation, 

activated sludge, 
coagulation, filtration, and 
chlorination 



Landscape irrigation, nursery 
irrigation, and toilet flushing 



8^200 



Whittier Narrows Water 
Reclamation Plant (Los 
Angeles County 
Sanitation District) 



15 Primary sedimentation, 

activated sludge, 
coagulation, filtration, and 
chlorination 



Groundwater recharge and 
nursery stock watering 



10,100 



5-27 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Table 5-2. 


Reclamation Plants with a Capacity of at least 10 mgd 


Name 


Capacity 
(mgd) 


Treatment Process 


Type Of Reuse 


Annual Use 
(acre-feet) 


Pomona Water 


13 


Primary sedimentation. 


Agricultural irrigation 


8,000 


Reclamation Plant (Los 




activated sludge. 


landscape irrigation, and 




Angeles County 




coagulation, filtration, and 


industrial process 




Sanitation District) 




chlorination 






city of Visalia Water 


12 


Primary sedimentation, 


Non-food crop irrigation 


4,900 


Conservation Plant 




trickling filter, activated 
sludge, and chlorination 






Valley Sanitary District 


12 


Primary sedimentation, 


Non-food crop irrigation 


4,300 


Wastewater Treatment 




trickling filter, activated 






Facility (Riverside 




sludge, and oxidation ponds 






County) 










Desert Water Agency 


10 


Coagulation, filtration, and 


Landscape irrigation 


2,700 


Wastewater Reclamation 




chlorination 






Facility (Riverside 










County) 










Water Factory 21 


10 


Coagulation, filtration. 


Groundwater injection for 


2,600 


(Orange County Water 




carbon adsorption, and 


intrusion barrier 




District) 




reverse osmosis 






Lancaster Water 


10 


Primary sedimentation. 


Wildlife refuge and fodder 


9,700 


Reclamation Plant 




oxidation ponds, and 
chlorination 


irrigation 





As advanced tertiary treatment becomes feasible and cost effective, and as public 
acceptance increases, recycling highly treated wastewater for potable use may become a reality 
(see sidebar). Recycled water is presently used for recharge of groundwater supplies. Reservoir 
retention is an important element in potable reuse projects. The reservoir acts as an additional 
barrier in the treatment process by providing pathogen removal capability, and by providing a 
buffer to identify and respond to possible failures at the treatment plant. Surface water supply 
augmentation projects would require site-specific pilot studies and permit criteria. 
Water Reclamation 

Desalting. According to the International Desalting Association's inventory of 
worldwide desalting plants, the United States is second in usage of desalting in the world with 
almost 1 maf per year of installed capacity. In 1985, the United States had less than 7 percent of 
the world's capacity. In 1993, that figure rose to nearly 15 percent. Only Saudi Arabia has more 
installed capacity. Desalting is increasingly used in California. Common feedwater sources for 
desalting plants include brackish groundwater, municipal or industrial wastewater and seawater. 
Costs of desalting increase with increasing feed water salinity. 

5-28 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Reverse Osmosis. Membrane and related technologies will have the most impact on 
California. Currently, reverse osmosis accounts for 89 percent of the installed capacity of 
desalting plants in California, including all the significant plants supplying municipal water 
supplies or reclaiming municipal waste water. Reverse osmosis is likely to continue to dominate 
in California, in light of recent significant improvements in membrane performance. 

Reverse osmosis membranes have changed significantly in the last 20 years. Membranes 
are available to serve many purposes. This allows water suppliers to select and operate 
membranes specifically suited to the feed water quality and the required product water quality. 
Reverse osmosis membranes have developed into two principal classes. 

The first class is the traditional reverse osmosis membrane which rejects all salt ions (as 
well as other dissolved constituents) equally. This process is also called hyperfiltration, used on 
water requiring the removal of all classes of dissolved constituents. 

The second class of reverse osmosis membrane processes is called nanofiltration. 
Nanofiltration membranes reject larger dissolved ions such as calcium and sulfate, along with 
equally large dissolved constituents of a feed water. For example, when used in a water 
softening role, they will remove calcium, magnesium, and sulfate from water, but allow sodium 
and chloride ions to pass through. In parts of Florida groundwater is hard and contains organics 
in undesirable concentrations. Nanofiltration membranes are often used to soften the water and 
remove the organics. Because this is the most popular use of these membranes, nanofiltration is 
often referred to as "membrane softening." 



Table 5-3. 


Reverse Osmosis 


Membranes 1970-1995 


Year 


Operating 
Pressure (psi) 


Flow Rate 
(gpd/element) 


Salt Rejection 


1970 


600 


375 


97% 


1990 


225 


1,800 


97% 


1995 


150 


2,600 


99% 



Advancements in membrane technology have reduced operating pressures, increased flow 
rates, and increased salt rejection in typical reverse osmosis applications ~ thereby reducing 
treatment costs (see Table 5-3). Energy requirements have accounted for at least 50 percent or 
more of the operating costs of a reverse osmosis plant. As operating pressures have decreased, 

5-29 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



SO have energy costs. New membrane materials have allowed more membrane area per module 
and higher productivity per square foot. Increased productivity of membranes and their longer 
life expectancy reduces capital cost of the plant, reducing the cost of water. Increasing salt 
rejection provides better water quality. In the case of groundwater desalting, the high purity 
product water can be blended with raw water to meet the desired overall product water quality. 
Again, the cost is reduced by having a smaller desalting plant. 



Marina Coast Water District 

«* Photo of Marina Coast Plant 

The Marina Coast Water District is the primary water supplier for the city of 
Marina, which is eight miles northeast of Monterey in Monterey County. The MCWD relies 
on the Salinas Valley groundwater basin as its primary water supply source, as do other 
Salinas Valley urban and agricultural water suppliers. As a result of groundwater 
extractions throughout the Salinas Valley, the groundwater basin is in an overdraft 
condition. Overdraft of the Salinas basin has caused seawater from Monterey Bay to 
migrate into two of the three aquifers underlying the coastal part of Salinas Valley. 
Seawater intrusion has rendered some groundwater unfit for use. MCWD has had to 
replace shallower wells with deeper wells to meet customer demands for potable water. 

MCWD has investigated ways to diversify its water supply sources because of the 
potential groundwater extraction limitations. In 1992, the district completed a desalting 
feasibility study as part of its investigations. 

MCWD's project involves constructing and operating a reverse osmosis seawater 
desalting plant. This plant will produce approximately 300,000 gpd of potable water, and 
will use beach wells for seawater intake and brine disposal. A shallow production well 
drilled into the beach deposits near MCWD's water treatment plant provides intake water 
for the desalting plant. Using a beach well to supply seawater to the project minimizes the 
need for extensive pretreatment. The beach sands will filter most of the suspended material 
in the seawater. A subsurface feedwater pipeline conveys saline feedwater to the desalting 
plant where the reverse osmosis membranes will desalt the seawater. The reverse osmosis 
system is a single stage system operated at 40 to 45 percent recovery rates. It will take 
about 750,000 gpd of seawater to produce about 300,000 gpd of potable water. The water 
produced by this method would then be conveyed into an existing potable water pipeline. 

Brine is a desalting by-product, and this project will produce a reject brine flow of 
about 450,000 gpd. An injection well in the shallow dune sand aquifer will be used to 
dispose of the brine, where it will migrate toward the ocean and be diluted by natural 
groundwater and wave action. Power requirements for the desalting plant are estimated at 
5,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per acre-foot of water produced, or about 15 kWh for 
each 1,000 gallons of desalted water. The total electrical usage is estimated at 1,500 
megawatt-hours per year for 300 af of water produced. Total project fixed costs for the 
desalting plant are estimated at about $2.8 million. 



530 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Ctiapter 5. Tectinoiogy in Water Management 



Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater Pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, 
industrial solvents, heavy metals, nitrates, and organic and inorganic chemicals have been found 
in California's groundwater. Many groundwater contamination sites ~ such as those associated 
with leaking underground tanks or with most manufacturing operations ~ are small-scale and 
seldom affect water supplies on a regional basis. These small sites may require cessation of 
pumping from one or two-water supply wells, or the installation of wellhead treatment on the 
wells. Of greater water supply concern are areas of regional groundwater contamination that 
significantly affect local agency water supply opportunities. 

The selection of technologies for treating groundwater contamination depends on site 
conditions and the contaminants to be removed. Although there are a variety of options, no one 
technology is necessarily capable of responding to all conditions found at a groundwater 
contamination site. In practice, treatment technologies are sometimes used in combination to 
remediate contamination. For example, groundwater contaminated with nitrates and pesticides 
requires ion-exchange technology to remove the nitrates and GAC adsorption to remove the 
pesticides. 

Table 5-4 provides some examples of wellhead treatment sites. The capacity of the 
treatment units at the locations shovm ranges from 0.3 mgd to 4.1 mgd. 

Table 5-4. Wellhead Treatment Sites Examples 



Location 


Contamination 


Treatment 


Lodi 


DBCP 


GAC 


Lodi 


Pathogens 


Ultraviolet 


Modesto 


DBCP 


GAC 


Modesto 


Nitrates 


Electrodialysis 


Fresno 


DBCP 


GAC 


Fresno 


TCE 


Air-Stripping 


Clovis 


DBCP 


GAC 


Monrovia 


TCE 


Air-stripping 


Monrovia 


VOCs 


Air-Stripping 


San Gabriel Valley 


VOCs 


GAC 



Some local agencies have integrated their groundwater treatment plants into their 
municipal distribution systems. The West Basin Municipal Water District for example, 
constructed a 1 .5 mgd facility that uses reverse osmosis technology to remove elevated levels of 



5-31 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



dissolved solids from contaminated groundwater. The plant supplies about 1,500 af annually of 
recovered groundwater to the District for municipal use and to Dominguez Water Corporation for 
industrial and municipal uses. 

The Glenwood Nitrate Water Reclamation Project is a 3.7 mgd ion-exchange treatment 
plant that treats nitrate-contaminated groundwater. The plant is in La Crescenta, and is owned 
and operated by Crescenta Valley County Water District. Treated groundwater from the plant is 
sold to Foothill Municipal Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 
for municipal and industrial uses. The plant's eventual project yield will be about 1,600 af 
annually. 

The city of Pomona owns and operates a 15 mgd ion-exchange treatment plant. The 
plant, built in 1992, is the second largest ion-exchange treatment plant in the world. The plant 
treats nitrate-contaminated groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin. At full capacity, 
the treatment plant supplies approximately 70 percent of the city's municipal water demand. 



5-32 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5 Tectinology in Water Management 



McFarland Nitrate Contamination 

McFarland is an incorporated city of 7,650 people in Kern County. Much of 
McFarland' s economy is based on agriculture and on related industries. The McFarland 
Mutual Water Company supplies municipal water. The company depends on groundwater for 
raw water supply and has four active wells. 

Elevated levels of nitrates in the water from MMWC were detected in the early 1960s. 
Many of the wells sampled showed levels of nitrate exceeding the drinking water standard of 
45 mg/liter-N03. Studies identified fertilizer application on agricultural lands as a major 
contributor to nitrates in the groundwater. MMWC abandoned two of its wells as a result of 
nitrate contamination and provided treatment for two wells to reduce the nitrate levels to meet 
drinking water standards. Two replacement wells were constructed at deeper levels to extract 
groundwater free of nitrate or pesticide contamination. 

In 1978, the MMWC requested and received a grant from EPA to study groundwater 
treatment alternatives. The results led to the 1983 design and construction of a 1 mgd ion- 
exchange treatment plant, which led to the 1 987 construction of a second 1 mgd ion-exchange 
treatment plant for a second well. Today, both wells supply about 18 af annually of treated 
water to the city of McFarland and adjoining rural areas within the MMWC service area. 

The technology used in the mechanical design and planning for the plants relies 
heavily on practices used in the water softening industry. The chemical process design is 
based on research of anion exchange resins completed under the EPA grant. Plant location 
was dictated by the already-in-place wells and distribution systems. Because of a lack of a 
centralized distribution system, the plants had to be designed to operate from a single well. 
Well pumps operate on a demand basis, so the plant had to be able to operate automatically. 
The system was designed to accept water directly from the well, treat for nitrate removal, and 
allow treated water to flow directly into the distribution system. The ability of the process to 
adapt to quick start-up and frequent on-off operation was an important consideration in 
choosing this process over reverse osmosis and biological treatment methods. 



Some groundwater aquifers in California are contaminated because of past hazardous 
waste disposal practices. A number of these sites are undergoing remediation. Carbon 
adsorption, membrane filtration, air stripping, advanced oxidation processes, biological 
treatment, chemical precipitation, and innovative treatment technologies are examples of 
technologies used. 

For example. Aerojet General Corporation's manufacturing facility in Rancho Cordova 
operates a 6.5 mgd groundwater treatment facility which removes volatile organic contaminants 
in the groundwater. The treatment facility has air-stripping towers and GAC adsorption units. 

5-33 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Treated groundwater is reinjected into the aquifer through wells, and is also recharged via surface 
impoundments. Another example is the Valley Wood Treating Company in Turlock, which uses 
pump-and-treat and in situ treatment techniques for chromium-contaminated groundwater. The 
company pumps groundwater and uses chemical precipitation for first stage contaminant 
removal. Next, a reducing agent is added to the treated water, which is then reinjected into the 
aquifer. The resulting reaction allows for in situ reduction of the chromium and subsequent 
fixation of residual chromium in the soil. 



Case History: McClellan Air Force Base Groundwater Contamination 

In 1981, McClellan AFB initiated soil and groundwater investigation at its Sacramento 
site, as part of a Department of Defense program to identify and evaluate suspected 
contamination at Air Force installations nationwide. Groundwater contaminants identified 
included volatile organics such as TCE and vinyl chloride, semivolatile organics, petroleum 
hydrocarbons, and trace heavy metals. Subsequent investigations revealed that contaminants 
had migrated off the base. At least one municipal well was abandoned because of 
contamination. In 1986 and 1987, 500 homes with private domestic wells to the west of the 
base were connected to the city of Sacramento's water system. 

In 1987, groundwater extraction and on site treatment began. The treatment involved 
an air stripper, with incineration and caustic scrubbing of the air stream, followed by carbon 
adsorption and biological treatment of the effluent. The treatment plant had a capacity of 1 .44 
mgd and discharged its treated water to Magpie Creek and to a wetland area on the west side 
of the base under permits from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 
Later, the biological treatment unit was removed after the concentration of ketones was low 
enough to be removed by the air stripper and carbon adsorption units. 

In September 1996, the air stripper and incinerator were replaced with an ultraviolet/ 
hydrogen peroxide system to remove volatile organics. The GAC is still in use. Operating and 
maintaining the UVOX system is less expensive than the air-stripping and incinerating 
process, and the treatment efficiency of the UVOX reduces carbon use in the GAC units. 
Several more years of extraction and treatment of the groundwater will be required before the 
contaminated aquifer is restored to usable quality. 



5-34 DRAFT 



Butletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Case History: Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc. 

DBCP Contamination. In the late 1970s, pesticide and fertilizer contamination was 
discovered in soil and groundwater underlying and adjacent to the Occidental Chemical 
Agricultural Products, Inc., manufacturing facility near the city of Lathrop. The primary 
contaminants found were dibromochloropropane, ethylene dibromide, and sulfolane. 
OxyChem removed or capped contaminated soil at the facility in 1981 and 1982. The 
groundwater remediation program began operation in 1982 and continues today. The original 
groundwater restoration system was designed to remove DBCP and EDB to 1 part per billion 
concentration. It consisted of five extraction wells, a 500 gpm granular activated carbon 
adsorption treatment system, and two injection wells for deep well disposal of treated 
groundwater into an unusable confined aquifer. Sulfolane was not removed from the 
groundwater, but its injection to the aquifer was considered acceptable since the aquifer was 
designated unusable for domestic or agricultural purposes. The 1988 State Water Resources 
Control Board Resolution No. 88-63, which designated all surface and groundwater of the 
State as suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic water supply, a 1989 EPA 
revision of the maximum contaminant levels for DBCP and EDB, and a 1989 DHS health- 
based maximum allowable level for sulfolane in municipal water resulted in more stringent 
treatment standards for groundwater at the OxyChem facility. In 1992, OxyChem made 
operational changes in the treatment system and added a biological treatment system 
(microbial inoculation of the carbon treatment system) to remove sulfolane fi*om the 
groundwater to comply with the new treatment standards of 0.2 ppb DBCP, 0.02 ppb EDB 
and 57 ppb sulfolane. Two extraction wells were added, increasing the treatment capacity to 
600 gpm. 

The groundwater restoration system was designed to remove the contaminated 
groundwater and to control the hydraulic gradient in order to prevent off-site migration of the 
contaminants. Several dozen monitoring wells were built to monitor the effectiveness of the 
system. These monitoring reports have shown reductions of contaminant concentrations and 
control of contaminant plume. However, it is estimated that groundwater remediation will 
need to be continued for a significant time. 



Inflatable Dams 

Inflatable rubber, or fabric and rubber, dams and tubes have been used for years as weirs 
to impound water, or as protection devices. Their use, however, is becoming more popular. 
Alameda County recently installed an air inflatable dam in the Alameda Creek Flood Control 
Channel to divert water to ground water recharge quarry pits. A similar water inflatable dam has 
been used in the Russian River at Mirabel since 1 976, where water is diverted to percolation 
ponds. The San Gabriel and Los Angeles river basins also have similar devices. In these cases, 
the inflatable dam is attached to a reinforced concrete sill constructed across the channel. 

5-35 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



P.G.&E added an inflatable dam to the crest of its Pit No. 3 Dam on the Pit River to replace flash 
boards that had to be installed and removed by hand. 

During the flood of January 1997, an inflatable rubberized berm was installed on the 
water side of the Sutter Bypass levee to provide additional height needed to protect the levee 
from overtopping. Rubber berms of this type are used as coffer dams during construction 
projects in wet environments, or as pollution containment devices. 

^ Photo: Alameda Co. Inflatable Dam 
Environmental Water Use Technologies 
Refuge Irrigation Management 

Detention of Floodwater. Opportunities for water conservation in wetland management 
include emphasizing the development of seasonal wetlands, which use water available during the 
winter when it is not needed for crop production. Wetlands near rivers with relatively small 
flood control storage reservoirs could temporarily store some floodwaters that might otherwise 
cause erosion or sedimentation problems in areas downstream. Recent proposals have been 
made in the San Joaquin Basin to degrade existing levees to permit flood waters to overflow 
former private lands now managed as refuges. Detention on the refuges would offer water 
quality benefits by removing sediments and other contaminants, while offering flood 
management benefits of stage reduction. Some water applied to wetlands for flood control 
purposes would recharge groundwater and support wetland vegetation. This could help meet 
wetland water demand, which would otherwise compete for stored water. 

Adaptive management of cropland. Recent investigations of winter flooding of rice 
fields have shown the technique helps break down crop residues. Flooded rice fields attract 
waterfowl during the winter migration period. The waterfowl activity accelerates physical and 
microbial degradation of crop residues, reducing cultivation costs to disk under the residue, as 
well as public health concerns about burning the residue. 

Remediation of drain water. Wetland plants have been found to remove selenium from 
water applied to them. One mechanism of removal may involve bacteria and fungi in the root 
zone receiving carbon-containing compounds from the plants while providing mineral nutrients 
including selenium to the plants. Currently, University of California, Berkeley, researchers are 
experimenting in the Tulare Lake Drainage District with a variety of wetland plants irrigated 

5-36 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



with high-selenium drain water in flow-through wetland cells. Careful management of such 
facilities to remove selenium while avoiding food chain concentrations may result in developing 
safe operating criteria for wetlands supplied with drain water. This would permit significant 
wetland acreage in the Tulare Lake Basin to be supported with drain water. (Drain water not 
used to support wetlands would still have to be disposed of through other means, such as 
evaporation pools.) 
Real-Time Water Quality Management 

The San Joaquin River is a major hydrologic contributor to the Delta, and at times is the 
dominant environmental influence on the Delta. In 1990, AB 3603 authorized establishment of 
the San Joaquin River Management Program, established an advisory council, and mandated that 
the council identify the problems facing the river system and further, prepare a plan that would 
identify solutions to improve, restore and enhance currently degraded conditions. A final plan 
was prepared and distributed in 1995, identifying almost 80 actions that could significantly 
improve conditions in the San Joaquin River system. One of those action items was a real-time 
water quality monitoring network. 

The San Joaquin River real-time water quality monitoring network is a tool that enables 
interested parties to make informed water management decisions in the San Joaquin River Basin. 
The network is comprised of water quality and quantity instrumentation, as well as a computer 
model that forecasts water flow and quality along the lower San Joaquin River. The network 
relies on a collaborative approach that encourages river stakeholders to voluntarily reduce water 
quality impacts on one another, and is expected to improve average water quality in the San 
Joaquin River. 

The program that manages the real-time network is composed of three main activities: 
data collection and processing, data analyses, and data dissemination. The primary objective of 
the program is to operate and maintain the network to improve water management for water 
quality, water supply, and fisheries in the lower SJR basin. Additionally, flood protection 
interests will benefit by having real-time flow information available to help predict SJR stages. 
One goal of real-time management is to meet SJR water quality objectives more frequently, 
enabling water managers to use high-quality releases made specifically for meeting SJR water 
quality objectives (for example, releases from New Melones Reservoir) more efficiently. 

5-37 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



A demonstration of the capabilities and benefits of real -time management has recently 
been concluded. The demonstration project (1) expanded the number of sites providing real-time 
stage and water quality data, (2) developed analytical tools to collect and process real-time data, 
and (3) disseminated weekly forecasts of daily SJR flow and salinity at Vemalis since February 
1996. The project also established an operational system featuring a custom graphical user 
interface with Internet upload and download capabilities. 
Fish Screen Technologies 

State of the Art. Fish screens are being installed on water diversions as a means to 
protect fish from potential entrainment losses. A properly designed fish screen, with appropriate 
instream flows, allows diversions to occur when juvenile fish may be present, without causing 
unacceptable fish losses. Screened diversions allow a more reliable water supply throughout the 
year. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game 
have mandates for the installation and operation offish screens. If a new diversion is installed, 
significantly modified, or other changes are made to an existing intake site, a new fish screen is 
usually required. The Department of Fish and Game has established a priority based list of 
diversions that should be screened based on the potential impact on fish losses. Protecting the 
most significant diversions first will help achieve fish protection goals with the available 
financial resources. Programs to financially assist diverters in the installation of such screens are 
available through the CVP Improvement Act's Anadromous Fish Screen Program, CALFED's 
ecosystem restoration program, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and various 
provisions of Proposition 204. 

The current fish screen technology is based on criteria established by NMFS and DFG. 
Physical screens combined with low approach velocities, and proper cleaning systems can 
effectively protect fish greater than about one-inch long. Conventional screens will not protect 
smaller or larval-sized fish which may be present at some sites for limited durations. 

Smaller pumped diversions (slant or vertical pump installations on a river with flows less 
than 40 cfs) generally use bolt-on screens available from a variety of manufacturers. These 
screens are similar to those used to reduce the debris in sprinkler irrigation systems. Depending 
on the site and the system, screens may be made of corrosion resistant woven wire, perforated 

5-3$ DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



plate or wedge-wire material (well screen). These materials can be formed into cylindrical 
shapes or flat plate panels and designed into the intake system. 

Since 1994, with the availability of public funding assistance, there has been an increase 
in the number of sites with these screens. Examples include installations at the Pelgar-Mutual 
Water District, Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, Maxwell Irrigation District, and others 
(See Figure 5-1.) 



5-39 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Figure 5-1. Fish Screen Installations Map 



^ 



TT 




■i 




I. Big Chico Cmk - M&XftmXt. CompWsd W 
1 Butt Cnek - Adm Dm, 198B 

3. Butta Craek - Duttm Mutual Dam, 1996 
i Butt Creek - GorrI Dam, 1996 

5. Butte Creak - Parrot-Phelan, 1996 

6. Qav Creak - Saekzar Dam, 1999 

7. Rock Slough - Comn Coata Canal, 1996 

8. Sacramento River - Glenn-Cokisa, 1996 

9. Sacramento R^ - Maxwel D, 1996 
ia Sacramento River - Pelger MWC, 1995 

II. Sacfamerto River - PrincetovCatora-Glermfrovkient, 19 

12. Sacramento River - RO 108, Under Constnjction 

13. Sacramento River - RO1004, 1996 

1i Sacramento ffiver - Whon Ranch, 1995 

IS. Suisun Marth - Hve Projects, Completed 1996 - 1997 

16l Yuba River - Browns Valley D, 1996 



\ 



5-40 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



Larger diversion sites are screened with low approach positive velocity barrier screens, 
but are more complex facilities. These intake screens may include significant civil works and are 
often off the main river channels where they must provide fish handling and bypass systems. 
These facilities require more attention to hydraulic conditions than smaller intake screens. 

Several recently constructed facilities have been designed to current regulatory criteria for 
screening, including screens at the M&T Ranch Diversion on the Sacramento River near Chico, 
the Parrot-Phelan diversion on Butte Creek, and the Tehama-Colusa Irrigation District canal 
rotary drum screens. 

^Photo: of Parrot-Phelan Screened Diversion. 

Several large facilities are nearing the final phases of design or construction. They 
include diversions on the upper Sacramento River at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District near 
Hamilton City (3,000 cfs capacity). Reclamation District 108 near Grimes, Reclamation District 
1004 near Princeton, the Princeton Irrigation District/Cordura-Glenn Irrigation District/Provident 
Irrigation District consolidated diversion, and others. 

Current Research. There is significant research and experience in fish screen technology. 
The technology has responded to a number of factors including ES A requirements in the 
Northwest and in California for the protection of salmonids, FERC relicensing requirements, and 
the heightened awareness of fish losses at diversions. 

Research can be broken down into two categories: (1) positive barrier technologies, and 
(2) behavioral barrier technologies. Although physical screens are considered state of the art, 
and are acceptable to the resource agencies, behavioral barriers have been demonstrated to deter 
fish fi-om being dragged at some sites, and may offer enhanced fish protection at even physically 
screened sites. 

Positive Barrier Technologies. Several significant applied research projects are 
underway. A research pumping plant has been constructed at the USBR's Red Bluff Diversion 
Dam to divert Sacramento River water into the Tehama-Colusa Canal. This facility (see photo. 
Chapter 2) was developed to provide water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal when the diversion dam 
gates must be raised for fish passage. The research pumping plant is testing centrifugal and 
Archimedes screw pump technologies to evaluate their impacts on fish. The research plant and 



5-41 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



the biological evaluations of its effectiveness now being carried out are providing significant data 
on the potential application of these technologies to other sites. 

Since the early 1950s, fish screen velocity criteria have been developed for juvenile 
salmon and a few other anadromous species. Little is known about the screening requirements 
for resident Bay-Delta species (such as smelt) which require protection. Through a cooperative 
interagency program effort, a large circular screened testing flume has been constructed at U.C. 
Davis to investigate fish performance and behaviors under various hydraulic conditions. This 
research will improve our understanding of the needs offish and help design more effective 
screens. 

Screen cleaning and proper operations and maintenance are essential for the reliability of 
diversion and fish protection. In the last 1 years, cleaning technologies have advanced in 
response to possible zebra mussel invasions and clogging from aquatic weeds. To combat the 
problem combinations of hydraulic and air backwash systems, improved horizontal and vertical 
brush cleaners, and automated controls are used. Screen materials and coatings have also been 
developed to prevent biofouling. Some investigations underway include USSR's Tracy 
Pumping Plant Fish Facility Improvement Program, Contra Costa Water District's new Los 
Vaqueros and proposed Rock Slough fish screens and an investigation of air cleaning systems by 
the USBR. 

Higher velocity fish screens, which reduce exposure to the screen surface, are being 
studied. These systems are potentially less expensive because of the reduced screen area 
required. Modular systems are being developed creating a more universal application. 
Advancements in automation and control systems are being used to regulate screens' hydraulics 
and operations. These advancements provide better fish protection and diversion reliability. 

Behavioral Barrier Technologies. Technological advances in underwater acoustic and 
electrical systems have spurred a renewed interest in the investigation of sound and electricity in 
fish guidance systems. In the past, these systems have had limited success affecting fish 
behavior. Some guidance and protection have been observed, but the systems cannot achieve the 
level of protection desired by State and federal resource agencies. Fish responses to behavioral 
technologies are variable since they may respond to other environmental stimuli, including 
hydraulic conditions, temperature, predator avoidance and lighting conditions. Behavioral 

5-42 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



systems are attractive in some cases because physical structures may not be viable, or are cost- 
prohibitive for the expected benefit. 

In California's Central Valley, several behavioral barrier demonstration projects have 
been investigated. Brief summaries are below: 

(1) Georgiana Slough Acoustic Barrier. Juvenile salmon survival has been shown to improve 
significantly if salmon are allowed to remain in the Sacramento River rather than being 
drawn into the central Delta via Georgiana Slough. Physical barriers and screens have 
been considered at this site, but are not feasible because of hydraulic conditions, water 
quality, recreational uses and adult fish migration issues. A behavioral system is being 
studied which would improve fish survival by guiding the fish away from the hydraulic 
influence of Georgiana Slough. Twenty-one underwater acoustic speakers have been 
installed at the natural flow split on the Sacramento River to the Slough below the town 
of Walnut Grove. Studies in 1993, 1994 and 1996 showed improved guidance during 
low flows, but mixed results at higher flow conditions. Results have been encouraging 
enough to continue investigations at this site under low flow conditions. Adverse effects 
of acoustic system operation have not been observed. 

(2) Reclamation District 1 08 Acoustic and Electrical Barrier Investigations. Mandated by a 
biological opinion, this major Sacramento River water user (700 cfs diversion capacity) 
near Grimes tested acoustic and electrical barriers to see if these technologies could 
reduce fish losses. From 1 993 until 1 996, tests were conducted at the site with mixed 
results. The acoustic system was suspended from the surface and operated on an on/off 
cycle to show its effectiveness. The electrical array was mounted to an underwater louver 
array and was similarly evaluated. Since neither system achieved the required reduction 
in fish entrainment, the District is constructing a positive barrier fish screen. 

(3) Reclamation District 1004 Acoustic Barrier Tests. A similar acoustic barrier was 
installed at RD 1004's diversion on the Sacramento River near the town of Princeton. 
From 1994 to 1995, the system was evaluated and found to have marginal benefits. RD 
1004 is installing a 360 cfs positive barrier fish screen at its diversion site. 

(4) Behavioral Research at Other Sites. The use of low frequency "infrasound" systems and 
the use of lighting systems (strobe lights) is under investigation at several sites outside of 

5-43 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



California. Many of these systems are being tested and used with other screening 

technologies to improve their effectiveness in difficult hydraulic environments. 
Temperature Control Technology 

Temperature control technology can be used to manage the temperature of releases for 
fishery purposes. During summer months reservoir temperature gradients result in warmer water 
near the surface of the reservoir, with cooler water occurring near the bottom. Two types of 
temperature control devices are currently being used in northern California reservoirs: outlets 
that permit temperature selective releases, such as USBR's Shasta Dam TCD, and temperature 
control curtains, such as those at Whiskeytown and Lewiston Reservoirs. 

Temperature Control Device. USBR completed the Shasta Dam TCD in May 1997, and 
is currently fixing leakage problems that affect operation of the device. The structural steel 
shutter device is 250 feet vdde by 300 feet high and encloses all five penstock intakes on the 
dam. The shutters allow for selective withdrawal of water, depending on the downstream 
temperature needs of the salmon. Prior to installation of the structure, USBR has bypassed the 
Shasta powerplant to provide water of adequate temperature for downstream fish at a cost of over 
$32 million dollars in lost power revenues. Installation of the Shasta TCD vnW provide USBR 
with the flexibility to provide optimal water temperature downstream for salmon, as well as 
allowing hydropower generation. 

Temperature Control Curtain, Curtains can permit selective withdrawal of water at 
intake or outlet structures, to provide desired temperatures for salmonids and other aquatic 
species, resulting in the ability to conserve water for other uses. Four temperature control 
curtains have been installed by the USBR, two in Lewiston Reservoir (in 1992), and two in 
Whiskeytown Reservoir (in 1993). These curtains are constructed of Hypalon, a strong, 
rubberized nylon fabric. They are supported in the water colunm by steel tank floats, and 
anchored to stay in place. 

At Lewiston Reservoir, an 830-foot long, 35-foot deep curtain is suspended from 
flotation tanks and is secured by a cable and anchor system. This curtain was designed to block 
warm surface water from entering into the Clear Creek Tunnel Intake. As a result, cold water 
from the bottom of the reservoir is diverted into Whiskeytown Reservoir. A second curtain was 
installed around the Lewiston Fish Hatchery intake structure to allow warmer or colder water, 

5-44 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



depending on the season, to be taken into the hatchery. This curtain, 300-foot long by 45-feet 
deep was designed to either skim warmer water or underdraw cooler water, depending on 
whether the curtain was in a sunken or floating position. 

Ideally, cold water diverted from Lewiston is to be routed through the Whiskeytown's 
hypolimnion (deep, cold water layer) into the Spring Creek Conduit intake. To accomplish this, 
two curtains were installed: (1) a tailrace curtain downstream at Carr Powerplant and (2) an 
intake curtain surrounding the Spring Creek Conduit intake. The tailrace curtain (600-foot-long 
and 40-foot-deep) was installed to force cold water from Carr Powerplant into Whiskeytown's 
hypolimnion with a limited amount of mixing with the epilimnion (warm surface water). This 
curtain acts to restrain the warm surface water from moving upstream towards Carr Powerplant. 
With the tailrace curtain in-place mixing is reduced where the density current plunges into the 
hypolimnion upstream of the tailrace curtain. The second curtain, a 2,400-foot-long, 100-foot- 
deep, surface-suspended curtain surrounds the Spring Creek Conduit intake. This curtain, like 
the Lewiston curtain, was designed to retain warm surface water while allowing only cold water 
withdrawal. 

The results of the use of the temperature curtains at both Lewiston and Whiskeytown 
Reservoirs is about a 5° F temperature decrease from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River. 
USBR believes this decrease to be significant, making the temperature curtains a successful tool 
for conserving reservoir releases. 

Costs of the temperature control curtains generally run about $1,000 per foot for the 
smaller ones. The largest curtain at Whiskeytown Reservoir cost about $1 .8 million. The 
expected duration of use is about 10 years before replacement may be required. To date, not one 
of the 4 curtains in place at these two reservoirs has needed major repairs. 

A number of studies are ongoing to better refine the curtains use for temperature control, 
such as operations and locations, as well as ensuring that no adverse impacts result to biological 
resources in the reservoirs where they are installed. 

Weather Modification 

Since the early 1950s, California has widely practiced cloud seeding to augment 
precipitation, mostly along the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and along the coast ranges. 
In 1996, there were 14 active cloud seeding programs operating in California. The goal of all 

5-45 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



these cloud seeding programs is to increase water supply for agricultural and municipal uses, and 
for hydroelectric power generation. 

The principal elements of cloud seeding operations include selection of cloud masses, 
seeding materials, and methods to dispense the agents within the clouds. There are several 
classes of seeding agents available. Seeding agents are introduced into the clouds either by using 
ground-based generators or by aerial delivery systems. 

Precipitation from clouds is a result of two different processes or mechanisms. The first 
is coalescence, whereby tiny cloud droplets collide to form larger droplets until the larger 
droplets eventually fall out as rain. The collision and coalescence process works at temperatures 
above freezing. The second mechanism requires ice particles, and occurs at subfreezing 
temperatures. Many clouds have supercooled water droplets sometimes at temperatures far 
below freezing. Ice particles can grow rapidly in this environment at the expense of the liquid 
droplets. Eventually the ice particles fall as snow which will change to rain if the lower levels of 
the atmosphere are above freezing. Enhancing either of the two processes of precipitation 
formation can lead to more efficiency in producing rain or snow from a cloud. Some natural 
clouds appear to be deficient in ice forming nuclei; those clouds offer an opportunity to assist the 
rainmaking process. 
Seeding Agents 

Certain materials have been found effective in converting supercooled water droplets into 
ice crystals. Commonly used seeding agents for this purpose are silver iodide and dry ice. Some 
other chemicals also work including some organic compounds. Hygroscopic materials such as 
salt, urea, and ammonium nitrate have been used in warmer clouds to assist the coalescence 
process. 

Dry Ice. Dry ice was frequently used in early cloud seeding programs in the United States 
in the 1950s and early 1960s. A switch in emphasis to the use of silver iodide occured in the 
mid- 1960s, probably because of more convenient storage and dispensing capabilities. Dry ice 
applications are limited to airborne delivery systems. Dry ice has received increased attention in 
recent years due to its low cost and high effectiveness. 

Silver Iodide. Silver iodide has been the preferred seeding agent in the majority of cloud 
seeding programs in the United States. Particles of silver iodide are usually produced through 

5-46 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Technology in Water Management 



some combustion process followed by rapid quenching which forms trillions of effective freezing 
nuclei per gram of silver iodide consumed. Cloud seeding by silver iodide can be carried out 
using ground-based or aerial generators. 

Liquid Propane, Liquid propane is a freezing agent much like dry ice. Liquid propane 
has the advantage of working at higher temperatures, up to a degree or two below freezing, 
whereas silver iodide is not very effective when temperatures are warmer than - 5°C. Dispensing 
is limited to ground-based system because it is a flammable substance. Liquid propane sprayed 
into the atmosphere chills the air to temperatures well below zero degrees centigrade. As 
temperatures approach -40°C, water vapor in the air rapidly condenses into trillions of cloud 
droplets which immediately freeze and grow into tiny ice crystals. Propane is used operationally 
in clearing supercooled fog from airports in Alaska and the northern portion of the continental 
U.S. 

Bacteria. Pseudomonas syringae, a bacterium thought to reduce frost damage in plants, 
has been shown to be an effective nucleating agent. Use of this bacterium as a seeding agent has 
been limited to producing snow in ski resorts, although there have been some experiments with 
aerial applications. 
Seeding Delivery Systems 

Aerial Application. Commonly available aircraft can be modified to carry an assortment 
of cloud seeding devices. Silver iodide nuclei dispensers include models which bum a solution 
of silver iodide and acetone and pyrotechnic dispensers. A typical silver iodide-acetone solution 
is forced through the nozzle into a combustion chamber where the solution is ignited, and the 
silver iodide crystals formed through combustion are expelled into the atmosphere. Pyrotechnics 
are similar to ordinary highway flares. Pyrotechnic flares impregnated with silver iodide can be 
mounted on aircrafts, burned, and dropped into the clouds. Dry ice is frequently dispensed 
through openings through the floor of aircraft modified for cloud seeding. Types of aircrafts used 
in operational cloud seeding programs range from a single engine aircraft to larger twin engine 
aircraft. 

Ground Applications. The most common type of ground generator in use consists of a 
solution tank which holds the seeding agent. Other components include a means of pressurizing 
the solution chamber, dispensing nozzles, and a combustion chamber. Frequently, such systems 

5-47 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 5. Techr)ology In Water Management 



employ a propane tank vsdth a pressure reduction regulator to pressurize the solution tank, as well 
as to provide as a combustible material into which the silver iodide-acetone solution is sprayed. 
Other systems utilize nitrogen to pressure the solution tank that directly bums the seeding agent 
solution. Pyrotechnics are also used at surface sites. Ground generation systems have been 
developed which are operated manually or by remote control. 
Effectiveness 

Although precise evaluations of the amount of water produced are difficult and expensive 
to determine, estimates range from 2 to 1 5 percent increase in annual precipitation, depending on 
the number and type of storms seeded. In 1992, both the American Meteorological Society and 
the World Meteorological Organization issued policy statements cautiously supportive of the 
effectiveness of weather modification efforts under the proper circumstances. 



5-t8 DRAFT 




.% 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a 
Statewide Perspective 

A main objective of this California Water Plan update is the development of a conceptual 
water management plan (at an appraisal level of detail) to illustrate how California's water supply 
reliability needs could be met through the year 2020. This chapter outlines the process used to 
put together the conceptual plan, and evaluates water management options that are statewide in 
scope. A brief discussion of methods available to local agencies for financing water management 
options is also provided. 

The planning process includes developing regional water management plans for each of 
the State's ten major hydrologic regions, and integrating those plans with statewide water 
management options to form a plan for the entire State. Development of regional water 
management plans is covered in Chapters 7 through 9. 

Statewide water management options include demand management or reduction measures 
that many water agencies are expected to implement, and large-scale water supply augmentation 
measures that would provide supply to multiple beneficiaries (usually in more than one 
hydrologic region). For example, a large north-of-Delta offstream storage reservoir studied 
under CALFED's Bay-Delta program is considered a statewide option. On the other hand, a 
small reservoir project being studied by a local agency to provide benefits only to its service area 
is not a statewide option. Such local projects are covered in Chapters 7 through 9 in the regional 
water management plans. 

The Bulletin 160-98 Planning Process 

The process used to prepare a conceptual water management plan for California draws 
upon, at an appraisal level of detail, techniques of integrated resources planning. IRP evaluates 
water management options ~ both demand management options and supply augmentation 
options ~ against a fixed set of criteria and ranks the options based on costs and other factors. 
Although the IRP process includes economic evaluations, it also incorporates environmental, 
institutional, and social considerations which cannot be expressed easily in monetary terms. 

The development of regional water management plans uses information prepared by local 
agencies. The regional water management plans are not intended to replace local planning 



6-1 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

efforts, but to complement them, by showing the relationships among regional water supplies and 
water needs and the statewide perspective. Local water management options form the basis of 
regional plans which are combined into the statewide plan. Figure 6-1 shows the hydrologic 
regions for which plans are prepared. 

The major steps involved in the Bulletin 160-98 water management options evaluation 
process included: 

• Identify water demands and existing water supplies on a regional basis. 

• Compile comprehensive lists of regional and statewide water management options. 

• Use initial evaluation criteria to either retain or defer options from further evaluation. For 
options retained for further evaluation, some were grouped by categories and others were 
evaluated individually. 

• Identify characteristics of options or option categories, including costs, potential demand 
reduction or supply augmentation, environmental considerations and significant 
institutional issues. 

• Evaluate each regional option or category of options in light of identified regional 
characteristics using criteria established for this Bulletin. If local agencies have 
performed their own evaluation, review and compare their evaluation criteria with those 
used for the Bulletin. 

• Evaluate statewide water management options. 

• Develop regional water management plans. 

• Develop a statewide plan by integrating the regional plans. 

The first step in developing the regional water plan is to prepare water budgets for the 
study areas to identify the magnitude of potential water shortages for average and drought year 
conditions. In addition to identifying shortages, other water supply reliability issues in the region 
are identified. Once the shortages are identified, a list of local water management options is 
prepared. Where possible, basic characteristics of these options (e.g., yields, cost data, significant 
environmental or institutional concerns, etc.) are identified. 



6-2 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6 Evaluating Options From a Statewided Perspective 



Figure 6-1. Hydrologic Regions of California 



' North , 


n 


^ North 


Coast A 


Sacramento 
River 


Lahontan 



Coastal Regions 

Interior Regions 

Eastern Sierra and 
Colorado Regions 



San Francisco 
Boy 



San Joaquin 
River 



Central 
Coast 



Tubre Lake 



South 
Lahontan 



South 
Coast 



Colorado 
Rivw 



6-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



After the options are identified, they are compared with the initial screening criteria 
shown in the sidebar. For options deferred from further evaluation, the major reasons for deferral 
are given (e.g., high economic costs, significant environmental impacts to threatened and 
endangered species, lack of data). Options retained for further evaluation are placed into the 
following categories: 

Conservation (urban and agricultural) 

Modifications to existing reservoirs/operations 

New reservoirs/conveyance facilities 

Ground water/conjunctive use 

Water transfers/banking/exchange 

Water recycling 

Desalination (brackish groundwater and seawater) 

Other local projects (e.g., weather modification) 

Statewide (e.g., CALFED, SWP, DWB) 

Because each of these categories may contain many individual options, some options 
within each category were further combined into groups based upon their estimated costs. (For 
example, water recycling projects costing less than $500/af were grouped into one category.) 
Options were evaluated and scored against the set of fixed criteria shown in the sidebar on 
evaluation criteria. 



Initial Screening Criteria 

The criteria used for initial screening of water management options were: 

Engineering— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it was heavily dependent on 

the development of technologies not currently in use, it used inappropriate technologies given 

the regional characteristics (e.g., desalination in the North Lahontan region), or it did not 

provide new water (e.g., water recycling in the Central Valley). 

Economic— an option was deferred from further evaluation if its cost estimates (including 

environmental mitigation costs) were extraordinarily high given the region's characteristics. 

Environmental— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it had potential significant 

unmitigable environmental impacts or involved use of waterways designated as wild and 

scenic. 

Institutional/Legal— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it had potentially 

unresolvable water rights conflicts or conflicts with existing statutes. 

Social/Third party— an option was deferred from further evaluation if it had extraordinary 

socioeconomic impacts, either in the water source or water use areas. 

Health—an option was deferred from further evaluation if it would violate current health 

regulations or would pose significant health threats. 

6-4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Options Category Evaluation 


Evaluation 
Criteria 


What Is Measured? 


How Is It Measured? 


Score 


Engineering 


Engineering feasibility 


Increase score for greater reliance upon current technologies 


0-4 




Operational flexibility 


Increase score for operational flexibility with existing facilities 
and/or other options 


0-4 




Drought year supply 


Increase score for greater drought year yield/reliability 


0-4 




Implementation date 


Increase score for earlier implementation date 


0-4 




Water quality limitations 


Increase score for fewer water quality constraints 


0-4 


Engineering Score 






0-4 


Economics 


Project flnancial feasibility 


Increase score for lower overall costs and the ability to flnance 


0-4 




Project costs/af yield 


Increase score for lower overall costs/af yield (including 
mitigation costs) 


0-4 


Economics Score 






0-4 


Environmental 


Environmental risk 


Increase score for least amount of environmental risk 


0-4 




Irreversible commitment of resources 


Increase score for least amount of irreversible commitment of 
resources 


0-4 




Collective impacts 


Increase score for least amount of collective impacts 


0-4 




Proximity to environmentally 


Increase score for little or no proximity to sensitive resources 


0-4 




sensitive resources 






Environmental Score 




0-4 


Institutional/ 


Permitting requirements 


Increase score for least amount of permit requirements 


0-4 


Legal 


Adverse institutional/legal effects uponwater Increase score for least amount of adverse institutional/legal 
source areas effects 


0-4 




Adverse institutional/legal effects upon water Increase score for least amount of adverse institutional/legal 
use areas effects 


0-4 




Stakeholder consensus 


Increase score for greater amount of stakeholder consensus 


0-4 


Institutional/Legal Score 




0-4 


Social/Third 


Adverse third party effects upon 


Increase score for least amount of adverse third party effects 


0-4 


Party 


water source areas 








Adverse third party effects upon water 
areas 


use Increase score for least amount of adverse third party effects 


0-4 




Adverse social and community effects 


Increase score for least amount of adverse social and community 
effects 


0-4 


Social/Third Party Score 




0-4 


OtberBeneflts 


Ability to provide benefits in addition to water Increase score for environmental benefits 
supply 


0-4 






Increase score for flood control benefits 


0-4 






Increase score for recreation benefits 


0-4 






Increase score for energy benefits 


0-4 






Increase score for additional benefits 


0-4 






Increase score for improved compliance with health and safety 
regulations 


0-4 


Other Benefits Score 




0-4 


Total Score 






0-24 





6-S 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The Bulletin 1 60-98 option evaluation process relied substantially upon locally developed 
information. Local agencies' methods for making estimates of options' costs vary, thus making 
direct comparisons between cost estimates difficult. To make costs comparable, a common 
approach for estimating cost per acre-foot was developed for this Bulletin. Where the 
information was readily available, costs of local agency projects were normalized using this 
approach. (However, due to time constraints and lack of detailed information for some local 
options, not all option costs were normalized.) 

Water management options can serve purposes other than water supply (e.g., flood 
control, hydroelectric power generation, environmental enhancement, and recreation). For this 
Bulletin, cost estimates were based only on the costs associated with water supply, and the cost 
estimates took into account: (1) capital costs associated with the construction and 
implementation of the option (including any needed conveyance facilities); (2) annual 
operations, maintenance and replacement costs; and (3) amount and timing of deliveries. 
Appendix 6A describes the process used to estimate an option's cost per acre-foot. 

Once options had been evaluated and scored, they were ranked according to their scores. 
This ranking was used to prepare the regional water management plans, taking into account 
options that may be mutually exclusive or could be optimized if implemented in conjunction 
with another other option. Depending on the characteristics of the region and the potential 
options, the regional water management plan may not meet all of a region's water shortages 
(especially in drought years), because the available options are too costly. Put another way, the 
economic costs of accepting shortages would be less than the costs of acquiring additional water 
supplies. 

Water agencies may chose to accept less than 1 00 percent water supply reliability, 
especially under drought conditions, depending on the characteristics of their service areas. 
Shortage contingency measures, such as restrictions on residential outdoor watering or deficit 
irrigation for agricultural crops, can be used to help respond to temporary shortages. However, 
demand hardening is an important consideration in evaluating shortage contingency measures. 
Implementing water conservation measures such as plumbing retrofits and low water use 
landscaping reduces the ability of water users to achieve future drought year water savings 
through shortage contingency measures. 

6-6 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Options available to water agencies for coping with shortages that exceed the agencies' 
planned levels of reliability include supply augmentation actions such as purchasing water from 
the state Drought Water Bank, and demand reduction actions such as urban rationing or 
fallowing of agricultural lands. Table 6-1 summarizes actions taken by some of California's 
larger urban water suppliers to respond to water shortages in 1991, the driest year of the recent 
1 987-92 drought. Measures taken by agricultural water agencies and water users included 
increased pumping of groundwater, land fallowing, and intra- and interdistrict water transfers. 
The WaterLink system established by Westlands Water District (described in Chapter 8) is an 
example of an action that could be used by agricultural water suppliers to facilitate intradistrict 
water transfers as part of managing shortages. 

The impacts of allowing planned shortages to occur in water agency service areas are 
necessarily site-specific, and must be evaluated by each agency on an individual basis. In urban 
areas where conservation measures have already been put into place to reduce applied water use 
by landscaping, imposing rationing or other restrictions on landscape water use can create 
significant impacts to homeowners, landscaping businesses, and entities that manage large turf 
areas such as parks and golf courses. Dry year cutbacks in the agricultural sector create economic 
impacts not only to individual growers and their employees, but also to local businesses that 
provide goods and services to the growers. 



6-7 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-1. 1991 Urban Water Shortage Management 



1991 Shortage Contingency Measures 


Water Agency 


Goal 


A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


/ 


/ 


K 


Alameda County WD 


18% 




• 




• 




• 


• 


• 






• 


Contra Costa WD 


26% 


• 




• 


• 




• 


• 


• 




• 


• 


East Bay MUD 


15% 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 








LA Dept. of Water and Power 


10% 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


MWD of Southern California 


31% 








• 


• 




• 








• 


MWD of Orange County 


20% 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


Orange County WD 


20% 






• 




• 




• 


• 






• 


San Diego Co. Water Authority 


20% 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


City of San Diego WUD 


20% 






• 






• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


San Francisco PUC 


25% 


• 


• 




• 




• 


• 


• 




• 


• 


Santa Clara Valley WD 


25% 


• 


• 




• 






• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


A = Rationing 

B = Mandatory Conservation 

C = Extraordinary Voluntary Conservation 

D = Increasing Rate or Surcharges 

E = Economic Incentives 

F = Device Distribution 


G = 


Broadcast Public Information 

H = Mailed Public Information 
I = Water Patrols and Citations 
J = Fines and Penalties 
K = Water Transfer 








Source: California Urban Water Agencies (June 1991), as cited in: 
Lessons Learned from the California Drought (1987-1992), US Army Corps of Engineers, 
Institute for Water Resources, September 1993 (IWR Report 93-NDS-5) 
Supplemented with information concerning water transfers. 













6-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statev\fide Perspective 

Demand Management Actions 

Demand-side management has taken on a key role in the management of water resources. 
Water conservation plays an important role in planning to meet future water demands. By 
making wiser use of water, the need for new sources of supply can be lessened. Many agencies 
have implemented programs to achieve a high level of water use efficiency. 

Water Conservation 

For nearly three decades, Califomians have recognized the importance of water 
conservation. Since the 1 976-77 drought, attention has focused on plans, programs, and measures 
to encourage more efficient use of water. The water conservation options covered in this section 
are in addition to implementing existing urban Best Management Practices and agricultural 
Efficient Water Management Practices (existing BMPs and EWMPs are discussed in Chapter 4). 
Since the purpose of implementing these options is to generate new water supply (by reducing 
existing water depletions), the conservation options evaluated in this Bulletin are limited to 
actions that would have the effect of creating new water supply. These options would yield 
additional reductions in consumptive use (depletions) above the 2020 baseline demand reduction 
of 2.3 million acre-feet per year resulting from statewide implementation of BMPs and EWMPs. 
(Reductions in depletions accrue where applied water would be lost to evapotranspiration, or to a 
saline water body, and could not be beneficially reused.) Quantifying consumptive use allows the 
comparison of water conservation options with water supply augmentation choices such as water 
storage or recycling facilities. 

The options presented are for planning purposes only and are not mandated targets. It is 
an attempt to quantify the potential water savings that may be achieved by implementing 
measures beyond current BMPs and EWMPs. Local water agencies can evaluate these options 
against other available options to assess appropriate actions for their service areas. 

Although water conservation options will be carried out at the local level, they are 
discussed here conceptually as statewide demand management options for simplicity of 
presentation. Analyses of water conservation options for each hydrologic region are discussed in 
Chapters 7, 8, and 9. The discussions below offer a statewide summary of urban, agricultural, 
and environmental water conservation options. 

6-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Urban Water Conservation Options 

As discussed in Chapter 4, the 1991 MOU Regarding Urban Water Conservation in 
California commits its signatories to implementing BMPs. The baseline of future urban water use 
for this Bulletin was calculated from estimates of population, urban per capita water use, and 
conservation estimates from urban BMPs. Urban BMPs are assumed to be put into effect by 
2020 in the demand analysis for this Bulletin, resulting in an estimated 1.5 maf of demand 
reduction statewide. 

The urban water conservation options described below assume a more intensive 
application of current BMPs, and potential evolution of additional BMPs. If all of the options 
described below were implemented, nearly 800 taf per year of depletion reduction could 
theoretically be attained. Since little or no depletion reductions would be achieved in the Central 
Valley and eastern Sierra, urban water conservation options beyond BMPs are deferred for those 
regions. 

Reduction of Outdoor Water Use. The Department's Water Conservation Office 
estimates that by 2020, there will be 1.5 million acres of landscape statewide being irrigated on 
average at about 1 .0 reference evapotranspiration (ETq), although irrigation amounts vary v^dely 
throughout the State. There are presently no firm numbers available on the acreage of statewide 
irrigated urban landscaping. A value of 1 million acres has been used by CUWCC members as an 
approximation of existing urban landscaping. For this Bulletin, based on projected increases in 
California's population it is assumed that irrigated landscape will increase to 1.5 million acres. 

Options to reduce outdoor water use assume that landscape irrigation statewide could be 
reduced on average to 0.8 ETq in new development, and in all development. These reductions 
would be realized through landscape water audits and incentive programs by the retailer. So that 
the cost of implementing these options can be equitably compared with other supply 
augmentation options, we assume in the economic evaluations in Chapters 7 through 9 that 
implementation costs are funded by the water purveyor and not by individual homeowners. This 
assumption implies that water purveyors could choose to carry out landscape water management 
programs in much the same manner as some urban purveyors have implemented ultra low flush 
toilet retrofit programs. 



610 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Option J: Reduction of Outdoor Water Use in New Development to 0.8 ET(f. The Model 
Landscape Ordinance indicates that a landscape plant factor of 0.8 ETo could be attainable 
through measures such as proper landscape design, more intensive landscape water audit 
programs, installing automatic rain sensors, and better irrigation scheduling. Statewide, about 
190 taf per year of depletion reduction could be achieved by reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 
ETq at a cost of about $750 per af. The ordinance is directly applicable to new construction; 
existing landscaping would require retrofitting. 

Option 2: Reduction of Outdoor Water Use in New and Existing Development to 0.8 ETq. 
This option extends the provisions of Option 1 to include existing development. Statewide, about 
720 taf of depletion reduction could be achieved by reducing outdoor water use in new and 
existing development to 0.8 ETq. The cost of this option is difficult to quantify. It is expected to 
be high due to the cost involved in retrofitting existing landscape. 

Residential Indoor Water Use. Options to reduce indoor residential water use assume 
that indoor water use in the state averages 75 gallons per capita daily. Option 1 and option 2 
could reduce these averages to 70 gpcd and 65 gpcd, respectively. These reduced levels of indoor 
water use are being met in some California communities and could be achieved statewide if 
strong incentive programs, such as financial incentives for retrofits, were provided. More 
aggressive indoor water audits are needed to assure that residential ultra low flush toilets meet 
these potential savings. Conversion to horizontal axis washing machines would also have to be 
assumed to occur in 70 percent of all residences by 2020. 

Option 3: Reduce Residential Indoor Water Use to 70 gpcd. This option is based on the 
potential for a 2 gpcd reduction in toilet flushing, a 2 gpcd reduction in shower and faucet usage, 
and a 1 gpcd reduction in laundry use. These reductions result in a 7 percent reduction beyond 
current BMPs at the retail level. The coastal regions have, on average, achieved this level of 
indoor use. The Colorado River region could attain 10,000 af per year in depletion reductions at a 
cost of about $400 per af. 

Option 4: Reduce Residential Indoor Water Use to 65 gpcd. This option is based on the 
potential for a 4 gpcd reduction in toilet flushing, a 4 gpcd reduction in shower and faucet usage, 
and a 2 gpcd reduction in laundry use. These reductions result in a 13 percent reduction beyond 
current BMPs at the retail level. The coastal regions have on average achieved this level of 

6-11 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

conservation. The Colorado River region could attain 20,000 af per year in depletion reductions 
at a cost of $600 per af. 

Interior Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Water Use. Best Management Practices 
account for 12 to 15 percent reduction in commercial and industrial water use by 2020. 
Assumptions are that CII water use could be reduced an additional 1 5 and 20 percent beyond 
BMPs with aggressive audits and information programs by the retailer. These options could 
reduce CII water use by an additional 2 percent (15% X 15% = 2%) and 3 percent 
(15% X 20% = 3%). The reduction levels are based on measures with varying payback 
schedules, and also on a national study funded by EPA which indicates reductions of 1 5 to 20 
percent beyond BMPs were attainable for various enterprises. 

Option 5: Reduction of Interior CII Water Use by 2 percent. This option is based on 
measures that require a five-year start up time with payback in two years, resulting in a 1 5 
percent reduction over BMPs by the retailer. The additional 2 percent CII reduction would 
require that there be increased CII water audits and compliance with existing standards and 
regulation. This option could achieve 34,000 af per year in depletion reductions, primarily in 
coastal regions, at a cost of about $500 per af 

Option 6: Reduction of Interior CII Water Use by 3 percent. This option i^ based on 
measures requiring an additional five-year start up period with a payback within two to five 
years, resulting in a 20 percent reduction over BMPs to the retailer. The additional 3 percent 
reduction would include increased CII audits and compliance with existing standards, and new 
efficiency standards. Forty-nine thousand af per year of depletion reduction could be achieved, 
primarily in the coastal regions, at a cost of $750 per af 

Distribution System Losses. The Department estimates that the average unaccounted 
water in the state's hydrologic regions ranges between 6 and 15 percent. Two percent is 
attributed to unmetered water use (including water used for construction, fire fighting, and for 
flushing drains and hydrants) and meter errors; therefore, distribution system losses range 
between 4 percent and 1 3 percent. Options to reduce distribution system losses assume that they 
could be reduced to 9 and 7 percent with more aggressive leak detection and repair programs by 
the retailer. This category of options will not result in any water savings in interior regions of the 



612 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

State where distribution system losses recharge groundwater basins and are reused. Therefore, 
these options are deferred in interior regions. 

Option 7: Reduction of Distribution System Losses to 9 percent. This option assumes that 
all leaks are repaired, that all faulty control devices are repaired, that new construction is 
surveyed 6 months after installation, and that leaking mains are repaired where cost effective. It 
is estimated that the cost of this option would be about $200 per af The San Francisco Bay and 
South Coast regions are at this level of conservation. The North Coast, Central Coast, and 
Colorado River regions could each realize less than 1,000 af per year of depletion reductions. 

Option 8: Reduction of Distribution System Losses to 7 percent. This option assumes that 
water system audits will be carried out every three years, leak detection surveys are conducted 
from the audits, and repairs are required. Distribution system losses in the South Coast region are 
already at 7 percent. Reduction to 7 percent statewide would only achieve an additional 2,000 af 
per year over the current BMPs at a cost of $300 per af. 

In Chapters 7 through 9, these urban water conservation options are evaluated for each 
hydrologic region. The level of water conserved from these options will vary for each region 
depending on current urban water use and the hydrology of the region. Table 6-2 summarizes 
statewide urban water conservation options and the incremental depletion reductions for each 
option. 



6-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6- 


2. Statewide Urban Water Conservation Opt 


ions Beyond BMPs 




Potential Depletion Reduction (taf) ^ 


Hydrologic 
Region 


Reduction of Outdoor 
Water Use to 0.8 ETo 


Reduction of 

Residential Indoor 

Water Use to 


Reduction of Cll 
Water Use by 


Reduction of 

Distribution 

System Losses to 




Opt1 


Opt 2 


Opt 3 


Opt 4 


Opts 


Opt 6 


Opt 7 


Opts 




New 


New& 
Existing 


70 gpcd 


65 gpcd 


2% 


3% 


9% 


7% 


North Coast 


2 


10 


D 


D 


2 


3 


D 


D 


San Francisco Bay 


20 


140 


D 


D 


10 


15 


D 


2 


Central Coast 


10 


30 


D 


D 


D 


2 


D 


D 


South Coast 


140 


500 


D 


D 


20 


25 


D 


D 


Sacramento River 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


San Joaquin River 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


Tulare Lake 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


North Lahontan 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


South Lahontan 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


Colorado River 


20 


40 


10 


20 


2 


4 


D 


D 


State Total 


192 


720 


10 


20 


34 


49 


~ 


2 



In some regions, these levels of conservation are already being achieved. Urban water conservation beyond BMPs would not 
result in additional reductions in depletion in interior and Eastern Sierra regions and are deferred (D). Only depletion reductions 
greater than 1 taf are considered in this table. 

Agricultural Water Conservation Options 

The 1996 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Efficient Water Management 
Practices by Agricultural Water Suppliers in California became effective when 1 5 agricultural 
water suppliers, representing 2 million acres of irrigated acreage had signed it. As of November 
1997, the MOU had been signed by 29 water suppliers, serving about 2.8 million irrigated acres, 
as well as by other interested parties. The MOU establishes the Agricultural Water Management 
Council which will assume the responsibility of implementing the MOU, evaluating locally 
developed water management plans, and overseeing implementation of cost-effective efficient 
water management practices. 

Baseline agricultural water use is calculated from estimates of crop acreage, unit applied 
water, unit evapotranspiration of applied water, and seasonal application efficiencies. Irrigated 
crop acreage was 9.5 million acres in 1995 and is expected to decline to 9.2 million acres by 
2020 because of urbanization (mostly in the South Coast Region and San Joaquin Valley), 



6-14 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Sfafew/de Perspective 

westside San Joaquin Valley drainage problems, and changes in CVP water supply in the Central 
Valley. 

Current EWMPs result in about 800 taf per year of applied water reductions by 2020, 
largely from canal lining or piping and other measures increasing average on-farm seasonal 
application efficiency to 73 percent. Recent DWR studies have shown that theoretical 
efficiencies might be increased to 80 percent through improved irrigation equipment and 
irrigation management practices. In some areas of the State, agencies such as Westlands Water 
District, Kern County Water Agency, and Imperial Irrigation District generally have on-farm 
efficiencies ranging from 75 percent to more than 80 percent. 

The agricultural water conservation options described below were based on attaining 
seasonal application efficiencies greater than 73 percent, on average, through implementation of 
conservation measures in excess of present EWMPs. Average efficiencies of 76, 78 and 80 
percent were used for the water management options. The Department's mobile laboratory data 
have shown these efficiencies can be achieved in certain locations and with some crops and 
irrigation methods. 

Stressing orchards to reduce evapotranspiration (also referred to as regulated deficit 
irrigation) was not evaluated as an option. The RDI method was used successfully during the 
drought, but may impact crop yields and needs further testing as a long-term management 
strategy. RDI and other irrigation techniques to attain higher than 80 percent seasonal application 
efficiencies are discussed in Chapter 5. 

The options below are evaluated for each hydrologic region. The water conserved from 
these options varies for each region according to prevailing irrigation practices and the regional 
soil types and hydrology. As with urban conservation options, the purpose of implementing these 
agricultural conservation options is to generate new water supply (by reducing depletions). 
Reducing consumptive use results in additional water supply only where water would otherwdse 
be lost to evapotranspiration or to a saline water body such as the Pacific Ocean. In California 
agriculture, this condition exists primarily in the Colorado River Region (which drains to the 
Salton Sea), parts of the coastal area, and the westside of the San Joaquin Valley. In the 
Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River regions, almost all excess applied irrigation water is 



6-15 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

reused, ultimately percolating to groundwater or draining back into rivers that flow toward the 
Delta. 

If all of the options discussed below were implemented, more than 200 taf of depletion 
reduction could theoretically be obtained. In areas where no depletion reductions would be 
achieved by conservation beyond EWMPs (such as the Sacramento and San Joaquin regions), 
this additional conservation was deferred as a water supply option. Most of the potential for 
achieving depletion reductions through additional agricultural conservation occurs in the 
Colorado River Region. However, the environmental impacts of such conservation on the Salton 
Sea would have to be carefully evaluated. The Salton Sea provides valuable habitat for migratory 
waterfowl, and alternatives for stabilizing its increasing salinity are now being studied. Since 
agricultural drainage provides the bulk of fresh water inflow to the sea, actions that would reduce 
the freshwater inflow may not be implementable on a large scale. 

Irrigation Management. The Department assumes that by 2020, on-farm seasonal 
application efficiencies will average 73 percent statewide. Based on mobile laboratory studies, 
average seasonal application efficiencies could reach 80 percent through programs that include 
irrigation system evaluations, better system design, and improved irrigation systems and 
management practices. Options 1 , 2, and 3 represent the depletion reductions that would be 
obtained with improved average SAE at 76, 78, and 80 percent, respectively. 

Option 1: Improve Seasonal Application Efficiency to 76 percent. Average seasonal 
application efficiency in the Tulare Lake and Colorado River regions is close to 76 percent now. 
The depletion reduction for this option would be 10,000 af per year at about $100 per af 

Option 2: Improve Seasonal Application Efficiency to 78 percent. By improving SAE 
from 73 to 78 percent, depletion reductions would increase to 35,000 af per year for the Tulare 
Lake and Colorado River regions at a cost of $250 per af 

Option 3: Improve Seasonal Application Efficiency to 80 percent. Improving irrigation 
management from 73 to 80 percent seasonal application efficiency would result in depletion 
reductions of 60,000 af per year, mostly in the Colorado River Region at a cost of $450 per af 

Water Delivery Flexibility. 

Option 4: Improve Water Delivery Flexibility. The manner of water delivery to the farm 
affects water use and use efficiency. Flexible water delivery allows a farmer to turn water on and 

6-16 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

off at will. This is impractical for many gravity flow agricultural water delivery systems because 
of the large volumes of water that must be delivered. However, some agricultural water agencies 
have been able to allow farmers to give shorter notice to the district before receiving water and to 
allow farmers to adjust flow rates and the duration of the irrigation. Flexible water delivery in the 
San Joaquin River Region could achieve 2,000 af in depletion reduction. Depletion reductions of 
30,000 af could be attained in the Colorado River Region at a cost of about $1 ,000 per af 

Canal Lining and Piping 

Option 5: Improve On-farm Distribution Systems. This option could improve water use 
efficiency by improving on-farm distribution systems beyond the level of effort provided in 
existing EWMPs. Distribution system losses can be reduced by lining open canal systems or 
using pipelines. Pipelines would reduce depletions from evaporation and from seepage of applied 
water to unusable groundwater. (This option applies only to canal lining and piping of on-farm 
delivery systems. Lining of major conveyance facilities such as the All American Canal, and 
lining of water agency-ovmed canals are treated as individual options in Chapters 7 through 9.) 

Lining irrigation canal systems in the San Joaquin River region could reduce 2,000 af in 
depletions in areas that drain into unusable shallow groundwater. Less than 1 ,000 af in depletions 
would accrue in the Tulare Lake region because many irrigation systems on the westside of the 
valley where there is unusable shallow groundwater are already lined or piped. This option could 
save 45,000 af in the Colorado River region. It is estimated that this option would cost about 
$1,200 per af of depletion reduction. 

Tail Water and Spill Recovery Systems 

Option 6: Improve Tail Water and Spill Recovery. This option would improve irrigation 
efficiency by the construction of additional tail water and spill recovery systems. The tail water 
recovery option is only applicable to areas with furrow or border irrigation systems. Spill 
recovery systems would lessen the amount of water reaching unusable groundwater and surface 
water by reducing losses from operational spills in irrigation district delivery canals. About 
65,000 af depletion reductions could be achieved in the Colorado River region with this option 
at a cost of about $150 per af 

Table 6-3 summarizes statewide agricultural water conservation options and the depletion 
reduction of each option. The agricultural options are deferred in a number of regions because 

6-17 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



the excess applied water either percolates to usable groundwater or flows to usable surface water. 
The only areas where the options significantly reduce depletions by preventing losses from 
entering unusable waters are the westside of the San Joaquin Valley and in areas tributary to the 
Salton Sea in the Colorado River Region. However, as mentioned earlier, the ability to conserve 
significant amounts of water beyond the base EWMPs in the Colorado River region will be 
limited by the need to preserve the environmental resources of the Salton Sea. These options are 
evaluated for the regional water management plans in Chapters 7, 8, and 9. 



Table 6-3. Statewide Agricultural Water Conservation Options Beyond EWMPs 




Potential Depletion Reduction (Ttiousand Acre-Feet) '' 


Hydrologic Region 


Seasonal Application 


Flexible Water 


Canal Lining 


Tailwater 




Efficiency Improvement 


Delivery 


and Piping ^ 


Recovery 




76% 


78% 


80% 






Opt1 


Opt 2 


Opt 3 


Option 4 


Option 5 


Option 6 


North Coast 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


San Francisco Bay 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


Central Coast 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


South Coast 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


Sacramento River 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


San Joaquin River 


D 


D 


D 


2 


2 


2 


Tulare Lake 


D 


5 


10 


D 


D 


D 


North Lahontan 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


South Lahontan 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


Colorado River 


10 


30 


50 


30 


45 


65 


State Total 


10 


35 


60 


32 


47 


67 



' Implementation of some options in certain regions would not result in any depletion reduction and are deferred 

(D). Only depletion reductions greater than 1 taf are presented in this table. 

^ Excludes lining of major conveyance facilities (eg., All American Canal, Coachella Canal), which are treated as 

individual options in the regional water management chapters. 

' These options are subject to environmental review to ensure that reduced depletions will not have significant 

impact to the Salton Sea. 

Land Retirement 

Land retirement is a demand reduction option that has been considered in the CALFED 
Bay-Delta planning process and in the CVPIA's least-cost yield increase study. Currently, two 
programs have authority to fund land retirement ~ the CVPIA land retirement program and the 
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Relief Program created by State legislation in 1992. USBR's 
CVPIA Restoration Fund has the capability to provide significant amounts of funding for land 



6-18 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

retirement. By 2020 these programs, or other programs developed by local agencies, could 
implement land retirement for purposes such as improving water service reliability or improving 
drainage management. The use of the acquired water — whether for agricultural, urban, or 
environmental purposes ~ would depend on the authority and purpose of the program 
implementing the retirement. 

For illustrative purposes, this Bulletin evaluates two land retirement options on the 
westside of the San Joaquin Valley, where some agricultural lands face serious drainage 
problems and where the existing land retirement programs are authorized to make acquisitions. 
The Interagency Drainage Program's 1991 report identified the need to retire 75,000 acres of 
lands with the worst drainage problems by 2040. Assuming that land retirement would occur 
uniformly over time, the Bulletin's 2020 irrigated acreage forecast includes a reduction of 45,000 
acres of land as discussed in Chapter 4. The land retirement process, however, could be expanded 
and/or expedited through existing or future programs in which the land is purchased and then 
taken out of irrigated agriculture. Considering the region's chronic agricultural water shortages, it 
is likely that local water agencies would want to keep the water in the region to improve water 
supplies for remaining irrigated lands, as is being planned in a pending joint financing 
arrangement between USBR and Westlands WD. 

For this Bulletin 1 60 update, two land retirement options were evaluated. Option 1 
assumes that the full 75,000 acres of agricultural lands with the worst drainage problems 
recommended for retirement by 2040 by the interagency program would be retired by 2020, 
adding 30,000 acres to the base of 45,000 acres included in the Department's 2020 agricultural 
acreage forecast. The water savings from this additional 30,000 acres of retired lands would be 
about 65,000 af per year. 

Option 2 assumes the retirement of up to 85,000 acres over the base 45,000 acres for a 
total of 130,000 retired acres. This includes the 30,000 acres in Option 1 plus other lands in the 
westside of the San Joaquin Valley with a selenium concentration of more than 200 parts per 
billion in shallow groundwater. Option 2 could result in 185,000 af/year of water savings. For 
option 2, the 200 ppb selenium criterion was used to benchmark acreage to be retired because of 
the 1991 interagency report's recommendations. Since publication of that report, there has been a 
decrease in the amount of land underlain by shallow groundwater, as observed by groundwater 



6-19 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

level monitoring in the drainage problem areas. This reduction can be attributed to several 
factors, including changes in growers' irrigation management and a reduction in surface water 
supplies to the westside of the valley. Since the interagency report's publication, there has been 
no new region- wide monitoring of selenium in shallow groundwater, and changes in the extent of 
lands underlain by high selenium groundwater are unknown. (Also since publication of the 
interagency report, the Department of Food and Agriculture has done further research which it 
believes indicates that lands within the 200 ppb selenium criterion delineation could perhaps still 
be used for irrigated agriculture. Land management practices would include planting halophytes 
and constructing solar evaporators to manage drainage. This form of land management is still at a 
research stage of development.) 

To help put these acreage values into perspective, in 1997 USSR's land retirement 
program issued its first request for proposals from persons who wished to retire land pursuant to 
the CVPIA program. USBR received proposals totalling 27,500 acres. Based on its available 
budget, USBR expects to retire about 12,000 acres of the lands proposed. 

Table 6-4 displays the crops assumed to be retired for both options along with the 
expected reductions in applied water and net depletions. Crop net depletions refers to the water 
consumed within a service area plus irrecoverable losses to salt sinks. Field crops are the 
primary types of crops assumed to be retired, with barley, wheat, cotton and safflower 
comprising almost 90 percent of total retired acreage for each option. The economic analysis 
includes the 45,000 acres of land contamed in Bulletin 160-98's 2020 irrigated acreage forecasts 
to illustrate cumulative effects of land retirement, whether it is implemented by growers because 
of market forces or expedited through voluntary land purchase programs. This is a conservative 
assumption that does not reflect the economic impacts that would actually be attributable to 
option implementation. 



6-20 DRAFT 



(0 

c 

a 
O 

4^ 
c 
o 

E 

''Si 
0) 

T3 
C 
CO 



(0 







(0 




VO 


o 


ro 


o 


o 


o 


t^ 


O 


OO 


VO 


VO 


en 


o 


On 






c 
o 




o 


>o 


s 


OS 


o 


oo 


r^ 


-^ 


"^ 


OS 


00 


r<^ 




if) 








**V 


VO^ 


r- 


(N 


o^ 


r-^ 


OO 


00^ 


Ov 


f*^ 


r<^ 


00 


q 






































«M 


V3 


•5^ 


«n 


rn 


oo" 


^^ 


f<r 


m" 


^m 


m 


w^m 


VO* 


^m 






«s 




Q> 


(N 




^^ 


m 


l^ 


















00 




:§ 


8- 

Q 


si 




























«s 










o 


Q 


00 


00 


00 


«o 


O 


o 


o 


3 


<N 


<N 


oo 


IT) 










"^ 


Q 


Tf 


VO 


o 


Tf 


0\ 


o 


VO 


•n 


m 


00 






■0 






q_ 


(N 


o 


rr\ 


00 


(N 


00 


o 


Ov 


m 


Tt 


CO 


00 


s 




S 
















#* 




•• 














j9> 




oo~ 


Tt 


o" 


Tf 


m 


rr" 




rr 




r«-" 


w^ 






•^ 






Q^ 


<N 




(N 


m 


00 


















o 




Q. 


^ 


sE. 










^ 


















f*) 


<M 


^ 


^ 
































C 




































.o 












































^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 




^ 


^ 


^ 


2 


^ 


^ 






^ 


-^ 


00 


o 


>n 


q 


o 


«o 


*r\ 


«0 


q 


m 




ro 


q 






c 


•n 


o 


^ 


vd 


^ 


o 


o 


w^ 


c> 


<N 


d 


d 


d 


o 








o 






•-" 


•"• 


•n 


^" 
















o 




9 




o 
































P 




s: 
































y- 




Q> 




































t 
































"0 




































P 






o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




.b 






^^ 


o 


(N 


oo 


VO 


>n 


m 


o 


o 


r<^ 


Tt 




t^ 






<& 
& 




1 




o^ 




Tt 


vo" 


Os^ 

<n" 


VO 


o 


r- 


VO 
(N 


Tt 


*"" 


f<^ 


© 




QC 








'-^ 


<s 


VO 


•— ' 
















m 








o 




























^" 








5^ 










































































o 


>n 


r- 


-* 


O 


r-~ 


OS 


o 


r- 


^^ 


OS 


(N 


(N 


«s 






<0 




t^ 


00 


r-- 


00 




(N 


«n 




r- 


r- 


Tt 




00 


^^ 






c 




>n 


(N 


m 


(N 


^M 


t~~ 


OS 


VO 


OS 


VO^ 


q^ 


«-M 


Tf 


«s 








































o 




VO 


f*^ 


o 


oo" 


00 


1^ 




en 




m" 


»« 






irT 




1 


& 

Q 


I 










Ov 


















« 










O 


o 


o 


VO 


(N 


m 


o 


o 


VO 


Tt 


OS 


00 


00 


^ 




■d 






VO 


oo 


m 


VO 


«n 


«-^ 


<N 


o 


to 


VO 


OS 




<N 


VO 




k. 




m 


r- 


«n 


r>- 


(N 


"^^ 


q. 


q^ 


q. 


00^ 


q^ 


^-4 


U-1 


t^ 




.« 


































Q) 


Q^ 


oo 


m 


^iM 


2 


"tT 


oo" 


^i^ 


'^" 


^^ 


f*^ 


P-4 






00 




«^ 


«: 


»-^ 




»— < 




o 


















r^ 




a 


JO 


(0 










^4 


















wm 


T» 


^ 
































c 


^ 
































p 




































^ 




































§ 








^ 




^ 


^ 


^ 

o^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 

o^ 


^ 

©^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


O 






^ 


•-< 


(N 


q 


«n 




<N 


>n 


<^ 


>n 


00 


Tf 


o 


m 








c 


vd 


^ 


^ 


vd 


O 


O 


o 


^ 


o 


^ 


d 


d 


d 


d 

o 




in 




0) 






'^ 


•^ 


>n 


*" 


















% 




1 




























" 




^ 




9i 
































1 








































o 


O 


VO 


Tf 


o 


o 


o 


Q 


o 


o 


CO 


t^ 


o 


o 




s 




,Mi^^ 


OS 


o 


(^ 


«/^ 


OS 


«o 


>* 


^5 


r^ 


oo 


ro 


m 


<N 


o 




^••* 

s 




o 
5^ 




ON 


oo" 




r-" 


VO^ 

r-" 


<^ 


S 


m 


CO 


ro 




fN 


o 






























































00 










1 








>» 


1 










i3 




to 


*35 






to 












CO 












« 
u 


CQ 


c 
.o 




to 


,o 


2 












02 






cS 


C 

o 


o 


CQ 
13 

3 
C/5 


"c 
O 


o 
to 


C 

o 




O 


^ 










«2 
< 


■fc 


13 
CQ 


4> 






Q 


1- 


(2 


B 
< 


2 

to 


c 

5 


CQ 

o 
H 



I- 

lA. 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Cost of Land Retirement Program. 

The costs of land retirement options are measured by the estimated costs to purchase 
farm land and remove it from irrigated agricultural production. Based upon land values for 
Fresno, Kings and Kern Counties estimated by the California Chapter of the American Society of 
Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers for the period of 1 994 through 1 996, the estimated cost of 
retiring the lands for Option 1 is about $1,550 per acre or $55 per acre-foot of net depletions. 
For Option 2, the estimated cost increases to about $1,760 per acre or $63 per acre-foot of net 
depletions. The increased cost is mainly due to the increased purchases of better quality, and 
thus more valuable, farmland as the voluntary farm land retirement program expands from 
Option 1 to Option 2. 

The above costs assume that the farmland is permanently taken out of production. 
However, depending upon the location of the farmland, some may only be retired from irrigated 
agriculture, and not from agricultural production. Some of the land could still be grazed, or be 
used to grow dryland grains, safflower or grain hay. If it is assumed that all the retired land 
would still be used for grazing, then the estimated cost of retirement for Option 1 is about $1,420 
per acre or $51 per acre-foot of net depletions. For Option 2, the estimated cost is about $1,640 
per acre or $59 per acre-foot of net depletions assuming that all of the retired land pould be used 
for grazing. Table 6-5 summarizes these costs. 



Table 6-5. Costs of Land Retirement Options 

($1995) 







Option 1 




Option 2 


Land Retirement 
Assumptions 


Total 

Cost 

Per Acre 


Annualized 

Cost 
Per Acre ^ 


Cost 
Per AF Net 
Depletions 


Total 

Cost 

Per Acre 


Annualized 
Cost Per 
Acre * 


Cost 
Per AF Net 
Depletions 


With No Alternative Uses 
With Grazing 


$1,550 
$1,420 


$121 
$111 


$55 
$51 


$1,760 
$1,640 


$138 
$128 


$63 
$59 


For a 25 year period and 6% discount rate. 



Direct farm income losses to farmers should be recovered through the land purchase costs 
discussed above. However, there is a potential for secondary economic impacts (third party 
effects) to the region (the regional economy is defined as Fresno, Kern and Kings Counties) and 



6-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6 Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



to the State. Indirect income and employment effects can occur to industries that supply farms 
with goods and services (for example, seed, fertilizer and farm labor) as well as to industries 
which transport and/or process agricultural produce for final consumption. Induced effects can 
also result from changes in household spending caused by changes in employment. 

Tables 6-6 and 6-7 show the combined direct, indirect and induced value of production 
and employment effects for both the regional and statewide economies. As discussed above, 
some of these effects will likely be reduced because of potential alternative uses of the retired 
land (such as grazing or dry farming). 

Table 6-6. Land Retirement Analysis-Option 1 
Economic Impacts ($1995) 





Retired " 
Land 
(Acres) 


Direct, Indirect, Induced Effects 






Crops 


Value of Production 


Employment 


Regional^ 


Statewide 


Regional 


Statewide 






($1000) 


($1000) 


(person/yrs) 


(perso 


n/yrs) 


Alfalfa Hay 


4,590 


7,711 


8,109 


109 


113 


Irrigated Pasture 


900 


670 


705 


9 




10 


Barley 


8,236 


4,622 


5,250 


77 




79 


Wheat 


12,354 


10,921 


11,631 


154 




162 


Cotton 


37,590 


95,148 


101,519 


1,567 




1,587 


Safflower 


7,650 


6,389 


6,973 


102 




106 


Sugar Beets 


340 


660 


704 


11 




12 


Dry Beans 


1,000 


1,680 


1,767 


24 




25 


Dry Onions 


370 


967 


1,058 


14 




14 


Tomatoes (processing) 


1,380 


4,579 


5,010 


64 




65 


Almonds 


333 


2,085 


2,282 


40 




41 


Pistachios 


37 


357 


390 


7 




7 


Wine Grapes 


220 


1,099 


1,236 


21 




21 


Totals 


75,000 


136,888 


146,633 


2,200 




2,240 



Includes Fresno, Kern and Kings counties. 



6-23 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-7. Land Retirement Analysis-Option 2 
Economic Impacts ($1995) 





Retired 

Land 

(Acres) 


Direct, indirect, induced Effects 






Crops 


Value of Production 


Employment 




Regional * 
($1000) 


Statewide 
($1000) 


Regional * 
(person/yrs) 


Statewide 
(person/yrs) 


Alfalfa Hay 


7,010 


11,777 


12,384 


166 




173 


Irrigated Pasture 


1,000 


745 


783 


11 




11 


Barley 


14,320 


8,036 


9,128 


135 




138 


Wheat 


21,480 


18,988 


20,223 


268 




281 


Cotton 


66,360 


167,970 


179,218 


2,767 




2,801 


Safflower 


12,950 


10,815 


11,804 


173 




179 


Sugar Beets 


630 


1,222 


1,304 


20 




22 


Dry Beans 


2,000 


2,616 


2,972 


44 




45 


Dry Onions 


700 


1,829 


2,001 


26 




26 


Tomatoes (processing) 


2,630 


8,727 


9,549 


122 




124 


Almonds 


440 


2,755 


3,015 


53 




54 


Pistachios 


110 


1,061 


1,161 


20 




21 


Wine Grapes 


370 


1,849 


2,079 


36 




36 


Totals 


130,000 


238,391 


255,620 


3,840 




3,909 


' Includes Fresno, Kern and 


Kings Counties. 













Environmental Water Conservation Options 

To date, there has been little formal planning for environmental water conservation, 
unlike the urban and agricultural efforts discussed above. Development of a formal program to 
evaluate efficient water use on wetlands is currently the only program being considered. The 
DFG, USSR, and USFWS are working with the Grasslands Resource Conservation District to 
develop an interagency program for water use planning for Central Valley wildlife refuges 
covered by the CVPIA. This program will include best management practices for efficient water 
use, and will develop a planning process for refuges. Draft work products were expected to be 
developed by October 1997. At this point, no options for wetlands water conservation have been 
quantified. 

Water Supply Augmentation Options 

At the present time, most active planning for statewide water supply options is being 
done either for the CALFED Bay-Delta program or for SWP future supply. In accordance with 
the requirements of the CVPIA, an appraisal level water supply augmentation report was recently 



6-24 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

prepared for the CVP, but there has not been action to implement potential CVP supply options 
described in that report. 

Improving Delta Conditions 

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary is the center from which 
two-thirds of the State's population and millions of acres of agricultural land receive part or all of 
their water supplies. Implementation of many statewide water supply augmentation options 
would include improving Delta conditions. Voter approval of Proposition 204 in the 1996 
general election demonstrates public support for developing a long-term Bay-Delta solution and 
restoring the Delta environment. Below is a review of programs to improve Delta water supply 
reliability. 
Interim South Delta Program. 

The Department's Interim South Delta Program plans to improve water levels and 
circulation in south Delta channels for local agricultural diversions, and to enhance existing 
delivery capability of the SWP by improving south Delta hydraulic conditions, allowing 
increased diversions into Clifton Court Forebay. This would allow for full pumping capacity at 
the SWP's Banks Pumping Plant (10,300 cfs) during high flows in the Delta and more 
operational flexibility for the SWP to reduce fishery impacts. 

The ISDP is partially in response to the proposed settlement of a lawsuit brought by the 
South Delta Water Agency against the Department and USBR. In the proposed settlement 
agreement, the three parties committed to develop mutually acceptable long-term solutions to the 
water supply problems of local water users within SDWA. The Department has taken the lead 
responsibility for planning and constructing the project, with cost-sharing provided by USBR. 

The ISDP preferred alternative would cost an estimated $60 million to construct and 
includes the following five project components: 

(1) Construction and operation of a new intake structure at northeastern comer of Clifton 
Court Forebay, as part of providing greater operational flexibility in export pumping. 

(2) Channel dredging along 4.9 miles of Old River just north of Clifton Court Forebay. 

(3) Construction and seasonal operation of a barrier at the head of Old River in spring and 
fall to improve fishery conditions for salmon migrating in the San Joaquin River. 



6-25 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

(Construction of an Old River fishery barrier is included in the CVPIA's list of mandated 
federal environmental restoration actions.) 

(4) Construction and operation of three flow control structures at Old River, Middle River, 
and Grant Line Canal, to improve existing water level and circulation patterns for 
agricultural users in the south Delta. 

(5) Increased diversions into Clifton Court Forebay up to a maximum of 20,430 af daily on a 
monthly averaged basis, resulting in the ability to pump an average of 10,300 cfs at 
Banks Pumping Plant. 

The ISDP could augment SWP supplies by 125 taf/year in average years and 100 taf/year 
in drought years at a 2020 level of demand. The Draft EIR/EIS for the program was released in 
July 1996, with public hearings held in early 1997. The Final EIR/EIS is scheduled for 
completion in mid- 1998. 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was established in May 1995 to develop a long-term 
plan for restoring ecological health, improving water quality, improving levee system integrity, 
and improving water management for beneficial use of the Bay-Delta system. It is a cooperative 
effort among state and federal agencies and the public. State and federal agencies participating in 
the CALFED program are shown in Table 6-8. 

Table 6-8. CALFED Agencies 



California Federal 



The Resources Agency Environmental Protection Agency 

Department of Water Resources Department of Interior 

Department of Fish and Game Bureau of Reclamation 

California Environmental Protection Agency Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Department of Commerce 

National Marine Fisheries Service 



6-26 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is carrying out a three-phase process to achieve broad 
agreement on comprehensive solutions for the Bay-Delta system. During Phase I, completed in 
August 1 996, the program defined fundamental problems in the Bay-Delta system. This resulted 
in an initial set of alternatives, or sets of actions to be evaluated in Phase II. Phase II is currently 
underway and will be completed in September 1998. It includes a programmatic environmental 
review, refinement of the three alternative solutions, and selection of a preferred alternative. 
During Phase III, which will begin in late 1998 or early 1999 and continue for 20 to 30 years, the 
preferred alternative will be implemented. 

The three conceptual alternatives developed in Phase I to solve Bay-Delta problems all 
include program components to comprehensively address ecosystem restoration, water quality 
improvements, enhanced Delta levee system integrity, and increased water use efficiency. The 
key variable distinguishing the alternatives from one another is how each would move and store 
water within the Bay-Delta system: 

• Alternative 1: Water is conveyed through the Delta using the current system of channels. 

• Alternative 2: Water conveyance through the Delta is substantially improved by making 
significant changes to the existing system of channels. 

• Alternative 3: Water conveyance through the Delta is substantially improved by making 
significant changes to the existing system of channels and constructing a conveyance 
facility, isolated from the Delta's natural channels, to transport part or all of the water 
intended for export. 

Each alternative presents options for water storage, as well as a system for conveying water 
through and/or around the Delta. The water storage element could include expanding existing 
storage, constructing new surface storage, or conjunctive use and groundwater banking. 
Additional storage would increase flexibility in operating the Bay-Delta system, allowing 
operators to respond to changing conditions and needs throughout the year, and would help 
respond to the effects of drought. Surface storage could be in the Delta, upstream of the Delta, or 
south of the Delta. Groundwater storage components include conjunctive use and groundwater 
banking programs in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in the Mojave Basin. 



6-27 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluatir}g Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Preliminary evaluations of potential ofFstream reservoir sites upstream of the Delta 
indicate that four reservoir sites are likely finalists of the CALFED screening process for North 
of the Delta. These proposed reservoir sites are: Red Bank Project (Dippingvat and Schoenfield 
reservoirs), Thomes-Newville Reservoir, Sites Reservoir, and Colusa Reservoir. DWR, 
authorized by Proposition 204, has begun an investigation to evaluate these four sites. 
(Descriptions of these, and other, statewide options for new surface storage are provided in the 
following section.) 

Since these projects are offstream storage projects, their major components would be 
water diversion and conveyance facilities. Alternative water supply concepts are being 
investigated. Surplus flood flows from local tributaries, the Colusa Basin Drain, and the 
Sacramento River are being looked at as potential sources of water supply. Expansion of existing 
water conveyance facilities, such as the Tehama-Colusa Canal and the Glenn-Colusa Canal, and 
a new diversion from the Sacramento River downstream of Chico Landing are being evaluated. 



CALFED Bay-Delta Program Common Programs 

During Phase I it was determined that all alternatives to solve Bay-Delta system problems 
needed to include four common programs. These common programs are: 
Ecosystem Quality — restore the ecosystem to levels needed to support Bay-Delta species at 

naturally sustainable levels, including the habitats necessary for survival of species that 

use the ecosystem. Potential measures are discussed in the Environmental Enhancement 

Options section. 
Levee System Integrity — reduce the risk of levee failure due to floods, earthquakes and general 

deterioration by developing a long-term maintenance plan and an emergency levee 

management plan. 
Water Quality — focus on controlling pollution at its source. Reducing the amount of 

pollutants entering the Delta benefits all water users by reducing salt loading for 

agricultural diversions, improving drinking water quality, and improving water quality 

for the ecosystem. 
Water Use Efficiency — implement programs that increase the efficiency with which water is 

used, including conservation and water recycling. 



Statewide Option for Conveyance Facilities 

The Mid- Valley Canal has been proposed as a major conveyance facility to supplement 
water supplies to the eastern San Joaquin Valley. The Mid- Valley Canal, with two components - 
a main branch and a north branch - would convey existing CVP water supply from the 

6-28 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to portions of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare 
counties and, by exchange, Kern County. 

The main branch of the Mid- Valley Canal would convey water from the Mendota Pool 
down the east side of the valley, providing additional water deliveries to the southern San 
Joaquin Valley and Tulare Lake Basin. The north branch would divert water out of the Mendota 
Pool to provide additional water deliveries to the eastern San Joaquin Valley. Water deliveries 
could be used for conjunctive use and groundwater banking programs, alleviating groundwater 
overdraft conditions. Improved groundwater conditions, through delivery of surplus Delta flows 
could increase the reliability of dry year supplies. 

Because of the uncertainty of Delta exports, this option is deferred from ftirther analysis 
in this Bulletin as a statewide option. However, the Mid- Valley Canal is a potential conveyance 
facility that could be considered in the formulation of storage and conveyance alternatives in the 
CALFED process. 

Statewide Options for Surface Storage Facilities 

One option to improve statewdde water supply reliability is to develop additional surface 
storage. New storage facilities could store water for the environment, agriculture, municipalities, 
industry, or a combination of these uses. More storage would increase flexibility in operating the 
Bay-Delta system, improving operators* ability to respond to changing conditions and needs 
throughout the year. Potential statewide storage options are in-Delta storage, reservoir sites 
upstream of the Delta supplied by the Sacramento or San Joaquin rivers or their tributaries, and 
off-aqueduct storage south of the Delta, supplied with water exported from the Delta. These 
storage options are being evaluated as part of CALFED' s review of Phase II alternatives. 

In the CALFED process, no allocation has yet been made of the water supply that could 
be provided from new surface storage facilities, nor of the costs for constructing the facilities. 
For illustrative purposes, the following sections on new storage facilities treat some of the 
facilities as if they were part of the SWP, to provide a benchmark for calculating their yields via 
operations studies. Many of these sites have been studied historically as potential SWP ftiture 
water supply facilities, and data available for them reflect that intended purpose. The Bulletin's 
treatment of these facilities as potential components of the SWP is to facilitate their 

6-29 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

quantification, and is not intended to be a proposal as to the agency that would actually finance, 
construct, and own them. 
Multipurpose Facilities 

Most reservoirs are constructed to serve multiple purposes. As discussed in Chapter 3, 
multipurpose reservoirs are often operated to prioritize certain uses, or to balance competing uses 
during different times of the year. Good planning policy dictates that new surface storage 
facilities be designed to accommodate as many purposes — such as water supply, flood control, 
hydropower generation, fish and wildlife enhancement, water quality management, and 
recreation ~ as are practicable. 

The discussion that follows is focused on potential water supply augmentation 
opportunities from new reservoirs in the Central Valley, reflecting Bulletin 160's goal of 
evaluating water supplies and water demands and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program's goal of 
evaluating water supply options. This focus is not intended to minimize the need to consider the 
other benefits potentially available fi-om these reservoir sites — especially flood control. The 
January 1 997 flooding, the largest and most extensive flood disaster in the State's history, 
demonstrated the urgent need to improve flood protection levels throughout the Central Valley. 
The 1997 Final Report of the Governor's Flood Emergency Action Team contained a variety of 
recommendations for improving emergency response management and flood protection in the 
Central Valley. 

•^^Photo: levee break 

The 1 997 floods highlighted a fundamental fact of Central Valley geography ~ the valley 
floor is relatively flat, and only an extensive system of levees confines floodwaters to those areas 
where people would prefer that they remain. At the beginning of the Valley's development in the 
Gold Rush era, much of the valley floor was an inland sea during the winter months, and travel 
was possible only by boat. This condition was once again experienced on a localized scale in 
1997, when numerous levee breaks occurred throughout the valley. Although more emphasis is 
being given to floodplain management and prevention of future development in flood-prone 
areas, extensive urban development has already occurred in areas that rely on levees for flood 
protection. Efforts to improve flood protection for these urban areas necessarily include 

6-30 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

evaluation of upstream storage alternatives ~ reoperation or enlargement of existing reservoirs 
and construction of new reservoirs. 

The discussion that follows on statewide water supply augmentation options covers some 
opportunities for improvement of flood protection, focusing on those areas where increased flood 
storage is most needed. Local options for water supply/flood protection reservoirs are described 
in Chapters 7 through 9. 

Upstream of the Delta 

Review of potential statewide storage options upstream of the Delta revealed that most of 
the water development potential of the eastern Delta and San Joaquin River tributaries is likely to 
be dedicated to local plans. The Sacramento River Basin presents nearly all the potential for 
additional development to meet statewide needs. 

The Sacramento River Basin produces nearly one-third of California's surface runoff. 
Numerous water storage reservoirs throughout the basin regulate much of that runoff to support 
extensive agricultural development within the region, and also provide significant water supply 
for export to other regions from CVP and SWP facilities. A potential remains for developing 
additional storage in the basin, as evidenced by frequent storm-season outflows in excess of 
in-basin and Delta needs. 

Over the past century, planners have examined hundreds of potential reservoir storage 
sites encompassing every significant tributary of the Sacramento R.iver Basin. The most 
economical and practicable of those were developed (largest of which are Lakes Shasta, Oroville, 
Berryessa, Almanor, Folsom, and New Bullards Bar). As planners consider possibilities for 
additional storage, they are primarily reexamining past project proposals. 

The average annual surplus outflow in the Sacramento River Basin is about 9 maf. While 
this suggests potential for additional storage development, much of the surplus runoff occurs 
during short periods in years of exceptional flood runoff. For example, a maximum daily flow of 
about 600,000 cfs flowed past the latitude of Sacramento during the floods of February 1 986 and 
January 1997. It is only practical, and environmentally acceptable, to create new storage capacity 
to capture a small fraction of such flood outflows. 



6-31 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Total reservoir storage in the basin is around 1 6 maf. In the long term, the water available 
to refill that storage is the average annual surplus outflow. A significant average surplus outflow 
is needed to maintain the hydrologic reliability of the system (its ability to recover from severe 
storage drawdown during drought periods). Attempting to store too large a share of the 
remaining surplus flow would jeopardize dry-period capability while overemphasizing long-term 
average supply capability, because perfectly efficient reservoir operation could only occur if 
water managers had precise knowledge about future weather conditions. 

Prospects for the development of additional onstream surface storage reservoirs are: 

• Upstream from Shasta Dam. About 26 percent of basin runoff originates in this 
6,700-square mile tributary area, primarily in the Pit, McCloud, and upper Sacramento 
rivers. The availability of water to support additional storage has long been recognized. In 
the 1930s, Shasta Dam planners considered a larger project, but opted for construction of 
storage dovmstream at the Table Mountain or Iron Canyon sites near Red Bluff. When 
the downstream dam proved environmentally unacceptable, alternatives examined 
eventually included enlarging Shasta Dam, which is costly and has high environmental 
impacts. New storage upstream is possible, but sites are limited by steep topography and 
extensive existing power development of the Pit and McCloud systems. 

• Upper Sacramento River Tributaries, Shasta Dam to Red Bluff. This large, but 
low-elevation, area contributes about one-eighth of Sacramento River Basin runoff The 
principal tributaries (in descending order of runoff) are Cottonwood, Cow, Clear, and 
Battle creeks. Clear Creek is fully developed by Whiskeytovm Lake (a CVP facility). 
Several reservoir sites have been investigated on the other tributaries, with primary 
emphasis on Cottonwood Creek. Previously studied reservoir sites are available in this 
area, but none have proven viable. 

• Feather River. This is the Sacramento River's largest tributary and contributes 20 
percent of basin runoff, an £innual average of about 4.5 maf Lake Oroville at 3.5 maf 
regulates Feather River flows in most years, but the huge spills in wet years show that the 
river could support additional storage. Enlargement of Lake Oroville has not been 
considered practical and the few upstream sites identified in the past have fallen by the 
wayside for various environmental and economic reasons. No serious planning attention 

6-32 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

has been devoted to major reservoir storage in the Feather River Basin since construction 
of Oroville Dam. 

• Yuba and Bear Rivers. The natural flow of the Yuba constitutes 1 1 percent of 
Sacramento River Basin runoff, but is substantially diminished by power diversions to 
the adjacent Bear and Feather rivers. Still, a significant potential for additional storage 
remains. Proposals for reservoirs at the Marysville (or nearby Narrows) site have been 
discussed in the past 40 years; none has appeared particularly attractive from an economic 
perspective and all have proven controversial. Upstream development potential is 
restrained by extensive existing power facilities and diversions. The Bear River is small, 
but its runoff is bolstered by the diversions from the Yuba. Local interests are considering 
additional storage to supplement the existing Camp Far West Reservoir. 

• American River. With 12 percent of Sacramento Basin runoff, the American River could 
support hiore than the 1.0 maf of storage provided by Folsom Lake and the nearly 0.5 maf 
of upper basin storage. For the past decade, recognition of a flooding hazard along the 
lower American River has added urgency to finding options, including enlarging Folsom 
Lake, and construction of additional storage upstream at Auburn. The controversy over 
Auburn Dam prompted reappraisal of storage sites farther upstream and on the South 
Fork, but none appeared to justify follow-up attention. 

• Westside Tributaries South of Cottonwood Creek. The principal tributaries in this 
group are (from south to north): Putah, Cache, Stony, Thomes, Elder, and Red Bank 
creeks. The existing Lake Berryessa, which has an unusually high storage/inflow ratio, 
fully develops Putah Creek. Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir provide about 0.6 
maf of active storage in the upper Cache Creek Basin, but only modest potential exists for 
additional storage in the lower basin. East Park, Stony Gorge, and Black Butte reservoirs 
partially control Stony Creek, but some surplus water remains. Thomes, Elder, and Red 
Bank creeks are presently uncontrolled; Thomes Creek contributes about two-thirds of 
the runoff from this northern trio. Potential reservoir sites have been considered on the 
various westside tributaries, principally within the Stony/Thomes basins. 

• Eastside Tributaries, Feather River to Red Bluff. From south to north, the major 
streams of this group are Butte, Big Chico, Deer, Mill, and Antelope creeks. These 

633 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

drainages are narrow, steep canyons with good sustained summer flows. Past studies have 
identified a few small potential storage sites, but none are considered practical because of 
environmental considerations (primarily anadromous fish and wilderness issues). 

These seven areas contribute more than 80 percent of Sacramento River Basin runoff. 
The remaining runoff originates within the substantial valley floor area and adjacent low- 
elevation foothills. With few exceptions, streams draining this area are ephemeral, flowing only 
during and following storms. No consideration has been given to onstream storage on these 
minor tributaries or nearby valley floor areas, except for discussion of possible winter storage in 
rice fields. 

Besides the onstream reservoir sites proposed over the years, many potential offstream 
storage developments on Central Valley tributaries have been investigated. Major planning on 
such projects began in the 1970s, in the wake of wild and scenic rivers legislation that effectively 
eliminated additional development of the North Coast Rivers. By then, it was also apparent that 
additional storage on the Sacramento River downstream from Lake Shasta was not 
environmentally feasible, so planners shifted attention to various onstream tributary reservoirs 
and to offstream sites that could develop some of the surplus water of the upper basin. With one 
exception (Tuscan Buttes Reservoir on Inks Creek, north of Red Bluff), the most promising 
offstream storage sites investigated during this time lay west of the river from the Stony Creek 
Basin (Newville and Glenn Reservoirs) south (from Colusa and Sites Reservoirs) to the Putah 
Creek Basin (enlarged Lake Berryessa). All these projects would require massive conveyance 
facilities to divert surplus flow (usually during flood periods) from the Sacramento River with 
pump lifts of 300 to 900 feet. Offstream storage projects of this type can be sited to minimize 
environmental detriments within the inundation area, but diversions from the river involve 
engineering and environmental challenges. 

There has been a revival of interest in other offstream storage possibilities, some new and 
some that appeared in the Department's Bulletin 3, The California Water Plan, in 1957. Among 
the latter is a potential local project, Waldo Reservoir, to store surplus Yuba River water diverted 
from the existing Englebright Reservoir. Similar proposals have been developed to store surplus 
American River water from Folsom Reservoir in the nearby Deer Creek or Laguna Creek basins. 
Offstream storage projects of this type are attractive because they eliminate the need for 

6-34 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

controversial onstream reservoirs such as Marysville and Auburn, and divert from existing 
facilities upstream from current anadromous fishery habitat. 

From a flood control standpoint, there are locations within the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin river systems where additional storage (onstream, or perhaps offstream with appropriate 
diversion and pumping capability) would be particularly useful. Communities in the Sacramento 
Valley with greatest need for additional flood protection include the Yuba City /Marysville area, 
and Sacramento/ West Sacramento area, as identified in the 1997 Final Report of the Governor's 
Flood Emergency Action Team. An enlarged Shasta Lake could provide management of flood 
flows on the Sacramento mainstem. The need for additional flood control storage on the Yuba 
River has been evaluated for some time, in conjunction with reservoir sites such as the old 
Marysville site, or the more recent Parks Bar alternative. The proposed Auburn Dam on the 
American River (described earlier), selected as the preferred flood protection alternative by the 
State Reclamation Board, would provide much-needed flood protection for the Sacramento area, 
which has one of the lowest levels of flood protection of any metropolitan area in the nation. 

In the San Joaquin Valley, urbanized areas needing additional protection are those 
affected by flooding on the mainstem San Joaquin River and on its largest tributary, the 
Tuolumne. In the January 1 997 flood event, runoff at New Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne 
and Friant Dam on the San Joaquin exceeded the flood control capability of both reservoirs. On 
the Tuolumne it appears that new upstream reservoirs are a less likely flood control option, given 
the basin's existing storage development. Enlarging Friant Dam (or constructing its offstream 
alternative) would be the most probable new storage development option for the San Joaquin 
River. 

Evaluation of Onstream Storage Options. The initial screening of storage options for 
statewide water supply included the 33 reservoir sites shown in Table 6-9. These sites have been 
investigated, so information was available to support a preliminary assessment. After the initial 
screening, 15 remaining options were examined in detail. This appraisal relied on previous 
studies covering traditional project formulation, engineering feasibility, cost, and environmental 
aspects. The older studies were supplemented by a cursory reexamination of environmental 
aspects that reflected the most recent information on critical habitat, wetlands, endangered 
species, and cultural resources. Because past studies were limited, these environmental 



6-35 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



reexaminations generated few conclusive findings. The larger reservoirs on major waterways 
tend to have the most potential environmental consequences. And, there is a definite correlation 
between the intensity of prior studies and the number of known potential environmental problem 
issues. The potentisil environmental issues at the 15 retained options are shown in Table 6-10. 

Table 6-9. Comprehensive List of Onstream Surface Options 

Upstream of the Delta. 



Stream (clockwise 
around basin) 


Reservoir 


Retain or 
Defer 


Reason for Deferral 


Cache Creek 


Wilson Valley 


Defer 


Defer in favor of alternate site in same general 
area. 




Kennedy Flats 


Defer 


Defer in favor of alternate site in same general 
area. 




Blue Ridge 


Retain 




Stony Creek 


Newville 


Retain 


Part of Thomes-Newville 


Thomes Creek 


Thomes Division 


Retain 


Part of Thomes-Newville 




Paskenta 


Defer 


Defer in favor of alternate site in same general 
area. 


Elder Creek 


Gallatin 


Defer 


Limited water supply to support significant 
amount of storage 


Red Bank Creek 


Schoenfield 


Retain 


Part of Red Bank Project 


S.F. Cottonwood Creek 


Dippingvat 


Retain 


Part of Red Bank Project 




Rosewood (Dry 
Creek) 


Defer 


Limited water supply to support significant 
amount of storage. 




Tehama 


Retain 




M.F. Cottonwood 
Creek 


Fiddlers 


Retain 




Cottonwood Creek 


Dutch Gulch 


Retain 




N.F. Cottonwood Creek 


Hulen 


Retain 




Lake Shasta Tributaries 


Shasta Enlargement 


Retain 






Squaw Valley 
(Squaw Valley Cr.) 


Defer 


Defer due to high costs and substantial 
environmental impacts. 




Kosk (Pit River) 


Retain 






Allen Camp (Pit 
River) 


Defer 


Primarily a local project, not well suited for 
statewide supply augmentation 


Little Cow Creek 


Bella Vista 


Defer 


Defer due to high costs and substantial 
environmental impacts. 


South Cow Creek 


Millville 


Retain 




Inks Creek 


Wing 


Retain 





6-36 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-9. Comprehensive List of Onstream Surface Options 

Upstream of the Delta. 



Stream (clockwise 
around basin) 


Reservoir 


Retain or 
Defer 


Reason for Deferral 


Deer Creek 


Deer Creek 
Meadows 


Defer 


Primarily a local project, not well suited for 
statewide supply augmentation. Also doubtfiil 
environmental feasibility. 


Upper Feather River 


Abbey Bridge (Red 
Clover Creek) 


Defer 


Primarily a local project, not well suited for 
statewide supply augmentation. Also doubtfiil 
environmental feasibility. 




Dixie Refuge (Last 
Chance Creek) 


Defer 


Primarily a local project, not well suited for 
statewide supply augmentation. Also doubtful 
environmental feasibility. 


Yuba River 


Marysville/Narrows 


Defer 


Defer due to high costs and substantial 
environmental impacts. 


M.F. Yuba River 


Freemans Crossing 


Defer 


Limited water supply to support significant 
amount of storage and doubtful environmental 
feasibility. 


Bear River 


Garden Bar 


Defer 


Primarily a local project. 


N.F. American River 


Auburn 


Retain 




American River 


Folsom Enlargement 


Retain 




S.F. American River 


Coloma/Salmon 
Falls 


Defer 


Defer due to environmental and social/third 
party impacts. 


Cosumnes River 


Nashville 


Retain 




Mokelumne River 


Pardee Enlargement 


Defer 


Being actively pursued by local interests; not 
available for statewide supply. 


San Joaquin River 


Millerton 
Enlargement 


Retain 





6-37 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Ctiapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-10. Summary of Retained Onstream Reservoirs and Environmental Issues 



Storage 

Volume 

(maf) 



$/afof 

Active 

Storage 



Potential Environmental Issues 



Very Large Reservoirs 



Enlarge Lake Shasta up to 10 



Auburn 



Thomes-Newville 



0.85-2.3 



1.4- 1.9 



stream/river habitat; wild & scenic rivers; trout 
fisheries; downstream salmon; downstream seepage and 
erosion impact; deer; numerous listed and candidate 
species; cultural resources; disruption of established 
development 

stream habitat; wetlands; wildlife; trout; listed 
amphibian, insect, and plant species; cultural resources; 
recreation impacts 

deer winter range; stream habitat; cultural resources; 
possible minor salmon/steelhead runs 



Large Reservoirs 



Tehama 
Dutch Gulch 

Kosk 

Blue Ridge 
Nashville 



0.5-0.7 
0.7 - 0.9 

0.8 

0.95 
0.9 



Enlarge Millerton Lake 0.5 - 0.9 



riparian habitat; salmon/steelhead; deer; upland game; 
bald eagles; cultural resources; various listed species 
possible 

riparian habitat; salmon/steelhead; deer; upland game; 
bald eagles; cultural resources; various listed species 
possible 

stream habitat; deer; elk; bear; upland game; eagles; 
spotted owls; trout; Big Bend Indian Rancheria 

stream habitat; rafting uses; Tule elk 

wetland/marsh habitat; stream habitat; deer; upland 
game 

stream and upland habitat; disruption of established 
development .. », 



Small to Medium Reservoirs 



Wings 



0.25 - 0.5 



Red Bank Project 


0.35 


Millville 


0.1-0.25 


Hulen 


0.2 - 0.3 


Enlarge Folsom Lake 


0.37 



Fiddlers 



0.2 - 0.5 



salmon/steelhead (Battle Creek); deer; several listed 
bird, amphibian, insect, plant species 

stream habitat; California red-legged frog; spring-run 
salmon 

stream habitat; salmon 

Fossils; stream habitat 

stream and upland habitat; eagles; several listed plant 
species; cultural resources; disruption of established 
development 

stream habitat 



6-38 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The appraisal process confirmed that larger projects tend to have the potential to produce 
less costly and more reliable water supply, but have greater potential impacts on the 
environment. There is no one accepted method to compare options, particularly those of vastly 
differing size, but clear conclusions emerged from assessing options within similar groups. 

Very Large Onstream Reservoirs (Over 1.0 maf). With the potential to provide up to 10 
maf of additional storage, Enlarged Lake Shasta is in a class apart; at large sizes, it could provide 
new storage at a favorable unit cost, but with substantial financial and environmental 
consequences. In the 1.0 - 2.5 maf range, Auburn Reservoir ranks high, but is burdened with 
well- publicized environmental controversies. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is an urgent need 
for greater flood protection on the American River, and a dam at Auburn has been identified by 
the State as the best flood control alternative. A Thomes-Newville development in the Stony 
Creek basin remains a possibility, provided it is sized to match its limited water supply; the site 
also has potential for offstream storage of adjacent basin or Sacramento River water. 

Large Onstream Reservoirs (0.5 to LOmafl. Tehama and Dutch Gulch reservoirs in the 
Cottonwood Creek Basin clearly warrant further consideration, possibly at smaller sizes than the 
0.7 and 0.9 maf considered in the 1983 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study. As an 
alternative to Dutch Gulch, the upstream Fiddlers Reservoir site has promise (but its optimum 
size may be smaller than 0.5 maf). 

Raising Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River by 120 to 140 feet could more than double 
the current 520 taf capacity of Millerton Lake; while the expansion would be expensive, it is the 
only San Joaquin Valley surface storage option that appears to offer potential for statewide 
supply augmentation. Enlsirging Friant Dam also would provide flood control benefits. 

Kosk Reservoir on the Pit River, Blue Ridge Reservoir on Cache Creek, and Nashville 
Reservoir on the Cosumnes River appear to offer some promise for storage in this size range, but 
scant current information is available on their cost, water supply efficacy, or environmental 
impacts. Reconnaissance reappraisals could fully assess the practicability of these three sites. 

Coloma Reservoir on the South Fork American River could provide storage within this 
size range, but any size over 0.2 maf would inundate the town of Coloma and the Marshall Gold 
Discovery State Historic Park (which would require legislative authorization under Water Code 
Section 10001.5); Coloma and the nearby Salmon Falls alternative are unpromising and are 



6-39 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

deferred from further consideration. Marysville and Narrows reservoirs on the Yuba River also 
are deferred from further consideration because local interests are evaluating a small facility as a 
local project. 

Small-to-Medium-Sized Onstream Reservoirs (0.1 to 0.5 mafi. Seven options within this 
range were among those selected for analysis. Three of those on upper Sacramento Valley 
tributaries appear to offer acceptable combinations of water supply capability, cost, and 
environmental compatibility. The largest of these. Wing Reservoir on Inks Creek with a 
diversion from Battle Creek, could provide over 0.4 maf of storage. The other apparently viable 
options, both near the lower limit of this size range, are the Red Bank Project on South Fork 
Cottonwood and Red Bank creeks, and Millville Reservoir on South Cow Creek. One of the two 
on-stream reservoirs developed by the Red Bank Project would be used primarily as an off- 
stream storage facility. Hulen Reservoir, on North Fork Cottonwood Creek, would be high on the 
list except it would inundate a premier deposit of Cretaceous fossils. (Medium-sized projects 
involving Cottonwood Creek water are alternatives, not adjuncts, to the larger downstream 
Tehama and Dutch Gulch storage sites.) 

Enlargement of Folsom Lake is among the options being considered to provide additional 
flood control along the lower American River. If that enlargement proves practicable, it could 
provide a valuable increment of water supply storage (depending on the flood operating criteria). 
That storage would be expensive, so it is unlikely except as an element of a comprehensive flood 
control package. 

The remaining two medium-sized options are Bella Vista Reservoir on Little Cow Creek 
near Redding and Squaw Valley Reservoir on Squaw Valley Creek near McCloud. These 
projects appear more expensive and more environmentally disruptive than the competing options. 
Therefore, they are not considered promising prospects for future development and are deferred 
from further evaluation. 

Evaluation of Off stream Storage Options. The initial screening of 
upstream-of-the-Delta offstream storage options included the 15 proposals in Table 6-11. The 
initial screening indicated that nine of those warranted further examination, including a review of 
past studies and a cursory reexamination of the latest available environmental information. The 
potential environmental issues identified with the retained options are shown in Table 6-12. 

6-40 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Offstream storage has an inherent environmental advantage because the reservoirs tend to be on 
minor tributaries, which reduces impacts on live streams and riparian habitat. For most of the 
larger offstream options, that advantage must be balanced against the potentially severe 
environmental impacts with diversions from major nearby streams. Evaluating the nine retained 
options from that perspective leads to the following general conclusions. 



Table 6-11. Comprehensive List of Offstream Surface Storage Options 

Upstream of the Delta 



Stream Basin 

(clockwise 
around basin) 



Offstream Reservoir 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Putah Creek 


Berryessa Enlargement 


Retain 




Various 


Sites 


Retain 




Various 


Colusa 


Retain 




Stony Creek 


Thomes-Newville 


Retain 




Stony Creek 


Glenn 


Retain 




S.F. Cottonwood 
Creek 


Red Bank Project 


Retain 




Trinity River 


Clair Engle Enlargement 


Retain 




Inks Creek 


Tuscan Buttes 


Defer 


Defer due to substantial environmental 
impacts. 


Bear River 


Waldo 


Defer 


Being actively pursued by Yuba County 
Water Agency; not considered for statewide 
supply. 


Deer Creek 


County Line 


Defer 


Defer in favor of alternate site in same 
general area. 


Deer Creek 


Deer Creek 


Retain 




Laguna Creek 


Clay Station 


Retain 




Calaveras River 


Duck Creek 


Defer 


Defer due to extraordinarily high costs. 


Calaveras River 


South Gulch 


Defer 


Primarily a local project, not well suited for 
statwide supply augmentation. 


Littlejohns Creek 


Farmington Enlargement 


Defer 


Primarily a local project, not well suited for 
statwide supply augmentation. 



6-41 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-12. Summary of Retained Offstream Options and Environmental Issues 



Storage Volume 
(mat) 



Potential Environmental Issues 



Very Large Reservoirs 



Beiryessa Enlargement 



up to 11.5 additional 



Thomes-Newville 



Glenn 



1.4-1.9 



6.7 - 8.7 



Clair Engle Enlargement 



Sites 



4.8 additional 



1.2-1.8 



stream habitat; wetlands; deer and upland 
game; Putah Creek trout fishery; Sacramento 
River anadromous fish; listed/sensitive plant 
species; cultural resources; disruption of 
established agriculture and recreation; 
population displacement 

deer winter range; stream habitat; cultural 
resources; possible minor salmon/steelhead 
runs 

stream habitat; wetlands/vernal pools; deer 
and upland game; deer winter range; 
Sacramento River anadromous fish; eagles; 
cultural resources; population displacement 

stream habitat; wetlands/marshes; sensitive 
plants; eagles; spotted owls; anadromous fish 
(Trinity and Sacramento rivers) 

Sacramento River anadromous fish 



Colusa 




3.0 


Sacramento River anadromous fish 


Large Reservoirs 


Deer Creek 




0.6 


vernal pools; meadow/marsh habitat; listed 
bird, invertebrate, insect, and plant species, 
cultural resources 


Small to Medium 


Reservoirs 







Red Bank 



Clay Station 



0.35 



0.2 



stream habitat; California red-legged frog; 
spring-run salmon 

stream habitat; wetlands; meadow/marsh 
habitat; listed bird, invertebrate, insect, and 
plant species 



Very Large Offstream Reservoirs (Over 1.0 mqf). Three of the six very large reservoir 
options have the potential to provide more than 4 maf of new storage, but not without some 
considerable environmental effects. The existing 1.6-maf Lake Berryessa could be enlarged to 
provide massive amounts of storage for surplus flows pumped from the lower reaches of the 
Sacramento River. Past studies have shown the unit cost of storage in the large project sizes 
would be attractive, though a 31 -mile conveyance facility with a 700-foot pump lift would be 
required. The financial and energy costs of this conveyance would be enormous, as would the 



6-42 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options Fmm a Statewide Perspective 

environmental consequences. Diversion of around 12,000 cfs from the lower river could prove 
challenging. Under current conditions, offstream storage of Sacramento River water in enlarged 
Lake Berryessa does not appear to hold much promise in the foreseeable future. 

Similarly, a Glenn Reservoir, a combination of Thomes-Newville Reservoir on the North 
Fork Stony Creek and Rancheria Reservoir on the main stem of Stony Creek would provide over 
8 maf of storage for surplus water of the upper Sacramento River. The two-compartment Glenn 
Reservoir was conceived as terminal storage for exports from the North Coast rivers. Following 
passage of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1972, it was reformulated for offstream storage of 
water diverted from the Sacramento River. The unit cost of storage appeared reasonable, but 
controversy over diversions to the Tehama-Colusa Canal cast doubt on the environmental 
feasibility of diverting large flows to support the large-scale Glenn Reservoir. At this time, a 
large Glenn Reser/oir does not appear to be a likely candidate for early construction. The smaller 
Thomes-Newville Reservoir (1 .4 to 1.9 maf) operated as an offstream storage reservoir remains a 
possibility. 

The third very large offstream storage option involves a new concept that has not been 
investigated in detail. The ftindamental premise is sound: divert surplus water directly from Lake 
Shasta to an enlarged Clair Engle Reservoir on the Trinity River. This would reap some benefits 
of enlarging Lake Shasta without the associated major disruptions or relocation costs. The less 
attractive aspects include a 13-mile tunnel, a 1,500-foot pump lift, and substantial energy costs. 
This option appears to be more costly than enlarging Lake Shasta, but within the range of 
consideration. More information on environmental aspects would be needed for a better 
assessment. Experience has shown large projects at this stage often harbor unexpected 
environmental drawbacks. Currently, enlarging Clair Engle Reservoir is characterized as a future 
possibility, but not yet thoroughly explored. 

The other very large offstream storage options, Sites and Colusa reservoirs, are related, in 
that the 3 maf Colusa Reservoir represents a northward expansion of the 1.2 to 1.8 maf Sites 
Reservoir into the Hunter and Logan creek basins. Either version of the reservoir would involve 
minimal environmental impacts within the area of inundation. The drawback is diverting surplus 
water from the Sacramento River for storage. Past proposals have focused on off-season use of 
the existing Tehama-Colusa Canal diversion facilities at Red Bluff Diversion Dam and the 

6-43 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District pumping plant near Hamilton City. Alternative Sites/Colusa 
conveyance facilities are now being examined. Although the alternative conveyance facilities 
would likely raise costs, the Sites and Colusa offstream storage options remain the most 
promising. 

Large Offstream Reservoirs (0.5 to 1.0 maj). Deer Creek Reservoir in northeastern 
Sacramento County is the only North-of-Delta offstream storage option within this size range. 
Past investigators have examined a 0.6-maf Deer Creek Reservoir to store surplus water from the 
American River, delivered from an enlargement of the existing northern reaches of the Folsom 
South Canal. Another version of the project was considered for flood control, incorporating a 
gravity diversion direct from Folsom Lake via a new outlet at Mormon Island Dike. Major 
offstream storage in the Deer Creek area would be ideally suited to develop some of the abundant 
surplus flow of the American River without the difficulties associated with Auburn Dam. Also, 
by diverting directly from Folsom Lake or Lake Natoma, this project would avoid the principal 
conflicts with anadromous fish. Initial studies indicate a Deer Creek offstream storage project 
would be expensive~with a unit storage cost several times that of the lower-cost options. 

Small to Medium Offstream Reservoirs (0. 1 to 0.5 mqf). Two options fall into this range, 
the Red Bank Project and Clay Station Reservoir. The Red Bank Project would consist of a 100 
taf Dippingvat Reservoir and a 250 taf Schoenfield Reservoir. Dippingvat Reservoir would 
store water from the South Fork of Cottonwood Creek. Water would be diverted from 
Dippingvat to Schoenfield Reservoir where it would later be released down Red Bank Creek to 
the Sacramento River. Water could also be released via a new conveyance facility to the Coming 
Canal or the Tehama-Colusa Canal. 

The Clay Station Reservoir is a smaller version of Deer Creek Reservoir, but 8 miles 
south. Its storage cost would be similar to Deer Creek's (very high). With its small size and high 
cost. Clay Station Reservoir offers little promise as a statewide water supply development. 

Recommended Onstream and Offstream Surface Storage Options Upstream of the 
Delta. Figure 6-2 shows the location of recommended surface storage options upstream of the 
Delta. This reappraisal of surface reservoir options identified several that appear to offer the 
best prospects. Foremost in this group, in order of size, are: 

• Colusa Reservoir, 3.0 maf offstream 

6-44 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

• Thomes-Newville, 1.4 to 1.9 maf offstream 

• Sites Reservoir, 1.2 to 1.8 maf offstream 

• Dutch Gulch Reservoir, 0.7 to 0.9 maf onstream (or its upstream alternative. Fiddlers 
Reservoir, 0.2 to 0.5 maf) 

• Tehama Reservoir, 0.5 to 0.7 maf onstream 

• Wing Reservoir, 0.25 to 0.5 maf onstream (with Battle Creek diversion) 

• Red Bank Project, 0.35 maf onstream and offstream 

• Millville Reservoir, 0.1 to 0.25 maf onstream 

A second tier of options offers substantial water supply potential, but with greater 
environmental impacts and/or economic costs that create some uncertainty about their 
practicability. From a flood control standpoint, enlarged Shasta, Auburn, and enlarged Millerton 
would provide important benefits. These include: 

• Enlarged Lake Berryessa, up to 1 1.5 maf additional offstream 

• Lake Shasta Enlargement, up to 10 maf additional onstream 

• Glenn Reservoir, 6.7 to 8.7 maf offstream 

• Auburn Reservoir, 0.85 to 2.3 maf onstream 

• Thomes-Newville Plan, 1.4 to 1.9 maf onstream -'n^i- l: 

• Deer Creek Reservoir, 0.6 maf offstream 

• Enlarged Millerton Lake, 0.5 to 0.9 maf additional onstream 

• Enlarged Folsom Lake, 0.37 maf additional onstream 

A third group of options includes some that appear to offer viable alternatives, but for 
which limited information is available. These might be characterized as "worthy of a second 
look" in the future: 

• Blue Ridge Reservoir, 0.95 maf onstream 

• Nashville Reservoir, 0.9 maf onstream 

• Kosk Reservoir, 0.8 maf onstream 



6-45 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Figure 6-2. Location of the North of Delta Reservoir Sites 




6-46 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statev/ide Perspective 

Illustrative Operation Example. Additional surface storage upstream of the Delta would 
be effective if operated with major water supply reservoirs in the basin, principally Shasta Lake, 
Lake Oroville, and Folsom Lake. Under California's water rights hierarchy, new facilities may 
store surplus water that is not needed to meet preexisting rights. Since virtually no surplus water 
is available during the irrigation season, storage in new projects will be limited to late fall, 
winter, and early spring. Most storable flow occurs during periods of flood runoff. But, under 
certain conditions, coordinated operation with other reservoirs may allow occasional storage of 
fall releases made to achieve mandatory flood reservations. 

A Sites Reservoir offstream storage facility provides a good example of how a 
Sacramento Valley surface project could be operated in coordination with other facilities. A large 
Sites Reservoir would provide 1.8 maf of storage in the foothills west of Maxwell. The large 
Sites Reservoir would be formed by constructing two main dams on Stone Corral and Funks 
creeks and several smaller saddle dams along the low divide between Funks and Hunters creeks. 
A larger Colusa Reservoir, providing 3.0 maf of storage, would be formed by extending the large 
Sites Reservoir north into the Hunters and Logan creek drainages. 

In this configuration, water would be delivered to the reservoirs by winter use of the 
existing Tehama-Colusa Canal (which diverts from the river near Red Bluff), and by diversion to 
the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Canal at its pumping site near Hamilton City. A new 
pumped inter-tie would deliver the GCID canal water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal, from which it 
would be lifted a maximum of about 320 feet to Sites/Colusa reservoirs. In a recently conceived 
alternative, use of the existing diversions would give way in favor of a single pumping facility 
south of Chico Landing. 

Most of the water available for storage in Sites/Colusa reservoirs occurs from December 
through April. Whenever water and energy were available, operators would make maximum 
effort to fill Sites/Colusa reservoirs. As seasonal water demands increased, water would be 
withdrawn from system reservoirs to meet needs. Since water would have to be pumped to 
Sites/Colusa reservoirs, the optimum operation would favor making the initial withdrawals from 
onstream reservoirs with higher ratios of inflow to storage (which are more likely to refill in the 
subsequent wet season). At some point, depending on the dryness of the year and the storage 
status of other facilities, withdrawals would be made from Sites/Colusa reservoirs. To minimize 

6-47 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. EvaluaVmg Options From a Statewide Perspective 

potential impacts of the existing diversions on the Sacramento River fisheries, Sites/Colusa 
reservoirs would release water back into the two canals in exchange for reduced diversions from 
the river. Sites/Colusa reservoirs would be drawn to minimum pool only in a prolonged series of 
drought years. In wetter periods, it would operate within a narrow range near full. 
Off- Aqueduct Storage South of the Delta 

Off-aqueduct storage south of the Delta has been investigated for many years. The CVP 
and SWP projects operate by releasing water from upstream reservoirs, which flows through the 
Delta and is diverted by the projects' pumping plants located in the south Delta. Storage south of 
the Delta is provided by San Luis Reservoir, a joint SWP/CVP facility in the San Joaquin Valley. 
Water pumped at the Banks and Tracy Pumping Plants is transported to San Luis Reservoir 
during the winter and early spring and later delivered to agricultural and urban water contractors. 
Additional storage south of the Delta would increase water availability through greater capture of 
surplus venter runoff, as well as provide for greater flexibility in operating the projects. 

Dependable water supplies from the SWP are estimated at about 3.3 and 2.1 maf annually 
for average and drought years, respectively. Operation studies show that under 2020 level of 
demand, there is a 20 to 25 percent chance of delivering full entitlement in any given year with 
existing facilities (see Chapter 3 for a discussion on SWP operations). Additional off-aqueduct 
storage south of the Delta would increase SWP water supply reliability. CVP water delivery 
capability to its agricultural and urban contractors has been reduced by the CVPIA, which 
reallocated 800,000 af/year of project water to fisheries in Central Valley streams, about 200,000 
af/year to wildlife refuges in the Central Valley, and about 120,000 af/year to increase flow in the 
Trinity River. As a result, CVP contractors will experience more frequent shortages. Additional 
off-aqueduct storage in the San Joaquin Valley is an option for USBR to increase CVP reliability 
for its Delta export service area. 

In addition to increasing water supply reliability for both projects, more off-aqueduct 
storage south of the Delta would allow flexibility in pumping from the Delta. This flexibility 
would allow for shifting of Delta pumping toward months when the impacts of Delta diversions 
on fisheries are at their lowest. Having additional storage south of the Delta would allow projects 
to operate efficiently by taking advantage of times when maximum pumping is permissible. 



6-48 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Operation of the SWP and CVP is governed by several limiting factors including 
available water supplies, demands on this supply by the contractors, Delta water quality 
standards, instream flow requirements, and conveyance capability. The availability of water 
supplies throughout the system varies with natural conditions and upstream development. Winter 
floods can produce Delta flow rates of up to several hundred thousand cfs, while summer rates 
can be as low as a few thousand cfs. Annual Delta inflow varies substantially, ranging from more 
than 70 maf in wet years to less than 7 maf in drought years. 

History of South of the Delta Off-aqueduct Storage Investigations. Since the 1950s, 
alternative off-aqueduct storage reservoir sites south of the Delta have been investigated by the 
Department. An agreement between the state and federal governments was signed in 1961 for 
construction and operation of San Luis Reservoir, a joint-use offstream storage facility that was 
completed in 1968. Before completion of San Luis Reservoir, it was recognized that additional 
storage south of the Delta was needed. As a result, a Delta storage development program was 
authorized by a legislative action in 1963-64, and work started to analyze the remaining potential 
off-aqueduct storage sites in the Central Valley. Under this program a cursory examination of 
potential sites identified the Kettleman Plain, Los Banos, and Sunflower sites for more in-depth 
study. Kettleman and Sunflower reservoir sites were dropped after reconnaissance level review 
because of their physical characteristics. The Los Banos site was deemed satisfactory for ftirther 
study, and a 1 966 report recommended additional geological exploration. 

In the 1970s, a Delta alternatives study reviewed all drainages south of the Delta and 
selected Los Vaqueros, Los Banos Grandes, and Sunflower reservoirs for further studies. In a 
1976 Delta Alternatives Memorandum Report, the Sunflower site was again eliminated when 
compared with the other sites on the basis of low storage availability and marginal foundation 
conditions. The Los Vaqueros site in Contra Costa County was included in the Department's 
proposed Delta program and was part of a comprehensive water management program proposed 
for authorization via 1 977-78 legislation. (LBG was an alternative to Los Vaqueros in that 
legislation.) After that legislation failed passage, Los Vaqueros was included with the Peripheral 
Canal in SB 200. LBG was not specifically mentioned in SB 200, but the bill provided for 
additional off- aqueduct storage south of the Delta. In 1980, SB 200 was signed into law, but was 
overruled by voters in the 1982 general election. 



6-49 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The Department initiated a more comprehensive investigation of aUemative off-aqueduct 
storage reservoirs south of the Delta in 1983, and after an initial examination of 18 storage sites, 
completed a reconnaissance report on 1 3 potential San Joaquin Valley sites. The study 
recommended that LBG be investigated to determine its most cost- effective size, and its 
engineering, economic, financial, and environmental feasibility. In 1984, the Legislature 
unanimously approved Assembly Bill 3792, authorizing LBG as a facility of the SWP. The 
Department released a Draft EIR and a feasibility report on LBG in 1 990. 

Since the 1 990 reports, increased restrictions on Delta pumping and rising costs have 
prompted reconsideration of the LBG proposal. Given the uncertainty of future Delta exports and 
the reluctance of some SWP contractors to participate in the project, the Department reevaluated 
the feasibility and optimal size of additional off-aqueduct storage. A subsequent Alternative 
South-of-the-Delta Offstream Resetyoir Reconnaissance Study identified all alternative reservoir 
sites south of the Delta by cursory examination of all topographic possibilities. 

Evaluation of South of the Delta Storage Options. In the most recent Alternative South 
of the Delta Offstream Reservoir Reconnaissance Study, all geographically possible off-aqueduct 
reservoir sites on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley were identified (Figure 6-3). 
Alternatives on the east side of the valley were not considered due to the excessive cost of 
conveyance connections to the California Aqueduct. Ninety-seven dam sites in 46 watersheds 
were evaluated (Table 6-13) for their potential to economically improve SWP water supply 
reliability with minimal environmental and social impacts. For each potential reservoir site, the 
capital cost and the potential environmental impacts were evaluated and rated at a general level 
to determine the sites that should be studied in more detail. 



6-50 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Figure 6-3. Location of the South of Delta Reservoir Sites 




6-51 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-13. Watersheds Identified for South of Delta Reservoirs 



Watershed 


County 


Watershed 


County 


Arroyo Ciervo 


Fresno 


Los Banos Creek 


Merced 


Arroyo Hondo 


Fresno 


Los Gatos Creek 


Fresno 


Bitter Creek 


Kern 


Los Vaqueros 


Contra Costa 


Bitterwater Valley 


Kern/San Luis Obispo 


McKittrick Valley 


Kern 


Broad Creek 


Kern 


Moreno Gulch 


Fresno 


Buena Vista Creek 


Kern 


Mustang Creek 


Merced 


Buena Vista Lake Bed 


Kern 


Orestimba Creek 


Stanislaus 


Cantua Creek 


Fresno 


Ortigalita Creek 


Merced 


Capita Canyon 


Fresno 


Oso Creek 


Stanislaus 


Castac Valley 


Kern/Los Angeles 


Packwood Creek 


Kern 


Deep Gulch 


San Joaquin 


Panoche Hills 


Fresno 


Del Puerto Canyon 


Stanislaus 


Panoche/Silver Creek 


Fresno/San Benito 


Garzas Creek 


Stanislaus 


Pleito Creek 


Kern 


Hospital Creek 


San Joaquin/Stanislaus 


Quinto Creek 


Merced/Stanislaus 


Ingram Canyon 


Stanislaus 


Romero Creek 


Merced 


Ingram/Kern Canyon 


Stanislaus 


Salado Creek 


Merced 


Kellogg/Marsh Creek 


Contra Costa 


Salt Creek 


Fresno/Kem/Merced 


Kern Canyon 


Stanislaus 


San Emigdio Creek 


Kern 


Kettleman Plain 


Kings 


San Luis Creek 


Merced ' 


Laguna Seca Creek 


Merced 


Sandy Creek 


Kern 


Little Panoche Creek 


Fresno 


Santiago Creek 


Kern 


Little Salado/Crow Creek 


Stanislaus 


Sunflower 


Kings/Kern 


Lone Tree Creek 


San Joaquin 


Wildcat Canyon 


Merced/Fresno 



The Department's study examined a wide range of storage volumes to evaluate 
potentially feasible projects based on the fiiture long-term availability of exports from the Delta 
and the level of S WP contractor participation. Multiple reservoir sizes were considered for each 
alternative dam site. Volumes from 0.1 to 2 maf of storage were classified into four categories 
(Table 6-14). 



6-52 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-14. South-of-the-Delta Offstream Reservoir Size Categories 

Category Storage Volume 
(maf) 

Small 0.1-0.25 

Medium 0.25 - 0.5 

Large 0.5 - 1 .0 

Very Large 1 .0 - 2.0 

All sites were evaluated using the same level of detail for each of the screening criteria. 
To evaluate and compare engineering characteristics, site information was gathered and 
construction costs were estimated for each alternative. For this purpose, a basic design 
configuration was selected. The storage capacity and water surface area of each reservoir option 
were calculated. The embankment volumes of each main dam and associated saddle dams were 
calculated. 

The capital costs of all reservoir options were based on previous cost estimates developed 
for LBG facilities. Sixteen categories of cost, including mitigation costs, were calculated. A 
rating of the alternatives was performed based on estimated capital costs per acre-foot of storage. 
A unit storage cost of above $3,000 per acre-foot was deemed impractical and used as a threshold 
for deferring alternative sites. After deferring alternatives v^th unit storage costs above the 
practicable threshold, 33 dam sites in 18 watersheds were retained for further consideration. The 
unit storage costs for each of these options was translated to a 100 point system, with points 
assigned to a unit cost of $3,000 per acre-foot of storage and 100 points to a unit cost of $0 per 
acre-foot of storage. Unit costs and scores were developed for several reservoir sizes at each dam 
site to cover the potential range of storage volume available at each dam site. The unit costs and 
scores for the reservoir sizes evaluated at each dam site were plotted versus volume. Curves were 
drawn through the points associated with each dam site to allow interpolation of this information 
for the entire range of storage volumes available at each dam site. 

Environmental criteria were developed by the Department and the DFG. Factors affecting 
the degree of environmental sensitivity of each alternative reservoir site were identified by the 
Department and DFG, and reviewed by the USFWS. Six environmental screening criteria were 
developed. The environmental resources information varied among the sites. To ensure that all 
the options were evaluated equally, all sites used the same level of detail for each of the 

6-53 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



screening criteria. In evaluating wetland resources, USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps 
were used to determine wetland abundance and types at each site. USGS national aerial 
photographic project maps were used to determine vegetation community abundance and type, 
and to obtain additional habitat and land use information. Listed and candidate animal and plant 
species that could potentially be found at the alternative sites were identified by searching the 
1995 DFG Natural Diversity Data Base, the fifth edition of the California Native Plant Society's 
inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California, and DFG Wildlife Habitat 
Relationships System publications. 

Economic and environmental sensitivity scores were given equal weight and combined to 
develop a score for each alternative reservoir site ranging from to 100 points. Appendix 6B 
shows the combined rating of each alternative reservoir site, sorted by the four storage volume 
categories. Alternative reservoir sites with the highest scores were selected for each storage 
volume category. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 10 alternative reservoir sites were chosen 
for each size category to provide a reasonable variety of alternatives for further evaluation. Using 
the previously defined categories, 1 small, 1 medium, 1 large, and 4 very large reservoir sites 
were selected for fiirther evaluation. Many of the alternative reservoir sites were selected in more 
than one size category. A total of 1 8 reservoir sites in 10 watersheds were retained ft)r more 
analysis after the initial evaluation (Table 6-15). 



6-54 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Cttapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-15. Retained Watersheds 

Alternative South of the Delta Off stream Reservoir Study 
Phase One Overall Selections 



Watershed 



Dam Site 



Reservoir Size Category 



Small 



Medium Large Very Large 



Garzas Creek 



104 




X 


X 


105 




X 


X 


106 


X 


X 




107 


X 






109 






X 



X 



Ingram Canyon 


37 




X 


X 




Kettleman Plain 


99 


X 








LBG/Los Banos Creek 


181 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Little Salado/Crow Creek 


63 


X 








Orestimba 


170 
171 




X 
X 


X 
X 


X 



Panoche/Silver Creek 



111 


X 






112 




X 


X 


114 


X 


X 


X 


45 






X 



Quinto Creek 


54 


X 




Romero Creek 


56 


X 




Sunflower 


177 




X 



Recommended Storage Soutii of the Delta. After a general evaluation, five sites 
appeared most favorable: Garzas Creek, Ingram Canyon, Los Banos Creek, Orestimba Creek, 
and Panoche/Silver Creek. As all past studies have shown, Los Banos Creek is the most 
cost-effective reservoir option considered for size categories above 250,000 af. The next least 
costly reservoir option ranges from about 50 percent more expensive for the medium size 
category up to about 100 percent more expensive for the very large category. In the 
environmental analysis, however, the Los Banos Creek option received the lowest environmental 
sensitivity rating (or had the most potential impacts) of all alternative sites. (This could be 
because there is a greater level of knowledge about this reservoir site.) Los Banos Creek was 
the highest ranked reservoir option based on total combined rating for reservoir sizes above 
250,000 af. 

A reservoir at Little Salado-Crow Creek would have a high surface area to storage 
volume ratio. There would be high evaporation losses, making the site unfavorable. Sunflower 



6-55 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Reservoir site lies 10 miles west of the California Aqueduct and would require an extended 
conveyance system. Significant seepage rates would also be expected at this site. These two sites 
(in addition to Romero Creek, Kettleman Plain, and Quinto Creek) have small storage capacities. 
Preliminary modeling results indicate that the range of additional surface storage south of the 
Delta should be around 500,000 to 2,000,000 af The cumulative environmental impacts of 
several small to medium reservoirs needed to attain the storage capacity would probably be 
greater than one larger reservoir. Therefore, the small to medium size reservoir options were 
deferred. 

Enlarging San Luis Reservoir has been considered for additional storage, but because of 
engineering and economic criteria, this has been deferred. The integrity of an enlarged San Luis 
Dam has been questioned, and the cost would be high. 

These sites identified in the Department's review of south-of-Delta storge alternatives are 
being evaluated in the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Since CALFED has not yet finalized the 
components of its overall storage plan, we have used a placeholder in the Bulletin for the volume 
of storage, both north and south of the Delta, that the program might develop. 

Operation of Off Aqueduct Storage South of the Delta. To illustrate how south of the 
Delta offstream storage would operate, the LBG Reservoir is used here as a model: This example 
treats LBG as an SWP facility. To meet CVP service area needs, USBR could participate with 
the Department in this project. 

The LBG facilities would be located on Los Banos Creek 6 miles west of the California 
Aqueduct in the Los Banos Valley area. The main damsite would be about 80 miles south of the 
Delta. The facilities would consist of a storage reservoir with associated pumping-generating 
plants and conveyance channels. Delta winter flows would be conveyed through the California 
Aqueduct and pumped into LBG Reservoir for storage. Operation of LBG Reservoir would be 
similar to that of the existing San Luis Reservoir, except that LBG would retain about one half to 
two- thirds of its storage in average years to improve drought year water supply reliability of the 
SWP. 

During periods of low Delta inflow, LBG would provide water supplies south of the 
Delta to reduce the demand for Delta exports. Added flexibility could permit the SWP to take 
advantage of seasonal and short-term water quality improvements to enhance the quality of 



6-56 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

delivered supplies. The 1.73 maf LBG Reservoir examined in the 1990 feasibility study would 
operate through a range of about 550 to 750 taf each year, filling in the early spring and releasing 
water to the California Aqueduct between May and September. 
In-Delta Storage 

A private developer has proposed a water storage project involving four islands in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The project would divert and store water on two of the islands 
(Bacon Island and Webb Tract) as reservoir islands, and seasonally divert water to create and 
enhance wetlands for wildlife habitat on the other two islands (Bouldin Island and Holland 
Tract). The developer would improve and strengthen levees on all four islands and install 
additional siphons and water pumps on the perimeters of the reservoir islands. 

The project would divert surplus Delta inflows, or would manage transferred or banked 
water for later sale and/or release for Delta export or to meet Bay-Delta water quality or flow 
requirements. The reservoir islands would be designed to provide a total estimated initial 
capacity of 238 taf, 118 taf from Bacon Island and 120 taf from Webb Tract, at a maximum pool 
elevation of +6 feet relative to mean sea level. 

A draft EIR/EIS for the Delta Wetlands Project was completed in September 1995. Water 
rights hearings on the project were held before the State Water Resources Control Board in 1997. 
Major issues included water quality concerns, levee integrity, and fishery impacts. The Board is 
currently reviewing and evaluating the evidence to develop a draft decision. 

Groundwater And Conjunctive Use 

Groundwater storage programs are not new in California. Conjunctive use programs have 
existed in California since at least the early 1 900s. Each program has been designed for the 
political, institutional, legal and technical realities of the basin and the organizations involved. 
Conjunctive use in San Joaquin Valley usually involves importing a water supply to recharge 
empty aquifers, or to provide surface water for irrigation in lieu of groundwater. Such programs 
have been operated by local agencies for many years. In the Sacramento Valley conjunctive use 
programs must be designed differently. In the Sacramento Valley most of the aquifers are ftill. 
Conjunctive use programs would require that an aquifer be emptied, a source of water for 
recharge be identified, and recharge and extraction facilities be built. 



6-57 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The potential sustainable water supply that could be derived from groundwater storage is 
constrained by the water available to recharge that storage, the available storage capacity, and the 
wheeling capability of the conveyance facilities. In most areas the sources of recharge are (1) 
natural percolation from overlying streams, (2) infiltration of precipitation, (3) deep percolation 
of applied irrigation water, and (4) seepage from irrigation canals and ditches. In some areas, 
these sources are augmented by artificial recharge via spreading basins. 
Potential for Conjunctive Use in the Central Valley 

Plans for local development of additional groundwater and conjunctive use are covered 
under the regional discussions in Chapters 7 through 9. This section reviews the potential for 
groundwater development and conjunctive use as elements of statewide water management, 
concentrating on the potential for augmenting the supplies of the major State or federal water 
projects. As noted earlier, conjunctive use programs are also a component of CALFED's storage 
evaluations. No decisions have yet been made as to how water supply generated from a CALFED 
program might be allocated. 

Sacramento Valley. As noted in the discussion of development of new surface storage 
reservoirs, the Sacramento River basin constitutes most of the potential for additional water 
development to meet statewide demands. Just as surface storage reservoirs are being evaluated to 
develop a portion of the basin's surplus runoff (about 9 maf), managed conjunctive use programs 
are being evaluated to the same end. 

Although there is a tendency to think of Sacramento Valley groundwater in terms of a 
homogeneous underground reservoir that fluctuates gradually with wet and dry cycles, the reality 
is more complex. While much of the Sacramento Valley groundwater basin is interconnected, 
aquifer structure is far from uniform and horizontal movement of groundwater is slow. There can 
be differences in groundwater conditions from one area of the valley to another. Even within a 
small subEirea, groundwater resources can range from abundance to scarcity within a few miles. 

Potential conjunctive use programs must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, just as 
surface water storage facilities are evaluated. In concept, Sacramento Valley conjunctive use 
programs would operate by encouraging existing surface water diverters to make greater use of 
groundwater resources during drought periods. The undiverted surface water would become 
available for other users. The groundwater extractions would be replaced during subsequent 

6-58 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draff Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

wetter periods, through natural recharge, direct artificial recharge, or in-lieu recharge (supply of 
additional surface water to permit a reduction of normal groundwater pumping). 

An example of an application of this approach was the Drought Water Bank. In 1991, 
1992, and 1994, the DWB executed several contracts to compensate Sacramento Valley 
agricultural districts for reducing their diversions of surface water. Most of the reduced surface 
water diversions were made up by individual agricultural water users increasing their 
groundwater extractions from existing wells. A majority of the water derived through this 
groundwater substitution came from contracts with agencies in southern Butte County that hold 
pre-1914 surface rights for diversion of Feather River water. The 1994 program in this area was 
the largest, amounting to approximately 1 00,000 af The DWB program included a groundwater 
monitoring component to evaluate the effects of increased extractions on neighboring non- 
participating groundwater users. Such monitoring programs would be an important component of 
ftiture conjunctive use programs. 

San Joaquin Valley. Potential conjunctive use projects in the San Joaquin Valley would 
entail refilling empty groundwater storage space for later withdrawal. Although aquifer storage 
capacity is available (over 50 maf), there is limited opportunity for conjunctive operation, due 
primarily to the lack of water for recharge. Even with Delta improvements, prospects for 
additional groundwater conjunctive use storage south of the Delta are limited. From the 
standpoint of statewide water supply, the areas of conjunctive use potential are those within 
reach (either directly or through exchange) of the California Aqueduct or CVP facilities. 
Examples of projects studied in the past include the Kern Water Bank and the Stanislaus River 
Basin and Calaveras River Water Use Program. 

The Kern Water Bank project, described in Chapter 8, was initially developed by the 
Department and was subsequently turned over to Kern Water Bank Authority. The KWB is 
discussed as a local water management option for the Tulare Lake region in Chapter 8. 

The Department and the USBR, in coordination with local agencies, evaluated the 
possibility of a conjunctive use project in the Stanislaus/Calaveras River basin. In 1986, SEWD 
and CSJWCD approached the Department and USBR with a conjunctive use proposal for their 
CVP contracts for interim water supply (which total 155 taf/year). The districts would divert 
CVP surface water supply in wet years and would revert to pumping groundwater and diverting 

6-59 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

South Gulch Reservoir supplies in dry and critically dry years. Water would be stored in the 
proposed South Gulch Reservoir, an offstream storage reservoir near the Calaveras River, during 
wet years. Under this proposal, in dry and critically dry years the districts would allow the water 
to be released down the Stanislaus River for fishery needs, water quality improvement in the 
southern Delta channels, and CVP and SWP water supply improvement. However, enactment of 
CVPIA and SWRCB Order WR 95-6 requirements substantially reduced the quantities of surface 
water available to SEWD and CSJWCD. It is unlikely that water will be available for use outside 
the basin because of these requirements. The Department has deferred further participation in this 
program as a source of SWP supply. 
Recent Groundwater Studies with Statewide Scope 

The Department is carrying out a planning program to evaluate conjunctive use 
opportunities that could provide future water supplies for the SWP. USER suggested that 
conjunctive use could be a major option for CVP water users in its 1995 report to Congress, 
"Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan." CALFED is evaluating conjunctive use opportunities as 
part of examining additional storage north and south of the Delta. 

SWP Conjunctive Use Studies. The Department's investigation of the conjunctive use 
potential of the Sacramento Valley for additional SWP supply is following three parallel tracks. 
The first is evaluation of the legal and institutional framework to define potential projects and 
their limitations. Second is an inventory of water supply infrastructure, water use, and 
hydrogeologic characteristics of the valley to identify areas most suitable for conjunctive use 
projects. The third track is pre-feasibility investigations of specific potential projects. Where 
appropriate, these studies recommend more comprehensive feasibility studies, or development of 
small scale demonstration and testing projects. An example of one such project under evaluation, 
the American Basin conjunctive use project, is discussed in the accompanying sidebar. 



6-60 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statevi/ide Perspective 



American Basin Conjunctive Use Project 

The American Basin conjunctive use project has completed the feasibility investigation phase and 
negotiations are underway with local project participants. If negotiations are successful, CEQA/NEPA 
compliance and permit acquisition will follow, with initial project operation estimated for 2001. The project 
area is in southeastern Sutter County, western Placer County, and northwestern Sacramento County. Local 
water purveyors participating in the project include: 
South Sutter Water District 
Natomas-Central Mutual Water Company 
Pleasant Grove- Verona Mutual Water Company 
Placer County Water Agency 

This project would develop about 55,000 af of water during drought periods to supplement diminished 
SWP surface water supplies. As proposed, the project would extend to 2035. 

Three of the four project participants have a surface water supply within the project area from either 
the Bear or Sacramento River systems, and one relies on groundwater. SSWD's main surface water supply is 
from Camp Far West Reservoir on the Bear River. The reservoir provides about half the water supply, with 
groundwater providing the other half. Both NCMWC and PGVMWC have water right settlement contracts 
with the Bureau of Reclamation and divert from the Sacramento River system. Their base supply and CVP 
contract water meets nearly all their water demands, although some groundwater is used in each agency's 
service area. The portion of PCWA's service area in the project area relies solely on groundwater to meet its 
irrigation needs. PCWA has sufficient surface water supplies from the American River system to meet water 
needs in the area, but the proposed project would provide PCWA with a more economical way to deliver 
surface water to the area. 

Summarized below are the approximate average annual surface water and groundwater quantities used 
within the project area for each of the project participants. 

Project Participant Annual Surface Water Use Annual Groundwater Use 

SSWD 90,000 af 90,000 af 

NCMWC 70,000 af 13,000 af 

PGVMWC 1 8,000 af 1 0,000 af 

PCWA — 30,000 af 

The 40-30-30 Index (see description in Chapter 3) would be used to determine when project recharge 
and recovery would occur. When the index is classified as above normal or wet (which occurs almost 50 
percent of the time), project recharge would occur. Recharge would be accomplished by in lieu means, which 
would require delivery of SWP water to those in the project area that use groundwater. This would reduce 
demands on the aquifer system by about 20 percent, allowing groundwater storage to recover from incidental 
infiltration. Construction of new surface water facilities to deliver SWP water from the Feather River to each 
project participant's service area would be required. 

When the index is classified as dry or critical, project recovery would occur by groundwater 
substitution. Groundwater substitution would involve each district foregoing part of its normal surface water 
supply, thereby leaving it in the river for use by others. Reductions in surface water supply would be 
supplemented by extracting groundwater that was placed in the aquifer system during previous recharge years. 
These dry and critical year hydrologic conditions occur nearly 30 percent of the time. 

It is anticipated that not all of the water recharged would remain in the project area. Some water 
would be lost to streams and rivers and some would flow out of the project area into adjacent areas. To 
partially account for these project losses, the feasibility study includes a no project operation component when 
the index is classified as below normal. In essence, the project participants would operate as they do presently. 
By adding this component, there would be more project recharge years than project recovery years, leaving 
some of the recharge water in the basin to account for project losses. 

One of the biggest issues facing any conjunctive use project in the Sacramento Valley is the real water 
issue. A conjunctive use project must develop water that would not be otherwise available, or else it would 
deplete Sacramento River flows, so that the net available water supply would be about the same. Preliminary 
modeling studies suggest that this conjunctive use project would create an additional water supply during dry 
periods. Additional work remains before reaching a definitive answer. 



6-61 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan. The U.S. Department of Interior's 1995 yield 
increase plan described possible actions to increase the yield of the Central Valley Project. The 
plan, required by CVPIA, was to evaluate ways to increase CVP yield to replace the water supply 
CVPIA dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes. Conjunctive use was one possible action and 
offered the largest potential annual yield. The plan suggests the potential annual yield of 
conjunctive use programs using active recharge in the Central Valley would be over 800 taf. 

A regional groundwater model characterizing the Central Valley, together with an 
accompanying database and other information regarding soil and aquifer characteristics, was 
used to identify potential sites for active recharge programs. Table 6- 1 6 lists potential yield 
estimates from the study. Yield estimates for active recharge programs were based on the 
availability of storm flows on adjacent rivers. Local water supply availability has almost always 
limited the potential of a particular site. Potential environmental impacts attributable to 
developable yield are uncertain. Implementation of conjunctive use options would require 
additional feasibility investigations 

CALFED Conjunctive Use Component. CALFED is evaluating conjunctive use 
potential as part of its storage and conveyance refinement process. The CALFED conjunctive use 
program will not identify specific projects, but will attempt to identify statewide potential for 
groundwater development and provide technical support to local projects. The program, in the 
early stages of development, is using operations studies to estimate statewide water supply 
benefits of conjunctive use in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. 

CALFED is defining operating rules and assumptions in order to evaluate potential water 
supply benefits. Conjunctive use storage is currently assumed to be 250 taf in the Sacramento 
Valley and 500 taf in the San Joaquin Valley. Groundwater withdrawl and recharge capacities of 
500 cfs are being assumed. Finally, groundwater withdrawl is being assumed to take place only 
in dry and critical water years. Potential water supply benefits of the CALFED conjunctive use 
program have not been quantified at this time. 



6-62 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-16. CVP Yield Increase Plan Conjunctive Use Options 



General Site Locations 



Potential 
Source(s) of Water 



Activity 



Evaluated 
Capacity' 
(1,000 af) 



Annual 

Yielcf 

(1,000 af) 



Region I 

E. of Anderson 



Upper Sacramento River 



Active recharge 



60 



15 



Region 2 

SW and W of Orland, Tehama- 
Colusa canal in vicinity 

Within Glenn County 



Upper Sacramento River 
Groundwater 



Active recharge 360 

Developable yield 



90 

55 



Region 3 

S of Chico, near Wheatland, E. 
Sutter Bypass, and NE of Rio 
Linda 

Within Yuba County 



Feather and Bear rivers and Dry 
Creek (north of Sacramento) 

Groundwater 



Active recharge 



Developable yield 



280 



85 



25 



Region 4 

NW of Woodland and SW of 
Davis (near Dixon), Yolo Bypass 
nearby 



Cache Creek, Sacramento River Active recharge 



120 



30 



Region 5 

NE of Gait, SE of Elk Grove, SE 
of Lodi, and S of Manteca 



American (using Folsom S 
canal), Cosumnes, Mokelumne, 
Calaveras, and Stanislaus 



Active recharge 



400 



Region 10 

N of Raisin City, S of Kingsburg, 
S of Hanford, W of Visalia, and 
SW of Tipton 



Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers Active recharge 



unknown 



185 



Region 6 










N W of Volta and at Oro Loma 


Delta Mendota Canal, California 
Aqueduct 


Active recharge 


275 


200 


Region 7 










N of Modesto 


Stanislaus or Tuolumne rivers 


Active recharge 


100 


20 


Region 8 










E of Atwater, NE of Merced, W 


Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, 


Active recharge 


350 


140 


of La Vina, and NE of Red Top 


and San Joaquin rivers 








Region 9 










none identified 











125 



Region 11 

W of McFarland, and SW of 
Bakersfield 


Kern River, California 
Aqueduct 


Active recharge 


500 


50 



Capacity is taken to be the amount of water that can be recharged and extracted over any area without causing a water level fluctuation of 
more than 30 feet compared to historic water levels and has been estimated using a large-scale regional model. Values are not maximums and 
are used for comparison purposes. 

Location(s) descriptions are reflective of general areas where active recharge programs were estimated to be feasible. Each reference to a 
city or town represents a single site (NW of Woodland and SW of Davis refers to two potential site areas). Many regions have multiple sites 
where active recharge is possible. 



6-63 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Water Transfers 

Increasingly, water agencies are including transfers as components of their future 
resources mix — not just as drought management techniques, but as a source of supply in normal 
water years. In fact, it is becoming increasingly common to see local agency plans with a menu 
of transfer alternatives which include one-time spot transfers, short or long-term agreements for 
drought year transfers, and long-term agreements for average year water transfers. 

For Bulletin 160, water transfers are defined as water obtained from: 

• The permanent sale of a water right by the water right holder. (Although common in 
other western states, this method of water transfer is used less frequently in California 
than the following methods.) 

• A lease from the water right holder, who retains the water right, but allows the 
leaseholder to use the water under specified conditions over a specified time period. 

• The sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. The holder of a contractual right 
to water supply provided by a water right holder (e.g., CVP, SWP, other water 
wholesalers) transfers the contractual right, or use of the contractual right, an action 
usually requiring the approval of the water right holder. 

A predominant concern with transfer proposals is that only real water is transferred, and 
that transfer of paper water is avoided. The difference is that real water involves a change in the 
place and type of an existing use, while paper water might involve transfer of water that was not 
otherwise going to be beneficially used during the period of the proposed transfer. 

Several agencies have identified water transfers as potential water management options. 
For retained transfer option. Bulletin 160-98 water budgets show increases in supply for the 
gaining regions. However, the water budgets do not reflect corresponding reductions in demand 
in regions fi-om which water is being transferred, unless specific participants are identified, and 
the transfers are large enough to be visible in the water budgets. Presently, the only transfers that 
fit this category are those associated with the Colorado River 4.4 Plan. 

One of the larger potential water transfers identified in Bulletin 160-98 is CVPIA water 
acquisition for instream flows and wildlife refiiges. As discussed in Chapter 4, Bulletin 160-98 
shows a future environmental water demand for these acquisitions based on Alternative 4 of the 
1997 CVPIA PEIS. (This demand is a placeholder pending a final decision as to the proposed 

6-64 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

scope of CVPIA's water acquisition program.) At this time, no long-term contracts for water 
transfers have been established ~ supplemental water acquired to date has been purchased on a 
year-to-year basis. It is thus not possible to identify specifically how and where the supplemental 
water would be obtained in the future, or what other water demands might be reduced as a result 
of CVPIA water transfers. Therefore, Bulletin 160-98 water budgets do not show transferred 
water supplies corresponding to the CVPIA demands. Instead, the acquisition amount is shown 
as shortages in the Sacramento and San Joaquin regions. 



Is That Real Water? 

The initial rush of enthusiasm for water transfers stimulated much discussion about 
supposedly unused water. Some water users in the State hold rights (statutory or contractual) 
to more water than they currently use to meet their needs. Why not transfer those rights to 
others? 

Such transfers looked attractive to both prospective sellers and buyers. The sellers 
would receive payment for something they were not using, while the buyers would meet 
urgent water needs. This view, however, overlooks the fact that water to meet the transferred 
rights has been part of the basin supply all along, and has almost always been put to use by 
downstream water right holders. This type of transfer became know as a "paper water" deal: 
the money goes to the seller, while the water is transferred to the buyer from the supply of an 
uninvolved third party. 

A similar outcome can result from some water conservation measures. Changes in 
irrigation management can reduce drainage outflow that otherwise contributes to the supply of 
downstream users or meets an instream need. Proposals to transfer water saved through such 
drainage reduction can also represent paper water. 

The California Water Code includes a number of provisions to regulate and facilitate 
water transfers (Water Code Sections 1435, 1706, 1725, 1736, 1810d), as well as a "no-injury" 
clause that prohibits transfers that would harm another legal user of the water. This clause is 
the basis for prohibiting transfers of paper water. 

In analyzing water transfer and water conservation proposals, the Department uses the 
terms real water and new water to contrast with paper water. Real water is water not derived at 
the expense of any other lawful user, i.e., water that satisfies the Water Code's no injury 
criterion. New water is water not previously available, created by reducing irrecoverable 
losses or outflow to the ocean or inland salt sinks. New water, by definition, must be real, but 
not all real water is new. For example, water made available through land fallowing is real 
(because it reduces ETAW), but not new. 



Sources of Water for Transfer 

The increased attention to transfers following the 1987-92 drought brought clear 
recognition that water transfers alone do not create new supplies~they are a process by which 

6-65 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

supplies developed by other means are moved to a new place of use. In any water transfer 
agreement, the reliability of the supply acquired by the transferee depends upon the specific 
details of the transfer agreement and the relative priority of the water rights involved. With this 
approach, it is helpful to examine potential sources of water that have been most often considered 
for transfer. 

• Land Fallowing. A potential source of water for transfer is to forego growing crops in a 
given area and move the water that would have been consumed to a different service area. 
Although there can be some difficulty in quantifying the amount of water made available 
and its impact on the economy of local agricultural communities, land fallowing is a proven 
demand management technique. Land fallowing may be undertaken on either a permanent 
basis (land retirement) or only during drought periods in various forms of shortage 
contingency programs. Drawbacks of fallowing include potential impacts on non- 
participating third parties. 

• Crop Shifts. Some of the third party effects of fallowing could be reduced by substituting 
crops that consume less water for those that would use more. For example, safflower might 
be planted in place of tomatoes, or wheat in place of com. The substituted crop is usually 
less profitable for the grower, so the potential transferee provides an appropriate incentive 
payment. Such arrangements can produce real water savings, but they introduce a further 
layer of complexity and uncertainty. (How can it be demonstrated that the higher water- 
using crop would really have been planted in the absence of the arrangement? And, what 
are the related effects on groundwater recharge and drainage contributions to downstream 
surface supplies?) Crop shift proposals were solicited by the Department for the 1991 
Drought Water Bank, but played a limited role. Because crop acreage is market driven, the 
ability to do large scale crop shifts is limited. Crop shifts are thus expected to have a small 
role in water transfers. 

• Water Conservation. Where conservation techniques result in real water savings (see 
sidebar), conserved water may be available for transfer to other users. Recent proposals for 
transfers of conserved water have mostly occurred in the agricultural sector, where 
considerable confusion has sometimes resulted over the distinction between reducing 
applied water and producing real water savings. Most of California's irrigated areas overlie 



6-66 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

usable groundwater basins and are linked by networks of surface streams and drains. Water 
leaving one area usually contributes to the supply of other areas or, in the Central Valley, to 
necessary Delta outflow. Under such conditions, new water savings result only from 
reducing crop consumptive use, or other consumptive use, or from reducing losses to 
unusable saline sinks. From a statewide supply perspective, opportunities for transfer of 
conserved water occur primarily in areas such as the Imperial Valley, where agricultural 
drainage water flows to the Salton Sea. However, it must be recognized that the agricultural 
runoff entering the Sea supplies the relatively fresher water needed to sustain the Sea's 
biological resources. The ability to transfer conserved water that would otherwise flow to 
the Sea must take into consideration impacts of such transfer on the Sea. 
From a local perspective, however, the situation may be different; for example, Sacramento 
Valley conservation measures that reduce agricultural drainage make more water available 
for use in the conserving area — but at the expense of downstream users. Local districts in 
such areas have substantial incentive to practice conservation to improve the utility of their 
existing supplies, but the potential for creating real water for transfer to others is limited. 
• Groundwater Substitution. Many California growers have rights and access to surface water 
supplies, even though their land may overlie productive groundwater basins. In such cases, 
a grower may agree to forego use of surface water rights for a period, substituting 
groundwater instead. The unused surface water then becomes available for transfer to other 
users. This technique was tested during the Drought Water Banks of 1991, 1992, and 1994. 
Under favorable conditions (where wells and pumps are already installed), it can produce 
considerable water for transfer on relatively short notice. One major concern with 
groundwater substitution is the potential impact on neighboring non-participating pumpers. 
Substantial monitoring to assure there are no unreasonable third party impacts is needed. 
Another consideration with groundwater substitution is that additional pumping may 
induce additional recharge that depletes usable streamflow; only that portion of 
groundwater replenished from future surplus flows is really a new supply. Additional 
experience will be needed to define the potential of this source, resolve concerns over 
impacts on nearby pumpers and regional surface supplies, and explore possibilities for 
construction of dedicated recharge facilities. 



6-67 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

• Surface Storage Withdrawals. Existing reservoirs within California have a combined 

storage capacity on the order of 40 maf These facilities are operated by a wide spectrum of 
entities, for a variety of water supply, flood control, power, and recreation objectives. At 
any given time, there is likely to be water stored somewhere in the system that is not 
planned to be released, but could be made available to meet urgent needs. Such 
withdrawals come at a price, however, usually a reduction of power generation or 
recreational usage, or increased risk of future water supply shortage. Payments to the 
reservoir owner implicitly include a component to compensate for reduced benefits, 
increased risk, and other costs. Surface storage withdrawals are easily quantified and 
clearly represent new water, provided the storage is refilled from future surplus flows. 
Storage withdrawals played an important role in recent transfers; the refill constraints were 
handled through a contract clause whereby reservoir owners agreed to defer refill until a 
time of fiiture high runoff when there would be no detrimental effect on other water users. 
In the long run, the prospects for such transfers will tend to diminish as water demands 
increase in the reservoirs' primary service areas. 
Prospects for Water Transfers 

Water transfers will continue to play a role in meeting California's water needs, but there 
will be a continuing shift in emphasis toward systemwide appraisal of impacts and growing 
recognition of the need to protect the rights of all lawful users of water. Mechanisms for 
evaluation and approval of water transfers have been developed, and will likely continue to 
evolve. For example, USSR developed guidelines for implementing transfers of CVP water 
under the CVPIA, California Water Code directs the Department to facilitate voluntary 
exchanges and transfers of water, and 1992 changes to state law authorized water suppliers (local 
public agencies and private water companies) to contract with water users to reduce or eliminate 
water use for a specified period of time, and to transfer the water to other water suppliers and 
users. 

The ability to carry out transfers is dependent on conveyance provided by California's 
existing rivers, canals, and pipelines. Agencies planning to use long-term transfers as part of their 
core water supplies must have access to reliable conveyance for these supplies. Major 
conveyance facilities now wheeling water for transfers include CVP and SWP facilities. A long- 

6-68 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapters. Evaluating Options Fmm a Statewide Perspective 

term Delta fix is essential for providing reliable conveyance of transferred supplies across the 
Delta. The California Water Code requires that public agencies make available unused 
conveyance capacity (see sidebar). 

As more agencies are looking to water transfers as an option to balance demand and supply, 
the competition for water available for transfer will increase. Table 6-17 shows a few larger 
water supply programs and water suppliers and the amounts of transfers proposed in planning 
documents, to illustrate the magnitude of transfers being considered. 



Water Code Section 1810 etseq. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the state, nor any regional or local 
public agency may deny a bona fide transferor of water the use of a water conveyance facility 
which has unused capacity, for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair 
compensation is paid for that use, subject to the following: 

(a) Any person or public agency that has a long-term water service contract with or the right to 
receive water from the owner of the conveyance facility shall have the right to use any unused 
capacity prior to any bona fide transferor. 

(b) The commingling of transferred water does not result in a diminution of the beneficial uses 
or quality of the water in the facility, except that the transferor may, at the transferor's own 
expense, provide for treatment to prevent the diminution, and the transferred water is of 
substantially the same quality as the water in the facility. 

(c) Any person or public agency that has a water service contract with or the right to receive 
water from the owner of the conveyance facility who has an emergency need may utilize the 
unused capacity that was made available pursuant to this section for the duration of the 
emergency. 

(d) This use of a water conveyance facility is to be made without injuring any legal user of water 
and without unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses and without 
unreasonably affecting the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the 
water is being transferred. 



6-69 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-17 . Water Transfer Proposals 




(taf) 








Year 






Average 


Drought 


Drought Water Bank 


-- 


250 


SWP Supplemental Purchase Program 


~ 


200 


CVPIA Interim Water Acquisition Program 


365 


365 


Alameda County WC&FCD, Zone 7 


50 


50 


Alameda County Water District 


15 


25 


Contra Costa Water District 


40 


50 


Santa Clara Valley Water District 


100 


100 


Sacramento County Water Agency 


30 


30 


Westlands Water District 


200 


200 


Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 


~ 


300 


San Diego County Water Authority 


200 


200 


Total 


1,000 


1,770 



The following sections describe some specific water transfer proposals, where 
information is currently available to describe an established or proposed program. Many local 
agencies may intend to buy water on the spot market as needed to respond to service area 
demands, but do not have agreements or defined programs in place at this time. 
Drought Year Transfers 

Transfers Involving Conveyance in SWP Facilities 

Drought Water Bank Program. The Department manages and implements the Drought 
Water Bank. The goal of the Drought Water Bank program is to meet critical water needs 
resulting from droughts or other unanticipated conditions. The DWB program is a water 
purchasing and allocation program whereby the Department will purchase water from willing 
sellers and remarket the water to buyers under specific critical needs allocation guidelines. The • 
DWB's EIR established the DWB as a 5 to 10 year program. The program is intended as a short- 
term measure in near-emergency conditions due to lack of water. 

Chapter 3 describes past Drought Water Bank activities. The quantities and prices of 
water made available in previous drought water bank programs through surplus reservoir 
releases, through groundwater substitution, and through land fallowing programs are summarized 

6-70 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

in Table 6-18 below. Past experience suggests that about 250,000 af of water per year could be 
allocated by the DWB in the future through similar programs. 

Table 6-18. Drought Water Bank 





Purchas 
Price 
($/af) 


Source of Drought Water Bank Water 




year 


e Surplus 
Reservoir 
Storage 

(af) 


Groundwater Fallowing 
Substitution (aj) 
(of) 


Total 
Sources 

(aJ) 


Amount 

Allocated^ 

(af) 


1991 
1992 
1994 


$125 
$50 
$50 


147,332 
31,705 
33,000 


258,590 
161,541 
188,754 


414,743 




820,664 
193,246 
221,754 


389,970 
158,768 
173,483 


Amount allocated for urban, 
after conveyance and fish and 


agricultural, and environmental uses. This represents the actual supply developed by the bank 
wildlife requirements were met. 



Supplemental Water Purchase Program. The Department is proposing a supplemental 
water purchase program to increase water supply reliability for State Water Project contractors. 
A draft EIR for the six-year program originally proposed the transfer of up to 400,000 af of water 
in drought years from a combination of (1) surface water which is replaced by additional 
groundwater pumping, and (2) reservoirs with temporarily surplus supplies. Such water would be 
purchased from willing sellers and provided to participating SWP contractors. After a number of 
public workshops, the Department has reevaluated the program and has eliminated the 
groundwater component. The maximum supply available for transfer would be 200,000 af a year 
without the groundwater component. The final EIR is expected to be released in mid- 1998. 

The proposed program would be in effect for 6 years and would be implemented only in 
years during which the Department was unable to deliver enough project water to meet contract 
entitlement requests. The program is intended to fill all or part of the shortfall between deliveries 
to the participating contractors and requests from those contractors up to their contractual 
entitlement for that year. The supplemental water would be provided through options or direct 
purchase agreements. The program would primarily use existing water production and transport 
facilities. 

Transfers Sponsored by Local Agencies. Semitropic Water Storage District has developed 
a groundwater storage program with a maximum storage capacity of 1 maf and maximum annual 
extraction of 223 taf. Under this program, a banking partner may contract with Semitropic to 



6-71 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluatir^g Options From a Statewide Perspective 

deliver its available SWP water or other water supplies to Semitropic for in-lieu groundwater 
recharge. At the contractor's request, groundwater would be extracted and delivered to the 
California Aqueduct or pumped by SWSD farmers in exchange for SWP entitlement deliveries. 
Currently, MWDSC and SCVWD District each have long-term agreements with Semitropic for 
350 taf of storage. AC WD is in the process of signing a similar agreement for 50 taf of storage. 
There is 250 taf of capacity available for other banking partners. Participants are not restricted to 
SWP contractors although access to the delivery system is necessary. This program, discussed in 
more detail in Chapter 8, is considered a transfer in this Bulletin because of the possible 
exchange of Semitropic' s SWP entitlement for banked SWP water. If Semitropic enters into 
additional agreements restricted to physically storing water without a change in ownership of the 
water, they would not be considered a water transfer in this Bulletin. The costs of this water is 
about $175 peraf. 

An similar banking/transfer agreement has been proposed between Arvin-Edison WSD 
and MWDSC for up to 350 taf of storage in Arvin-Edison' s groundwater basin. Up to 75 taf per 
year could be withdrawn and delivered to MWDSC through the California Aqueduct in drought 
years at a cost of about $155 per af. 

Transfers Involving Conveyance in CVP Facilities. Historically, users of GVP water 
have made intra-district, and sometimes inter-district transfers of project supply. The 1992 
enactment of CVPIA provided the authority to transfer project water outside of project 
boundaries to nonproject water users. 

Transfers Among Project Water Users. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, 
which represents 32 urban and agricultural water districts on the west side of the San Joaquin 
Valley and in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, has developed an agreement that will help its 
members cope with water supply uncertainties. Under a three-way agreement between the 
Authority, SCVWD, and the USBR, participating member districts (shortage year providers) can 
receive some of SCVWD's federal water allocation in normal and above-normal water years in 
exchange for a share of the shortage year provider's federal allocation during water-short years. 
The agreement, which does not require any additional exports from the Delta, will be an internal 
reallocation of existing federal supplies to allow greater flexibility in meeting urban and 
agricultural water demands. 

6-72 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Specifically, SCVWD will provide 100,000 af of water within a 10-year period for 
reallocation by the USBR to shortage year providers. In exchange, shortage year providers will 
provide SCVWD with shortage year protection for as long as necessary by directing the USBR to 
reallocate the portion of their supplies (not to exceed an annual total of 14,250 af) needed to 
deliver no less than 97,500 af to SCVWD during years when the CVP's urban water deliveries 
are 75 percent or less of contract entitlement. As part of the agreement, SCVWD will optimize its 
use of non-CVP water supplies, which will benefit all CVP irrigation water service contractors in 
the Delta export service area. 

Westlands Water District and San Luis Water District have already agreed to become 
shortage year providers; other Authority members may also enter into the agreement over time. 

Transfer of CVP Water Outside Project Boundaries. The CVPIA authorized transfer of 
project water outside the CVP service area, subject to numerous specified conditions, including a 
right of first refusal by existing CVP water users within the service area. As of this writing, no 
transfers have either been approved or implemented under this provision. One transfer that had 
been discussed was a proposed transfer between Arvin-Edison WSD and MWDSC. 

Colorado River Region 

Future banking. In its 1 996 session, the Arizona Legislature enacted HB 2494, 
establishing the Arizona Water Banking Authority. The Authority is authorized to purchase 
unused Colorado River water and to store it in groundwater basins to meet future needs. 
Conveyance to storage areas is provided by the Central Arizona Project. The legislation further 
provided that the Authority may enter into agreements with California and Nevada agencies to 
bank water in Arizona basins, with specific limitations. Under this legislation, future interstate 
banking in Arizona would have a maximum drought year yield of 100,000 af, with 50,000 af 
available to California. 

Land Fallowing Programs. Land fallowing programs could be implemented to provide 
water for transfer to urban areas during drought periods, as demonstrated by one test program 
conducted in the Colorado River Region. In 1992, MWDSC began a two-year land fallowing test 
program with Palo Verde Irrigation District. Under this program, farmers in PVID fallowed 
about 20,000 acres of land. The saved water, about 93,000 af per year, was stored in Lake Mead 
for future use by MWDSC. (That water, however, was subsequently lost to MWDSC when flood 



6-73 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

control releases were made from Lake Mead.) MWDSC paid each farmer $1,240 per fallowed 
acre, making the costs of the water to MWDSC about $135 per af It is expected that similar 
programs could be implemented in the future by agencies in the South Coast Region and 
Colorado River Region to provide about 100,000 af per year during drought years. 
Every Year Transfers 

Central Valley 

Permanent Transfer ofSWP Entitlement. The Monterey Agreement provides that 130,000 
af of agricultural entitlements be sold to urban contractors on a willing buyer- willing seller basis. 
Several such transfers of entitlement have already been implemented. Kern County Water 
Agency permanently transferred 25,000 af of entitlement to Mojave Water Agency and is in the 
process of finalizing the permanent transfer of 7,000 af to Alameda County Flood Control and 
Water Conservation District, Zone 7. KCWA is also considering the permanent transfer of 9,097 
af to Castaic Lake Water Agency. 

Permanent Transfer ofCVP Entitlement. As with the SWP, transfers of contractual 
entitlements among CVP contractors is now occurring. The CVP reallocation agreement 
represents a new approach to transfers among project water users. 

CVPIA Interim Water Acquisition Program. Transfers of developed supplies for 
environmental purposes (where the transfer occurs as part of a willing buyer- willing seller 
arrangement, and not as the result of a regulatory action) are a relatively recent occurrence. 
Under the provisions of the CVPIA, an interim water acquisition program was established to be 
in effect from October 1995 through February 1998. Through this interim program, water is 
being acquired to meet near-term fishery and refuge water supply needs while long-term 
planning continues. 

During the interim program, USBR could acquire up to 1 00,000 af annually on each of 
the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers. Water acquired under the program would be used 
for a combination of instream fishery flows on the three tributary rivers, and for flow and water 
quality improvements on the San Joaquin River. The specific quantifies of water to be acquired 
each year and associated release patterns would depend upon projected flow conditions in the 
individual rivers, and projected flow and water quality conditions in the San Joaquin River at 
Vemalis. 



6-74 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Under this program, USBR would acquire up to 13,123 af of water annually from willing 
sellers in the Sacramento and Feather River basins to provide increased deliveries to wetland 
habitat areas in the Sacramento Valley. Likewise, up to 52,421 af would be purchased annually 
from willing sellers in the San Joaquin Valley to provide increased deliveries to wetland habitat 
areas in the San Joaquin Valley. It is anticipated that water would be made available from 
groundwater, groundwater substitution, transfer of unutilized contract entitlement, and/or 
conservation. 

CVPIA AFRP Water Acquisition Program. The CVPIA provides for annual acquisition of 
water for AFRP instream flows under Section 3406(b)(3). The Act also provides for annual 
acquisition of water to meet Level 4 wildlife refuge deliveries under Section 3406(d)(l-2). The 
following CVPIA water acquisition alternatives were developed in the USBR's November 1997 
Draft PEIS: 

• Alternative 1 : No water would be acquired to meet fish and wildlife targets. 

• Alternative 2: AFRP water would be acquired annually from wdlling sellers on the 
Stanislaus (60 taf/yr), Tuolumne (60 taf/yr), and Merced (50 taf/yr) rivers and on the 
tributary creeks of the upper Sacramento River that support spring-run salmon 
populations. Acquisition amounts on the tributary creeks were not quantified in the PEIS. 
The acquired water would be managed to meet target flows for the streams. The acquired 
water also would be used to improve flows in the Delta. Therefore, the acquired AFRP 
water could not be exported by the CVP or SWP. In Alternative 2, refuge water would be 
acquired to provide the difference between Level 2 and Level 4 supply requirements. 
Annual water acquisitions in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake 
regions would be about 30 taf, 80 taf and 20 taf, respectively. 

• Alternative 3: AFRP water would be acquired annually from willing sellers on the Yuba 
(100 taf/yr), Mokelumne (70 taf/yr), Calaveras (40 taf/yr), Stanislaus (200 taf/yr), 
Tuolumne (200 taf/yr), and Merced (200 taf/yr) rivers and on the tributary creeks of the 
Upper Sacramento River to improve instream flows in accordance with target flows. As 
in Alternative 2, acquisition amounts on the tributary creeks were not quantified in the 
PEIS. The acquired AFRP water would not be managed for increased flows through the 
Delta. Therefore, it could be exported if Order WR95-6 conditions were met. Under 

6-75 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Alternative 3, refuge water would be acquired to meet Level 4 requirements in the same 

quantities as described in Alternative 2. 
• Alternative 4: AFRP water would be acquired annually for the streams as under 

Alternative 3. The acquired water would be managed to meet target flows for the streams 

and to improve flows in the Delta. Therefore, the acquired water could not be exported 

by the CVP or SWP. Refuge water would be acquired for delivery of Level 4 water 

supplies in the same manner as described in Alternative 2. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternative 4 was selected from among the PEIS alternatives 
as a placeholder for Bulletin 160-98 future CVPIA environmental water demands because it 
represents the most conservative estimate of future water supply requirements. The PEIS 
estimates a reduction of 142,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land would be needed to provide 
CVPIA water acquisitions under Alternative 4. Approximately 21,000 acres would be fallowed 
in the Sacramento River Region, 1 1 8,000 acres would be fallowed in the San Joaquin River 
Region, and 3,000 acres would be fallowed in the Tulare Lake Region. Since USBR has not yet 
identified specific proposals for transfers, we have not included the demand reduction resulting 
from this land fallowing in the Bulletin 160-98 water budgets. We show the Alternative 4 
instream flows as a future environmental water demand in the budgets, which has the effect of 
increasing 2020 water shortages. (In the PEIS, USBR estimates that Alternative 4 water 
acquisition costs could be up to $120 million per year.) 

Colorado River. Water agencies in the South Coast Region will continue to pursue 
programs to offset the reduction in existing supplies resulting from California reducing its use of 
Colorado River water to 4.4 maf. This subject is covered in detail in Chapter 9. A potential 
transfer is briefly summarized below. 

San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District have been discussing 
a potential transfer of water saved due to extraordinary conservation measures within IID. The 
agencies executed a September 1995 MOU concerning negotiation of a transfer agreement, 
followed by development of proposed terms and conditions of a transfer. As originally proposed, 
an initial transfer of 20 taf would begin in 1999, with the annual quantity of transferred water 
increasing to 200 taf after 10 years. In order to transfer the acquired water, SDCWA (a member 



6-76 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

agency of MWDSC) must negotiate a wheeling agreement with MWDSC for use of capacity in 
MWDSC's Colorado River Aqueduct. 

Water Recycling 
The Department, in cooperation with the WateReuse Association of California, developed 
and conducted a 1995 water recycling survey as described in Chapter 3. Table 6-19 shows 1995 
base level of water recycling and future projects in planning and conceptual stages. Projects in 
the conceptual stage are not yet defined and are deferred in this bulletin from further evaluation. 
The 1995 annual water recycling of 485 taf is expected to increase to 615 taf by 2020 due to 
greater production at existing plants and new production at plants currently under construction. 
By 2020, projects in the planning and design stages will add an additional 837,000 af of recycled 
water, providing almost 700,000 af of new water supply to the State. These projects are discussed 
as local water supply options in Chapters 7 through 9. 



Table 6-19. Water Recycling Options and Resulting New Water Supply 

(thousand of acre-feet) 





Retain 
/Defer 


1995 




2020 


Projects 


Total 

Water 

Recycling 


New 

Water 

Supply 


Total 

Water 

Recycling 


New 

Water 

Supply 


Base 

Planned 

Conceptual 


R 
D 


485 


323 


615 
837 
131 


468 
699 

31 



New water supply would be generated by water recycling where the outflow of water 
treatment plants would otherwise enter a salt sink or the Pacific Ocean. In the Central Valley and 
other inland communities, the outflow from waste water treatment plants is put into streams and 
groundwater basins and is generally reused. Recycling of such outflow would not generate any 
new supply. 

In the South Coast Region, water agencies are concerned that the lack of future 
high-quality water for blending supplies, or the cost of desalination of recycled water, could 
affect implementation of future water recycling facilities. Because of these concerns, the 
MWDSC, USBR, SDCWA, and DWR have cooperated on a salinity management study. The 

6-77 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Study's initial phase focuses on identifying problems and salinity management needs of 
MWDSC's service area. This study is discussed in the South Coast Region of Chapter 7. 

Table 6-20 shows 1995 base and projections of total water recycling and new water 
supply by hydrologic region. Total annual water recycling for 2020 is projected to increase from 
the 1995 level of 485 taf to about 1,452 taf This would contribute almost 1.2 maf of new water 
to the State's supply. Two major water recycling programs being planned are the Bay Area 
Regional Water Recycling Program and the Southern California Comprehensive Water 
Reclamation and Reuse Study, discussed in detail in Chapter 7. 



6-78 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-20. Total Recycling and Resulting New Water Supply by Hydologic 

Region (taf) 



1995 



2020 



Hydrologic Region 



Total 


New 


Total 


New 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Recycling 


Supply 


Recycling 


Supply 



North Coast 


Base 
Options 


13 


13 


13 
15 


13 


San Francisco Bay 


Base 
Options 


40 


35 


40 
101 


35 
92 


Central Coast 


Base 
Options 


19 


18 


44 
40 


42 
38 


South Coast 


Base 
Options 


263 


207 


364 
640 


328 
569 


Sacramento River 


Base 
Options 


12 


— 


14 
6 


— 


San Joaquin River 


Base 
Options 


37 


~ 


39 

7 


: 


Tulare Lake 


Base 
Options 


51 


~ 


51 

25 


~ 


North Lahontan 


Base 
Options 


8 


8 


8 


8 


South Lahontan 


Base 
Options 


27 


27 


27 
3 


27 


Colorado River 


Base 
Options 


15 


15 


15 


15 


STATEWIDE TOTAL 


Base 
Options 


485 


323 


615 
837 


468 
699 



TOTAL RECYCLING 



1,452 



1,167 



6-79 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options Fmm a Statewide Perspective 



Desalination 

Today California has more than 150 desalting plants providing fresh water for municipal, 
industrial, power, and other uses. The freshwater capacity of these plants totals about 66,000 af 
annually, a 100 percent increase since 1990. Common feedwater sources for desalting plants 
include brackish groundwater, municipal and industrial wastewater, and seawater. Groundwater 
recovery currently makes up the majority of desalting plant capacity, 45,000 af. Wastewater 
desalination accounts for 13,000 af and seawater desalting accounts for 8,000 af of total capacity. 

Groundwater reclamation and wastewater recycling will be the primary uses of desalting 
in California in the foreseeable future. Improvements in membrane technology will spur 
considerable growth in these areas as discussed in Chapter 5. Seawater desalting is projected to 
grow very slowly. The use of desalination in wastewater treatment plants is a form of water 
recycling and is included in the water recycling section. This section will discuss the future 
potential for brackish groundwater and seawater desalination. 
Groundwater Recovery. 

High total dissolved solids and nitrate levels are conunon groundwater quality problems. 
Groundwater reclamation programs can be designed to recover mineralized groundwater or 
groundwater with nitrate contamination, as shown in the examples given in Chapt^ 5. Currently, 
most groimdwater reclamation programs under consideration are located in the South Coast 
region (excluding groundwater reclamation solely to remediate contamination at hazardous waste 
sites). Some of the polluted water must be treated and some can be blended with fresh water to 
meet water quality standards. 

The potential annual contribution of groundwater reclamation by year 2020 is about 
100,000 af, with 93,000 af in the South Coast Region. Options are discussed in the individual 
regional chapters. 
Seawater Desalination 

The major limitation to seawater desalination has been its high cost, much of which is 
directly related to high energy requirements. Seawater desalting costs range from $1,200 to 
$2,000 per af; additional costs are required to convey the water to the place of use. With few 
exceptions, the combined costs are greater than costs of obtaining water from other sources. 
However, seawater desalting can be a feasible option for urban supplies for coastal communities 



6-80 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

that are relatively far form the statewide water distribution system and have limited water 
supplies. Because of such circumstances, seawater desalting plants have been constructed in the 
City of Avalon (Santa Catalina Island) and the Cities of Santa Barbara and Morro Bay. Seawater 
desalting plants can be designed to operate only during drought to improve water supply 
reliability, as is the case for Santa Barbara's desalter. 

During the 1987-1992 drought, there were plans under consideration to install and 
operate several seawater desalting plants in the Central Coast and South Coast regions, including 
several very large distillation plants using waste heat from existing thermal power plants in the 
South Coast region. The total potential of the proposed plants was about 123,000 af per year. 
With the return to average water supply years, most of these plants have been put on hold. 
MWDSC's research distillation plant is the only (potentially) large non-reverse osmosis facility 
now under consideration. 

MWDSC, in cooperation with the U.S. Government and the Israel Science and 
Technology Foundation, is in the process of completing final design of a 12.6 mgd 
demonstration desalination plant to evaluate a future full scale 60 mgd to 80 mgd seawater 
desalination plant. The technology is based on a multiple-effect distillation process which in part 
uses heat energy from an adjacent power plant. The goal is to demonstrate that the multiple- 
effect distillation process can produce desalinated seawater at a cost of less than $1,000 per af. If 
successful, a full scale plant could produce about 85,000 af per year. 



6-81 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and 

Development Project 

The Mission Basin groundwater desalting project is an example of the type of 
desahing projects likely to occur within the Bulletin's planning horizon. 

The City of Oceanside owns and currently operates the Mission Basin Groundwater 
Desalting Facility. Under current operations, about 2,100 af per year of demineralized 
groundwater supply is produced from treating brackish groundwater through a reverse 
osmosis process. Because of the plant's successful operation over the past three years, the city 
plans to expand its production capacity up to 7,100 af, 22 percent of the city's yearly average 
demand. The cost of the expansion is estimated to be $7.5 million. The additional water 
supply is expected to be available by late 1 999. 

The Mission Basin aquifer holds about 92,000 af of water. The city anticipates that at 
least half of its future water supply can ultimately be derived from this source. Expansion of 
the Mission Basin Desalting Facility has several important benefits. It would provide the City 
of Oceanside an independent water source that can serve the community in the event of a 
natural disaster, such as an earthquake. In addition to reducing the city's reliance on imported 
water, the quality of water produced at the desalting facility is better than that of the city's 
imported source (total dissolved solids concentration of 400-500 mg/1 versus 600-700 mg/1 for 
imported water). 



Weather Modification 

Weather modification (cloud seeding) has been practiced in California for years. Most 
projects have been located on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and in parts of the coast 
ranges. Before the 1987-1992 drought, there were about 10 to 12 weather modification projects 
operating, with activity increasing during dry years. During the drought, the number of projects 
operating in California had increased to 20. However, some projects were subsequently dropped 
and others suspended operations as the winter turned wet. 

Operators engaged in cloud seeding have found it beneficial to seed rain bands along the 
coast and orographic clouds over the mountains. The projects are operated to increase water 
supply or hydroelectric power generation. Although the amounts of water produced are difficult 
and expensive to determine, estimates range from a 2 to 15 percent increase in annual 
precipitation, depending on the number and type of storms seeded. 

The Department, on behalf of the SWP, planned a five-year demonstration program of 
cloud-seeding in the upper Middle Fork Feather River basin, beginning in the 1991-92 season. 

6-82 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The program was to test the use of liquid propane injected into the clouds from generators on a 
mountain top. The test program was terminated after three years due to institutional difficulties. 

A 1 993 USBR feasibility study for a cloud seeding program in the watersheds above 
Shasta and Trinity dams indicated potential for the Trinity River Basin, but the study cast doubt 
about the effectiveness of a project for Shasta Lake. The Bureau had proposed a cloud seeding 
demonstration program in the upper Colorado River Basin, but the demonstration program was 
opposed by the State of Colorado. Presently, the Bureau is phasing out its participation in 
weather modification projects. 

Cloud seeding is more successful in near-normal water years, when moisture in the form 
of storm clouds is present to be treated. It is also more effective when combined with carryover 
storage to take fiill advantage of additional precipitation and runoff. Institutional issues 
associated with cloud seeding programs include claims from third parties who allege damage 
from flooding or high water caused by the cloud seeding program. Because of the many legal and 
institutional difficulties associated with the third party impacts associated with weather 
modification, new cloud seeding projects are deferred from further consideration in this Bulletin. 



6^3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Monterey County Water Resources Agency's Cloud Seeding 

Program 

MCWRA initiated a cloud seeding program in 1990 to reduce the effects of the 1987- 
1992 drought and has continued the program as a cost-effective way to augment water 
supplies. The cost of the water gained in the reservoirs is less than $10 per af, according to 
MCWRA. In addition to airborne seeding, an experimental ground based propane dispenser 
was installed for rainfall enhancement in 1991 . The program was designed to increase rainfall 
and subsequent runoff in the watershed of Arroyo Seco (a small undammed tributary of the 
Salinas River) and in San Antonio and Nacimiento reservoirs. 

Monterey County relies solely on groundwater and local surface supplies, and faces 
chronic groundwater overdraft and seawater intrusion. The area's semiarid, Mediterranean- 
style climate provides only marginally sufficient rainfall during average years to sustain 
reservoir releases for aquifer recharge during the summer months. Furthermore, the 
occurrence interval and typical productivity of weather systems passing over the central coast 
are such that soil mass only reaches saturation near the end of the rain event, and the weather 
system moves on prior to the occurrence of substantial runoff. Cloud seeding, in most cases, 
provides additional rainfall that converts directly into runoff. 

The typical interval for cloud seeding in Monterey County is from November 1 
through the end of March. The primary target area is the 650 square miles of combined 
watershed above the Nacimiento and San Antonio reservoirs. To the north, the Arroyo Seco 
watershed, containing 240 square miles, is a secondary target area. Seeding flights in the early 
part of the water year seed the entire area, essentially affecting the reservoir drainage areas 
and Arroyo Seco. This early seeding provides additional runoff to the reservoir^system as well 
as added groundwater recharge in the Arroyo Seco drainage area. Later in the water year, 
when the flows in the Arroyo Seco have reached the confluence with the Salinas River, flights 
are rerouted to concentrate the seeding effect on the reservoirs. 

The five-year program has experienced varying degrees of success in terms of 
providing additional water supply. Usually, the wetter the storms, the greater the moisture 
available for conversion to precipitation and the more productive the seeding. Overall, 
evaluations show that rainfall increased about twenty percent above normal for the five-year 
study period. According to MCWRA, no known adverse environmental effect has occurred as 
a result of the project. 



Other Supply Augmentation Options 

This section discusses several other methods to augment water supplies. These options 
are conceptual, or have not yet been widely practiced. Hence, they are deferred from further 
evaluation in this Bulletin, but may be reconsidered in the future. 



6-84 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Water Bags 

In 1996, a privately developed water bag delivery system was tested on a pilot scale when 
two bags each containing 2.4 af of water and linked together by zippers were towed from Port 
Angeles, Washington, to Seattle. Some problems emerged in the test run. These bags float 
because freshwater is lighter than saltwater. Costs associated with this option include towing 
costs, and cost of constructing, operating and maintaining the loading/unloading docks and 
pumps that would transfer the bagged water ashore to local treatment and distribution systems. 
Gray Water 

For the homeowner, some wastewater can be directly reused as gray water (such as used 
household water). Gray water can be used in subsurface systems to irrigate lawns, fruit trees, 
ornamental trees and shrubs and flowers (in finite amounts, depending on the plant types being 
irrigated). Water from the bathroom sink, washing machine, bathtub, or shower is generally safe 
to reuse. Care must be taken so that people and pets do not come in contact with gray water, and 
any food irrigated by gray water subsurface systems should be rinsed and cooked before being 
eaten. 

Gray water has been used by some homeowners in coastal urban areas during extreme 
drought to save their landscaping. In the past, health concerns and lack of information limited use 
of gray water. In 1992, the Legislature amended the Water Code to allow gray water systems in 
residential buildings subject to appropriate standards and with the approval of local jurisdictions. 
There appears to be limited interest in exploring gray water as an option beyond listing its use as 
a potential urban BMP. 
Watershed Management on National Forest Lands 

National forest lands provide half of the streamflow runoff in the State. It has been 
suggested that if national forest management plans developed during the 1980s had been in place 
prior to 1 982, the average runoff from national forests would have been increased by about 
290,000 af (an increase of nearly 1 percent). Forest management proposals prepared on behalf of 
the biomass power industry call for forest management in the form of removing excess dead 
material and invasive species from the forest understory and thinning of the trees themselves. In 
this way, the proponents hope to return the forests to their pre-fire exclusion condition and 
achieve major wildfire reduction, and wildlife and water benefits. The thinning would also 



6-85 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

produce fuel for the biomass-energy industry. From a water supply perspective, extensive areas 
of land would have to be managed to increase statewide water supplies, requiring detailed 
consideration of potential environmental impacts. 
Long-Range Weather Forecasting 

Accurate advance weather information ~ extending weeks, months, and even seasons 
ahead ~ would be invaluable for planning all types of water operations. Had it been knovm, for 
instance, that 1976 and 1977 were going to be extremely dry years, or that the drought would end 
in 1977, water operations could have been planned somewhat differently and the impacts of the 
drought could have been lessened. The response to the 1987-92 drought might have been 
improved by storing more water in the winter of 1986-87, pursuant to a forecast, and using more 
of the remaining reserves in 1992, the last year of the drought. 

The potential benefits of dependable long-range weather forecasts could be calculated in 
hundreds of millions of dollars, and their value would be national. Hence, research programs to 
investigate and develop forecasting capability would most appropriately be conducted at the 
national level. The National Weather Service routinely issues 30 and 90 day forecasts, and the 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego (until recently), and Creighton University in 
Omaha, Nebraska, make experimental forecasts. The predictions have not been sufficiently 
reliable for water project operation. These may be improved by research on global weather 
patterns, including the El Nino-Southern Oscillation in the eastern Pacific Ocean. 

Options for Future Environmental Habitat Enhancement 

There are a number of programs in various stages of implementation designed to restore 
and/or enhance fish, water and related wildlife and wetland resources throughout the State. These 
programs vary in scope and geographic region, and objectives. Some of these programs include 
providing additional water supplies, while others involve structural measures, such as placing 
spawning gravel or constructing fish screens. Some of these programs are legislatively driven, 
while others have resulted from collaborative efforts among stakeholders. Table 6-21 illustrates 
the emphasis now being placed on environmental restoration actions, by identifying the variety 
of funding sources now available for fishery-related environmental restoration actions. 



6-86 DRAFT 




Q 



1^ 

00 



O) 

c 
c 

3 
U. 

c 
o 

1 

s 

» 

& 

5 



c 
o 

'> 
c 

LU 



CM 

I 

o 

(0 



o> o 

3 O 



.? W 



- s § 

N 2 c 

2-2 S 

< 0) < 



o 

2 o 
o> c 
2.2 

9: o 

w « 

o « 

o CO 





c 




o 




CQ 




c 




,2 


S3 


13 




.op 


c 




u 


£> 


O O 



in f> 

C u 

u o 

u o. 

= § 

o x: 

c c 

•— u 

11 



c .o. 



i22 
E H 
2-5 

If 



0) 



o 



()^ 



«*- > to 

O 3 

« T3 



c 
o 


C 


§ J! 


o 




o 


- C3 




^ 




E c 


oo 


E 


3 


<3 .2 
ob ■ - 


c 


>r) 


O. 


o t3 


c 


^^ 


o 


t: -a 


3 


fa^ 


o. 




c: 


t- 


<A 


•T3 




u 


c 


£: 






3 


u 




M 


c: 






^ 

o 




175 




C8 


g" 


M^ 




C/5 


0. 


^Q 





kM 






oo 




Q 


C/i 




c 






o 


u 










J= 


'5. 




u 


f 




E 




CO 


i/i 


>> 


3 




t/5 

c 


C 


^ 


a. 




(L> 


"5 

3 
C 


T3 


i/i 




Q. 

E 


U 

C/l 

3 


CQ 


J 


o 
u 


i 


CO 


a. 




,^ *> 



</» 



•a 

cO ^ — C I 

S Q. tB O <N 

>^ 'ij o = 2^ 

ea 2 - = 2 

e -^ OO E 

o a: .S - ^ 

Q.= CQ -o u-> .S 

§ so 3 



< E D 



C: fe^ T3 



^ "*- U 3 

— ; ^ -a o to ca 



« c 



o .:: 



o 3 

2 c 

■C o 

o ta r^ «' — ; 

L. k. c o« 3 

Ja o E U J3 



e _ 

■o 

CO C/2 



° b c 

c« W CO 
k. 3 >. 
U 'P =3 

> a «i 
on .. — 

. c/i d 
ifl w c 

:S o u 

(U o « 
Q. •- -5 

00 3 ^ 
•r- to o 

« ,t: .E 

k- U (U 

.' c o. 
e « O 

Ji 2 o 

</) • rr k- 

.. "^ 5 

■2|o 

T3 -5 . 

= o S;? 
.3 -o to 
U< c X) 

5 f^ 4^ 

uDx: ^ 

o « 10 

ft" « TJ 

^ •= S 

•2 ./T ~ 

tj ■*-» ^" 

u u 
.=, u 

2 'o"- « 
a. o. ^ a 



.^ 00 (« 

■^ « "3 
Ok-™ 
O =5 '^ 

c 



s §"^ ^ i 

O. O M § 

2 tj "^ ?^ " 

c 



3 « o' 2 



TT (J W 
U O « 
*> CO (- 






« p- " E o 

00 r^ c .t > 

^ o " c t^ to 

"C U U u > 

= ^ 2 o :S o 

^^ I"? § « 

■^ t/1 o « t: o 

•2 O U ^' rt <S 

.Q o § Efe 

_>. T3 "1 to O '-' 

2 "^ -^ 5 </5 S 

« Qi < o c « 

g ^ - ^ ° 



c w "O 

5 3 § 

H CQ c 

< 0^ -^ 

x: -j "* 






E .2 
jo p 

u o 

ji Oi — 



« § Si" 

D. tO 2" 

Q — 



S 60 



E o 
o 2 



EOS 

08 W tS 

t. ^ >> 
M _J I/) 

k. ^ tj 

ft. U UJ 



2 & 



e .2 gj 

«» en < 
GC < U 



E :^ 



« > -= k. -2 ^ 
60Q .i2 « I0 ^ 

■o tS E « 

■^ > a ^ ai .t: 

•? 5 ■£ p c/5 -^ 
'^ .E 2 o -S ^ 
"« S- E '^ 'S ^ 

g -z :^ -^ E 2 

- I E I S 5 

n U >3 to ^ k. 

rt c c &^ g 

(O O M k. («-■ to 



H X5 o 



2 o 

OQ -3 (U 
^ o .> 
D <*- T3 

■^°| 

u to 
to Cu 

o 



x: — > 

c: .22 t3 

— U. *i 

^t^ <<_ ■^ 

U O T3 



g.b E 

« 73 3 

? (U Cu 

r- k« (4-^ 
COO 

w •■-< — 



O' -2 
u. ^ 

^.■§ 

CQ I 
C/5 E 

E Si 

2 c 

<i; o 

i/i o. 

u 3 

.2: -o 

= s 



.. 3 

■O "^ S 

« K « 

^ o Q 



u 



« E 



E w) 
es .E 
Z Q. 

eI 

2 ci. 
ft. Q 



a. ^-s 
E c 



I -t^ E a. E 



- 2 
_ o 

Cu Qu 



« Q 



2 = 

< t 



Q 



e -z 

o " 

Qi! < to 



E 3 .E 

2 ?? t" 

ft. ■^ ^ 

■«- r- ._ 

W C J-! 

.«,JJ to 

O D. -O 

> E = 

0. .= to 



2^^ c 
E .i2 u 

« u- E 
u -^ o 

2 2 M) 

ft. (- < 



u 



^ 5 



o 

t3 "o' 
U k. 
10 Du 
O 
D. • 

E - 

a o 
u &• 

o 



Li. 
< 

G 



u. 
< 

C 



.■= D. 

E u cii 

< s-=^ 

« = 2 

.2^0 

"S r) '^ 

^ -a 

« c >^ 

C/5 to X) 



CQ 



o. c 



< CO 



.E -E 



I ^ 

3 



o 



.. N O e 

^ 'E ^ 5 

3 5 -^ £ 

g < « < 

o 

(0 



0) 

o 

c 

E 
c 
o 

> 

c 
m 

CM 

I 

o 



•a 




o 




■a 




c 


(0 


3 

u. 


0) 


E 


4>< 


S 


o 


O) 


c 


o 


o 






^ 

*(/> 


o 

0> 




0> 


0) 


w 






S 




Q. 





B c 

*§ - . « j;: 

_8-^.iilS 
il|l8|? 

a y s — v» V r^ 

o >^ > JS- ^ 3 



« I 

f^ in C .S 

« O O 73 
opvo ao S 

1-s si § 







I. 5 

:= X5 _, On 

E -2 ® 2 

^ JJ C^ 00 
D.- O 1 





o 




CO 




c 




o 


r" 


03 


i) 


OU 


c 


"^ 


o 


J3 


O O 



O. 00 

O 00 



J= 2 
E ^ 



i2 Q. 

1 1 

o o. 

E j= 

■3 .2 

c/5 x: 



2 

.2 B 
2 •" 



eg o t: > O 






^ D. 

[5) 2 



2 I 
E^ 






2 ■« S 5 c 



o t; 

.2, S 



<U "^ i> 



d ^ 

O _r 



C 2 

■2 C 

cU O 

IS W5 

2 y Ji 

w » U 

J3 (/I 

■o 



o 2 5 



3 T3 

E c 

es o 

§>! 

k o 



00 £: 

o — 



2 § 



00 S 

> « 






^ o 



a. j= 



t: Q 

O '^ 

E -5 






« -S 



3 ed « 



:S .S tS .E 





</l CO 

CU T3 

e 2 

3 </> 

68 CQ 

2 c 

2 = 

CU ^ 

Z 2 

« — 

•©2 



b .2 2^ c c 



JJ o 



"2 >^ 



O 



<^ -5 



II 

Sfi ca 
2 00 



c — 

O 60 



CO "2 



*~ « T3 Q. 
■2 00 C O 15 

s^ ^ a: o 

in -a T3 C ~ 
k- <U «J w Ji 

lllll 

^ E 

"3 U 2 
•5 -i. ex 

2 S ^ 
o. 

3 
O 
;_ 
OO 



<-» 5 



Sa = 



u 



- a 
•2 ^ 



o 



w o 
c^ 2 



!£ i2 o 

2 o i 

^H E 
" c 

2^ E 
Cu 15 

on « 

</) _ *i 

tS .2 -^ 

~ o E 

u ^ 5 

w *^ E 

^ I 8 

Q. U C/5 



I " - e « 
Lm flj t* ^ CO 



c c: 
o >- 

o (£ 

^ CO 

E I 

o £ 
U to 
^ "rt 
O = 

> 

< o 

.2 'i 
E fc 

.2 :2 

._ VI 

u 8 

" 00 

•S c 
■o "-o 
c E 

u 



- 2 o 



:^' P 



E ^O 

o u 

> u 

< (35 Q 



E ^ 73 ^ 

^ - U J -5 o 

0X1 ci ^ CU (/) ca a 

a. u ^ § u £ ^ 



o 

if u. 

e >> 

® Si 

Q- F 

V) u 
V 01) 



c 

'•B 

c 

3 
U. 

c 
o 

43 

s 
a 

o 

c 
o 

E 
c 
o 

^ 

'> 

c 

LiJ 



I 

(0 

I- 



3 2. 



O) a) 



ft. 

O) o ♦- 

» S S 

N O c 

O <0 Q> 

I « £ 

3 '5) o> 

< o < 



■o 

is 

u. ^ 

2 o 
o> c 
2.2 

9: o 
w «> 
o © 



0) 

z ^ 



O) 
O 



Is 



c « £ 
y > .2 



S 00 

o c 

U o 

■o c 



.- 'S s 

'ob 'K « 

>>Q = 

•o " .. 

Ji = S 

« := E 

sB i 

x: es « 
U -S- o 

00 .iJ <^ 

^ S 4^ 

^-' eo *^ 

S3 7: = 

>> 



^ 



m O 



»N 



O 
C/5 g V) 

00 .2 « 



u 



« 



M 



u ^ i 

'o U ^ 

D W O 

00 q o 

* « o' 

« 5/5 O 

o -^ "^ 

o — ' «>^ 

~ ^ c 

"^ ?iP.2 

o .E - 



<N 



c 
.2:2 I 

O U *-' 
^ "O (/I 

O _3 _« 

a! u S 
£•£■■5 

(SOU 

g "^ is 

.2^3 

= o a- 
P "5 o 



*^ c i 

.2 8 £ 

lis 

O S -c on 

a B. <^ 
^ = 2 

- E ;;; 






I « - 

^ o "O tu 

p O 13 -J 

c Q- c « 
S <=" ^ 

.2 IE 



3 i: 
■o 

•S CD 



c o 



I J 1 



o o 
« E 



•C (iS ii 

3 ^ i/i 



o 2 






■•-* 


u 


u 


> 


_o 






'5 


"o' 


(J 




y 


c 


O 


« 


Q 



o. •" 00 

E 
o 






« 5 '-S 

E n g 



•5 2. •— -^ 
ea _ = c 

E 

E 



^ E 
£3 '^ 



c ;.= 2 .H, 



:3 in C 

■S -on 



o a 

«< a 

— « 

o to .~ c •S t; 



o — .ii 



c — 
o oo 

— OS 



§ - " 

" ,^ k- 

T3 

</) •" -s = ^ — 

C S^ ^ v-i _ -^ 

•s § . = ««>- 

.2 c 00 B> u u, ■'s 

W C Qv k- ^ W 

Q. <« Ov g - a _^ 

lis 






« , •= - ti 



« r^ ^ ^. to , 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

This section identifies and describes programs expected to provide future environmental 
benefits. This section covers a representative sample, and is not meant to be a comprehensive 
listing of all possibilities statewide. The summary table at the end of the section delineates 
structural habitat improvement projects, instream flow and Delta flow augmentation projects, and 
wetlands programs. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

The following section provides an overview of expected future work on some of the 
environmental restoration actions authorized in the act, focusing on actions such as water 
acquisition and fish screening which are applicable to the entire Central Valley. Site-specific 
projects such as construction of the Shasta Dam TCD are described in Chapters 7 through 9 . 
Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. 

The May 1997 draft AFRP plan proposed habitat restoration actions such as spawning 
gravel placement and stream channel restoration, acquisition of land for wildlife habitat, 
construction offish screens and facilities to improve passage of migrating anadromous fish, and 
development of plans to prevent habitat degradation because of sedimentation and urbanization. 
It also included target instream flows for rivers and streams in the Central Valley and the Delta. 
The three tools available for the Department of Interior to use to meet these flow objectives are 
reoperation of the CVP, dedication and management of 800,000 af of CVP yield annually, and 
water acquisition. Tools available to meet CVPIA's broad goal of doubling anadromous fish 
populations in the Central Valley include the many physical habitat restoration actions specified 
in the act, as well as substantial funding from the CVPIA restoration fund and from general 
congressional appropriations. As described in the environmental water use section of Chapter 4, 
the Department has included representative future water demands from the AFRP in the 2020 
forecast of environmental water use. USBR and USFWS would acquire supplemental fishery 
water (and water for full habitat development at wildlife refuges) via the longer-term program 
planned to replace the interim program described earlier in this chapter. 
Anadromous Fish Screen Program. 

Under this program, USBR and USFWS have contributed funding for local agency and 
privately owned fish screen installation projects, as 

6-91 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

well as for planning studies. Examples of completed and pending projects were described in 

Chapter 5. 

Spawning Gravel/Riparian Habitat Restoration Program. 

To date, USBR and USFWS have completed two spawning gravel replenishment projects 
on the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam. Additional projects are being planned for the 
Sacramento and the other authorized rivers. This program is analogous to an on-going operations 
and maintenance program, where work would be done periodically on river segments identified 
as needing gravel replenishment. A monitoring program would be required, both to identify areas 
that are gravel-limited, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the gravel provided. 

1994 Bay-Delta Agreement 
Category III Program. 

As part of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, a special funding program. Category III, was 
established to address nonflow factors affecting the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. A 
Category III Steering Committee, consisting of agricultural, urban and environmental 
stakeholders administered the project selection process, resulting in 32 restoration projects 
funded in 1995 and 1996. The projects approved for funding included land acquisitions, fish 
screens, habitat restoration, and toxicity study for a total up to $21.5 million. Table,6-22 shows 
Projects funded to date. 



692 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-22. Bay-Delta Category III Projects Funded to Date 
Project / Program Proponent 



Category III 
Funds 



Battle Creek Restoration 

Durham Mutual Fish Screen and Fish Ladder 

M&T/Parrott Pump Relocation and Fish Screen 

Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Program 

Sac. River Habitat Restoration (Colusa to Verona) 

Suisun Marsh Screening Project 

Sac. River Winter-Run Broodstock Program 

Western Canal Water District Butte Creek Siphon 

Prospect Island Restoration 

Sac. R. Habitat Restoration (Verona to Collinsville) 

Princeton Pumping Plant Fish Screens 

Princeton-Codora-Glenn/Provident ID Fish Screen 

Cosumnes River Preserve (Valensin Acquisition) 

Lower Butte Creek Habitat Restoration 

Sherman Island Levee Habitat Demonstration 

Ecological Functions of Restored Wetlands in the 
Delta 

Molecular Genetic Identification of Chinook Salmon 
Runs, Focused on Spring-Run Integrity 

Decker Island Tidal Wetland Enhancement 

Yolo Bypass Habitat Restoration Study 

Clear Creek Property Acquisition Assistance 

Research Program to Address the Introduction of 
Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species 

Sac. River and Major Tributaries Corridor Mapping 

Fish Screen for Unscreened Diversion on Yuba R. 

Effects of Toxics on Central Valley Chinook Salmon 

Barrier Intake Screen at Wilkins Slough Diversions 

San Joaquin River to Main Lift Canal Intake Channel 
Fish Screen Facility 

Adams Dam Fish Screen and Fish Ladder 

Gorrill Dam Fish Screen and Fish Ladder 

Testing of Fish Screen for Small Unscreened Diver. 

Watershed Management Strategy for Butte Creek 

Establish Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy 

Inventory of Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Salmon 



Department of Fish and Game 
Durham Mutual Water Company 
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 
Comm. Alliance w/ Family Farmers Fnd. 
Wildlife Conservation Board 
Suisun Resources Conservation Dist. 
Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen's Assoc. 
Western Canal Water District 
Department of Water Resources 
DWR/The Reclamation Board 
Reclamation District 1 004 
PCGID/PID 

The Nature Conservancy 
The Nature Conservancy 
Department of Water Resources 
University of Washington 

Bodega Marine Laboratory 



$730,000 

up to $4 16,500 

$1,550,000 

$660,000 

$400,000 

up to $950,000 

$300,000 

$2,739,000 

up to $2,535,000 

$500,000 

$75,000 

$5,575,000 

$1,500,000 

$130,000 

up to $480,000 

$475,000 

$450,000 



Port of Sacramento 


$399,000 


Department of Fish and Game 


$226,000 


Bureau of Land Management 


up to $21 1,000 


San Francisco Estuary Institute 


$197,000 


University of California, Chico 


$145,200 


Browns Valley Irrigation District 


$114,750 


Fox Environmental Management 


$110,000 


Reclamation District 108 


$100,000 


Banta-Carbona Irrigation District 


$100,000 


Rancho Esquon Partners 


up to $100,000 


Gorrill Land Company 


up to $100,000 


Buell and Associates 


$90,000 


University of California, Chico 


$83,000 


Western Shasta Resource Consv. Dist. 


$50,000 


Calif State University, Sacramento 


$24,500 



TOTAL 



$21,515,950 



6-93 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options Front a Statewide Perspective 

In 1 997 C ALFED became the lead agency for implementing the Category III program. 
Funding sources for the program consist of $10 million from stakeholders and $60 million from 
Proposition 204 frmding. The Ecosystem Roundtable, a subcommittee of the Bay-Delta Advisory 
Council, provides stakeholder input on CALFED ecosystem restoration projects, as well as 
priorities for near-term restoration and selection of Category III projects. 

In June 1997, Request for Proposals were distributed to solicit projects to be funded with 
the $70 million. To determine which proposals would be ftinded, 1 3 technical review panels 
made up of State, federal, and local expects, were established, each addressing a particular area 
of restoration (i.e., wetlands, gravel, fish screens). Evaluation results were forwarded to the 
Integration Panel which consist of 1 8 State, federal, and non-agency technical representatives. 
The panel will then identify the package of projects and programs that will comprise the 1997 
Category III funding recommendation. Funding recommendations will be coordinated with 
appropriate other frmding sources (e.g., CVPIA) and programs through other agencies such as 
EPA and SWRCB. After the Integration Panel recommendations are reviewed by the Ecosystem 
Roundtable and BDAC, the CALFED Policy Group, the decision making body of CALFED, will 
make final approvals. 

One example of a project that was provided with Category III fiinding is the Prospect 
Island restoration project, a pilot Delta shallow water habitat project sponsored by the 
Department and the Corps. Prospect Island, located in Solano County in the northwestern part of 
the Delta, covers approximately 1,600 acres, with the restoration project amounting to almost 
1,300 acres of that total. 

The project's objectives are to create wetland habitat, restore fish and wildlife habitat, 
create shaded riverine aquatic habitat, and decrease maintenance costs on the Sacramento 
Deepwater Ship Channel levee. Most of the 1,300-acre project area had been in agricultural land 
use with crops such as com, saffiower, sugar beets, and wheat. The project includes flooding the 
interior of Prospect Island to create internal islands in the flooded area, stabilizing the existing 
levees by flattening the slopes, and stabilizing the levees and internal islands with erosion 
control plantings. The Ship Channel and Miner Slough levees will be breached in one location 
each, restoring fijll tidal action to the site. 

6-94 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

The USAGE is the federal sponsor of the project under WRDA Section 1 135 authority 
and the Department is the nonfederal sponsor, with funding support from Category III. USBR 
purchased the 1,300 acre site with CVPIA funds in 1995. After restoration is completed, USFWS 
will manage the property in conjunction with the nearby Stone Lakes Refuge. Category III has 
established an endowment fund of $1.25 million for the long-term maintenance of the project. 
CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program 

CALFED's Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan is to provide the foundation for a long- 
term ecosystem restoration effort that may take several decades to implement. The ERPP will be 
included in each of the alternatives being evaluated in the Programmatic EIR/EIS. The Draft 
ERPP was circulated for review in mid- 1997. Some proposed actions contained in the plan 
include: 

• Breeching levees for intertidal wetlands 

• Constructing setback levees to increase floodplain and riparian corridors 

• Limiting further subsidence of Delta islands by implementing measures such as restoring 
wetlands to halt the loss of peat soil. 

• Controlling introduced species and reducing the probability of additional introductions. 

• Acquiring land or water from willing sellers for ecosystem improvements. 

• Providing incentives to encourage environmentally friendly agricultural practices. 
Congress authorized $430 million over the next 3 years for the federal share of CALFED 

programs such as Category III and initial implementation of the ERPP, and appropriated $85 
million for federal fiscal year 1998. Proposition 204 also included $390 million for 
implementation of the ERPP; however, this funding will not be available until after CALFED's 
PEIR/EIS has been completed. 

Other Environmental Enhancement Options 
Sherman and Twitchell Islands Wildlife Management Plans. 

The objective of both management plans is to implement land use management programs 
that effectively control subsidence and soil erosion on Twitchell and Sherman Islands, while also 
providing significant wetland and riparian habitat for wildlife. The plans are designed to benefit 
wildlife species that occupy wetland, upland, and riparian habitat, and provide recreational 
opportunities such as walking trails and wildlife viewing. Subsidence would be reduced by 

6-95 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statevt/ide Perspective 

minimizing oxidation and erosion of the peat soils on the islands, by replacing present 
agricultural cultivation practices with land use management practices designed to stabilize the 
soil. Such practices range from minimizing tillage to establishing wetland habitat. 

Altering land use practices on Twitchell Island could provide up to 3,000 acres of 
wetland and riparian habitat managed for wildlife, flood control benefits, more protection of 
Delta water quality and supply reliability, and more recreational opportunities in the Delta. 
Fish Protection Agreements. 

To mitigate fish losses at Delta export facilities, both the SWP and CVP have entered into 
agreements with DFG. Subsequent to execution of USBR's agreement with DFG, CVPIA 
directed USER to substantially upgrade Tracy Pumping Plant's fish protection facilities, even to 
the extent of constructing a new screening facility. Planning studies are now under way for a 
major upgrade of the existing facility. The Department's four-pumps agreement with DFG has 
funded, or cost-shared, in many habitat restoration actions upstream of the Delta since its 
inception, as noted in Chapter 2. Discussions are presently ongoing regarding the possibility of 
using the remainder of the agreement's capital outlay funds to construct a fish hatchery on the 
Tuolumne River. 
Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Restoration Program (SB 1086). 

As described in Chapter 2, elements of the 1989 plan prepared by this program were 
incorporated in CVPIA, or are being considered in forums such as the CALFED Bay-Delta 
program. In 1 992 the Resources Agency reconvened the SB 1 086 Advisory Council. The 
council's current charge is two-part: (1) to serve in an advisory capacity to State agencies 
responsible for those portions of the CVPIA that are likely to affect the Upper Sacramento River 
and adjacent lands, and (2) to complete the Council's earlier work concerning riparian habitat 
protection and management. The goals for the latter item include establishing a riparian habitat 
management area and a governance or management entity for the area. Recommendations are 
being developed for the boundaries of a riparian habitat conservation area, management 
objectives by river reach, and the type of governance organization that could most effectively 
carry out the management plan. 



6-96 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluatmg Options From a Statewide Perspective 

Financing Local Water Management Options 

Many of the options discussed in the Bulletin will require a large commitment of funds 
and other resources to implement and maintain them over time. When a local agency is 
confronted with additional expenditures for water management options, it must decide whether 
the costs of these options will be paid from current or accumulated revenues (pay-as-you-go), or 
be financed with the proceeds of debt repaid from future revenues. Although this financial 
commitment is a challenge for all levels of government, it is especially critical for local water 
agencies, which find it increasingly difficult to finance water system improvements. Historically, 
local water agencies relied upon a number of conventional methods for long-term debt financing, 
including general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and assessment bonds. However, innovative 
long-term debt financing strategies, such as bond pools, are being increasingly used. 

Financial costs are different from economic costs. Financial costs are the actual 
expenditures, required by a water agency to repay the debt (with interest) incurred to finance the 
capital costs of an option and to meet operations and maintenance costs. Thus, the objective of 
financial feasibility studies is to solve "cash flow" problems. In contrast, economic costs reflect 
the costs of committing resources needed to construct, operate and maintain an option for life, to 
whomever they may accrue. Economic feasibility studies are used to compare the relative merit 
of options, to determine the most economically efficient size or configuration of an option, and to 
allocate costs among beneficiaries. It is possible for options to be financially feasible and 
economically unjustified, or vice versa. For example, even though an agency can generate the 
funds to pay for an opfion, this does not necessarily mean that the option is economically the best 
of available options. On the other hand, an option may be economically justified but it canno: be 
financed because of existing debt limitations. 

Financial feasibility is becoming an increasingly important consideration in water supply 
management planning for a number of reasons: 

• Aimual statewide demands are expected to exceed available water supplies. Thus there is 
a need to develop water supply augmentation and demand management programs; 

• Compliance with new EPA and DHS drinking water standards is likely to increase capital 
expenditures by municipal water agencies; 

6-97 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluatiryg Options From a Statewide Perspective 

• Some water suppliers have deferred maintenance and/or replacement of aging facilities to 
the point where they are beginning to experience significantly increased operation, 
maintenance and replacement costs; 

• Since the 1980s the federal government has been reducing aid to state and local 
governments for large-scale water resources projects, a trend which is expected to 
continue; 

• Since the early 1990s, the California Legislature has been shifting property tax revenues 
away from counties and special districts and into the State's general fimd. 

Sources of Revenues 

Whether capital improvements are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis or through debt 
financing, the water agency must have sufficient revenues to cover capital costs as well as 
ongoing operation and maintenance costs. The major sources of revenue for publicly-owned 
systems include water rates charged to customers, property taxes (although use of these has been 
limited since passage of Proposition 13), and benefit assessments through special improvement 
districts. Because of voter opposition to further tax increases, local governments have 
increasingly relied upon other revenue sources such as development impact fees from new 
construction, standby fees, and fees for special services. These alternatives are typically only 
feasible for agencies with large service areas, so that income from these fees will be significant 
and reliable. Private investor-owned water agencies and mutual water companies are almost 
exclusively dependent upon water rates to generate revenues. Tables 6-23 and 6-24 show 
significant sources of revenue for water agencies by type of ownership and by agency size. 

Financing Methods 

The ability of a local public agency to access different financing methods depends upon 
the enabling legislation under which the agency was formed. Among other things, the enabling 
legislation will indicate the agency's: 

• authority to issue bonds (including general obligation bonds and revenue bonds), the vote 
required to authorize issuance, and any limitations on the amounts of bonds or on the 
amount of indebtedness; 

• powers and methods of tax assessments, including whether the assessments are on an ad 
valorem basis (a tax based on value of property) or are levied according to benefits, and 

6-98 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

the type of property (land and/or improvements) upon which the assessments may be 
levied; 

• revenue sources, including charges, rates or tolls for service or commodities or sales and 
leases of property, etc.; 

• the area over which the agency can collect taxes and/or sell services or commodities. 



Table 6-23. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by Type of 

Ownership 

Revenue Source Publicly-Owned Investor-Owned Mutual 

Water Rates X XX 

Property Taxes X 

Special Improvement District Assessments X 

Development Impact Fees X 

Customer Hookup Fees X 

Special Service Fees X X 

Source: California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water into the 21st Century. January 1993. 



Table 6-24. Significant Sources of Revenue to Water Agencies by 

Water Agency Size 

Revenue Sources Small Intermediate Medium Large 

Water Rates XX XX 

Property Taxes X X X 

Special Improvement District Assessments X XX 

Development Impact Fees X 

Customer Hookup Fees X 

Special Service Fees X 



Source: California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water into the 21st Century. January 1993. 



Self-Financing. 

Self-financing, or pay-as-you-go, is a form of non-debt financing. A water agency can use 
reserves generated from accumulated revenues and other income to pay for improvements rather 
than incurring debt. The pay-as-you-go approach generally works best for small or recurring 



6-99 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

capital expenditures that can be reasonably accommodated in an agency's annual budget. 
However, for major capital improvements, a debt financing approach would be more appropriate. 
Short-Term Debt Financing. 

Short-term debt financing typically includes short-term borrowing instruments with 
maturities of less than 1 year. Short-term borrowing can be used for cash flow borrowing, 
financing for capital improvements with relatively short lives, and interim financing for long- 
term capital improvements: 

• Cash Flow Borrowing. Revenue and tax anticipation notes can be used when an agency is 
experiencing cash flow problems because revenues (from charges or taxes) are occurring 
unevenly during the fiscal year. Revenue and tax anticipation notes can be used to pay 
current expenses, with note repayment coming from revenues received later in the fiscal 
year. 

• Financing for Short-Lived Capital Assets. Capital items with relatively short lives can be 
financed through the use of commercial paper, which are short-term, unsecured 
promissory notes backed by a line of credit from one or more banks. 

• Interim Long-term Financing. Short-term financing methods can provide interim 
financing for the construction of capital improvements which are anticipated to be 
financed on a permanent basis at a later date. Examples of interim financing include grant 
anticipation notes (where the permanent funding could be a grant from another 
government agency) and bond anticipation notes (where the permanent funding will come 
through the issuance of long term debt such as bonds). 

Conventional Long-term Debt Financing. 

Conventional long-term debt financing methods include general obligation bonds, 
revenue bonds, assessment bonds, and lease or installment sales agreements, all of which are 
typically used by publicly-owned utilities: 

• General Obligation Bonds. These bonds are typically used to finance improvements 
benefitting the community as a whole, and they are secured by the full faith and credit of 
the agency. General obligation bonds issued by public water agencies are secured by a 
pledge of the agency's ad valorem taxing power (i.e., the power to tax property based 
upon its value). However, the passage of Proposition 1 3 (and its requirement for two- 

6-100 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 

thirds voter approval) has limited the ability of agencies to assess additional property 
taxes which would be needed to fulfill this pledge, thereby reducing the use of these 
bonds. General obligation bond limits are often established by a water agency's enabling 
legislation. 

• Revenue Bonds. These bonds do not require the agency's pledge of full faith and credit. 
Debt service for these bonds is paid exclusively from a specific revenue source, such as 
the revenue obtained from the operation of the financed project. Because revenue bonds 
do not require voter approval, they are now more commonly used than general obligation 
bonds. 

• Assessment Bonds. These bonds are issued to finance capital improvements and debt 
service, and are paid through assessments levied upon real property benefitted by such 
improvements and are secured by a lien on that property. Under the Mello-Roos 
Community Facilities Act of 1982, water agencies may establish a Community Facilities 
District and levy a special tax upon land within that district. This tax can be used to 
finance capital improvements (generally distribution systems), new services or to repay 
bonds issued for such purposes. However, the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 
substantially changed the way in which property-related assessments can be imposed by 
local agencies. In the future, these assessments must be subjected to a vote of the property 
owners. 

• Lease or Installment Revenue Bonds. Taxpayer resistance and state statutes (Proposition 
1 3) have limited the taxing and borrowing ability of local agencies, thus reducing the use 
of general obligation bonds. As a result, lease revenue bonds have become common. In 
California, a form of a lease revenue bond is the Certificate of Participation. With a COP, 
facilities are built or acquired by an agency of the city, and leased to the city, for which 
the city makes lease payments equal to the principal repayment plus interest. Either a city 
non-profit corporation or a community redevelopment agency must be used as the 
intermediary leasing entity, but that agency must give the facilities to the city free and 
clear without added expense when the indebtedness is repaid. 



6-101 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Innovative Long-term Debt Financing. 

New long-term debt financing strategies are being developed to assist water agencies to 
obtain funding for water system improvements. Two examples of these strategies are bond pools 
and privatization: 

• Bond Pools. Bond pools increase access to bond funds for smaller water agencies which 
might not otherwise be able to obtain this type of funding. Bond pools require the use of a 
JPA to combine ("pool") several small bond offerings into a single financial package, 
thereby minimizing the cost of bond issuance for participating water agencies. The 
Association of California Water Agencies and the WateReuse Association offers such 
financial packages. 

• Privatization. Privatization occurs when the private sector becomes involved in the 
design, financing, construction, ownership and/or operation of a public facility such as a 
water system improvement. Privatization can offer several advantages. For example, it 
may be cheaper and/or more available than other forms of financing and it also may 
provide substantial tax advantages to the private sector. When the publicly-owned water 
agency's access to the financial markets is diminished or nonexistent, such as is the case 
for many smaller utilities, privately arranged financing may be an attractive option. 
Although privatization has been used in other states, it is not common in California. 

• Water Transfers. Another potential opportunity for water agencies (especially agricultural 
agencies) involves the transfer of water in exchange for water system improvements. An 
example is the negotiated agreement between the MWDSC and the IID, where the 
MWDSC is financing more than $200 million in IID system improvements in exchange 
for a 35-year right to approximately 106,000 af of water per year. 

Credit Substitution and Enhancement. 

Although not financing methods, credit substitution and enhancement can assist local 
agencies in obtaining financing and in lowering the costs of financing. Credit substitution occurs 
when an agency substitutes its own credit for that of a local agency that is seeking to finance a 
project. As a result, the local agency can improve the quality of its bonds and generally obtain 
them at a lower cost. Credit enhancement occurs when an agency guarantees that the debt service 



6-102 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluatirig Optior)s From a Statewide Perspective 

obligations will be met, which can be a low cost and effective way for states to assist local 

agencies. 

State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs. 

State and federal financial assistance programs (loans and grants) are available to water 
agencies. These programs target numerous objectives, including safe drinking water, water 
conservation, water recycling, and water supply development (for example, groundwater 
recharge projects). Each of these programs has established criteria to determine project eligibility 
and funding. Most of the state and federal programs do not provide funding to investor-ovmed 
and mutual companies because this is considered to be adding value to privately owned 
businesses. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization may provide approximately 
$12.4 billion fi-om 1997 through 2003 for current and new drinking water programs, including a 
State Revolving Fund of $1 billion per year nationally through 2003. Table 6-25 shows some of 
the major state and federal financial assistance programs available for water system 
improvements, along with the objectives of the programs and the agencies which administer 
them. 

The passage of Proposition 204 (Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act) in November of 
1996 authorized $995 million to be spent upon a variety of statewide water reliability/supply 
programs and environmental restoration. Some of these programs include grants to local agencies 
for a variety of purposes. For example, the Department will administer two programs that will 
provide loans (and in some cases, grants) to local agencies for water conservation/groundwater 
recharge facilities ($30 million) and local projects ($25 million). The SWRCB will also 
administer loans for water recycling, including $60 million for loans and grants for local 
feasibility studies and $30 million for grants to small communities for the construction of eligible 
treatment projects. 



6-103 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-25. Major State and Federal Financial Assistance Programs 

Administering 
Agencies 



Financial Assistance Programs 



Objectives 



State 



Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws 



Water Conservation Bond Laws 



Agricultural Drainage Water Management 
Loan 

Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act of 
1996 (Proposition 204) 



Grants/low interest loans for 
public water system 
improvements 

Low interest loans for water 
conservation, groundwater 
recharge, local water supply, and 
water recycling projects 

Low interest loans for 
agricultural drainage projects 

Low interest loans and grants for 
water conservation, groundwater 
recharge and water recycling 
projects 



Department of Water 
Resources/Department of 
Health Services 

Department of Water 
Resources/State Water 
Resources Control Board 

State Water Resources 
Control Board 

Department of Water 
Resources/State Water 
Resources Control Board 



Federal 



Water and Waste Water Disposal 
Loans/Grants 



Community Development Block Grants 
(HUD) 



Small Business Administration Loans 



Loans and grants to small 
communities for water and 
wastewater facilities 

Grants to large communities for 
water and wastewater facilities 



Loans for private water system 
improvements 



Farmers Home 
Administration 

Housing and Urban 
Development through 
Department of Housing & 
Community Deyeloment 

Small Business 
Administration 



Federal/State 



Clean Water Act SRF 



Safe Drinking Water Act SRF 



Low interest loans for water 
recycling projects 

Low interest loans for public 
water system improvements 



State Water Resources 
Control Board 

Under development 



Relationship Between Financing and Water Agency Ownership and Size 

As mentioned above, the types of financing available can vary depending upon the 
ownership and size of the water agencies. These relationships are discussed below: 
Public Water Agency. 

In general, public water agencies have a greater availability of financing methods 
compared to private investor-owned and mutual water companies. Many long- and short-term 
financing instruments will be tax-exempt for publicly-owned agencies. The larger public 
agencies can issue tax-exempt notes and bonds, assess property taxes, issue special assessment 



6-104 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



bonds, and enter into public/private partnerships to finance capital improvements. A smaller 
public agency may be unable to secure these types of financing because either the cost of that 
method (such as the cost of issuing bonds) or the amount of funds needed to make improvements 
exceeds the ability of its customers to pay. In these cases, the smaller agencies need to either 
obtain federal and state assistance, if available, or pursue innovative financing methods. Local 
public agencies must limit their rates to amounts needed to cover current financing and water 
costs—they are not allowed to make a profit. 
Investor-Owned Water System Financing. 

Investor owned utilities are owned by an individual, partnership, corporation, or other 
entity. These utilities have the capability of issuing equity stock and selling taxable bonds of 
their company. The California Public Utilities Commission must give authorization prior to the 
issuance of any stocks or bonds of an investor-owned water company. This method of financing 
is primarily limited to the larger investor-owned systems. The smaller investor-owned agencies 
generally do not issue stock and may lack the rate base that would make other financial methods 
feasible. The CPUC establishes the return on investment that investor-owned utilities are allowed 
to earn as part of its rate setting authority. Regulated investor-owned agencies are not able to 
accumulate reserves. They may use both short-and long-term taxable bonds and notes. 
Mutual Water Companies. 

A mutual water company is a privately owned company that issues securities in which lot 
owners are entitled to one share for each lot they own. Mutual water companies have the ability 
to assess members to raise capital. This does not require the approval by either the members or 
an outside agency. The amount of the assessment may be limited, however, by the ability of the 
customers to pay. As a requirement of formation of a mutual water company, a sinking fund must 
be established that provides capital replacement of water facilities at the end of their useful life. 
Some of the larger mutual companies may be able to use short- and long-term financing 
instruments such as taxable bonds and notes. 



6-105 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-26. Financing iVIethods Available to Water Agencies by Type of 

Ownership 



Financing Method 



Publicly- 
Owned 



Investor- 
Owned 



Mutual 



Self-Financing 
Short-Term Financing 

Fixed Rate Notes 

Commercial Paper 

Floating Rate Demand Notes 
Conventional Long-Term Financing 

Equity Shares or Stock 

Bonds (GO and Revenue) 

Lease Revenue 
Innovative Long-Term Financing 

Bond Pools 

Privatization 

Water transfers 
Financial Assistance Programs 



X 
X 
X 



X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 



X' X 

X' X' 

X' X' 

X X 

X' X' 



X 

x^ 



X 
X 

x^ 



Taxable instruments. 

State and federal loan and grant programs have limited applications for private water agencies. 
Source: California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water into the 21st Century. January 1993. 



Tables 6-26 and 6-27 summarize types of financial methods available by ownership type 
and size of water districts. Tables 6-28 and 6-29 summarize financial assistance programs by 
ownership type and size of water districts. 



6-106 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-27. Financing Methods Available to Water Agencies by Water Agency Size 



Financing Method 


Small 


Inter- 
mediate 


Medium 


Large 


Self-Financing 






X 


X 


Short-Term Financing 










Fixed Rate Notes 








X 


Commercial Paper 








X 


Floating Rate Demand Notes 








X 


Conventional Long-Term Financing 










Equity Shares or Stock 






X 


X 


Bonds (GO and Revenue) 








X 


Lease Revenue Bonds 








X 


Innovative Long-Term Financing 










Bond Pools 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Privatization 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Water Transfers 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Financial Assistance Programs 


X' 


X' 


X' 


X' 


' State and federal loan and grant programs have limited 


applications for private water 


agencies-see Table 6-25 




Source: California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water into 


the 2 J St Century. January 1993. 





Table 6-28. Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Type 
of Ownership 



Financial Assistance Programs 
& Administering Entity 



Publicly- Investor- Mutual 
Owned Owned 



State 

Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws 

Water Conservation Bond Laws 

Agricultural Drainage Water Management Loans 

Community Development Block Grants 

State Revolving Fund for Wastewater 

State Revolving Fund for Drinking Water 

Federal 

Water and Waste Water Disposal Loans and Grants 

Community Development Block Grants 

Small Business Administration Loans 



X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 



X(l) 



X(l) 



Source: California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water into the 21st Century. January 1993. 
(1) Loans only; grants not provided to privately-owned agencies. 



6-107 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 6. Evaluating Options From a Statewide Perspective 



Table 6-29. Financial Assistance Programs Available to Water Agencies by Water 

Agency Size 



Financial Assistance Programs 


Small 


Intermediate 


Medium 


Large 


state 


Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Water Conservation Bond Laws 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Agricultural Drainage Water Management 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Loans 










Community Development Block Grants 


X 


X 


X 




State Revolving Fund for Wastewater 


X 


X 


X 


X 


State Revolving Fund for Drinking Water 


X 


X 


X 


X 


Federal 


Water and Waste Water Disposal Loans and 


X 


X 


X 




Grants 











Community Development Block Grants 
Small Business Administration Loans 



X 



X 



X 



Source: California Department of Health Services. Drinking Water into the 21st Century. January 1993. 



6-108 



DRAFT 




3 1175 02347 7790 



_i»y 



THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 


BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 


rxcunfEo 




JUL 1 5 2005 




i PSL 


\ 


m. 6m 




f;r**««fCfj 




DEI 1 m^j 




PSLcS-^ 





LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 



D4613-1 (5/02)M 




^:^Avi° 



Pete Wilson 

Governor 

State of California 



David N. Kennedy 

Director 

Department of Water Resources 



Douglas P. Wheeler 

Secretary for Resources 

Resources Agency