(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"

TC82A 
C£ 

no. 160-9 
is V . £ 
jphys Sci 

Lib. 
Stx 



January 1998 



S 




Volume 2 
Public Review 

DRAFT 



Public Review Draft 



CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN UPDATE 



Bulletin 160-98 



Volume II 
January 1998 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

FES 0^. 1998 
GOV I. u^^. ■ J 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

VOLUME II CONTENTS 

Chapter 7. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Coastal Regions of California . 7-1 

North Coast Hydrologic Region 7-1 

Description of the Area 7-1 

Water Demands and Supplies 7-5 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 7-7 

Klamath River Fishery Issues 7-7 

Trinity River Fish & Wildlife Management Program 7-8 

Small Coastal Communities 7-9 

Russian River Environmental Restoration Actions 7-11 

Improving Russian River Quality 7-12 

SCWA Water Supply and Transmission Project 7-12 

Potter Valley Project 7-12 

Water Management Options for the North Coast Region 7-13 

Water Conservation 7-17 

Urban 7-17 

Agricultural 7-17 

Modifying Existing Reservoirs or Operations 7-17 

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities 7-17 

Onstream Storage 7-17 

Offstream Storage 7-18 

Conveyance Facilities 7-18 

Groundwater and Conjunctive Use 7-18 

Water Recycling 7-19 

Desalination 7-19 

Water Resources Management Plan for North Coast Region 7-19 

San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region 7-2 1 

Description of the Area 7-21 

Water Demands and Supplies 7-23 

North Bay 7-23 

South Bay 7-25 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 7-28 

Bay-Delta Estuary 7-28 

Suisun Marsh 7-29 

iii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Local Water Agency Issues 7-29 

Water Management Options for the San Francisco Bay Region 7-35 

Conservation 7-38 

Urban 7-38 

Agricultural 7-38 

Modiiy Existing Reservoirs/Operations 7-38 

New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities 7-39 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 7-39 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 7-39 

Water Recycling 7-40 

Desalination 7-41 

Other Local Options 7-4 1 

Statewide Options 7-4 1 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 7-41 

State Water Project Improvements 7-42 

Drought Water Bank 7-42 

Enlarged Shasta Lake 7-42 

Water Resources Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region 7-45 

Central Coast Hydrologic Region 7-47 

Description of the Area 7-47 

Water Demands and Supplies 7-49 

Northern PSA 7-49 

Southern PSA 7-50 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 7-51 

Water Management Options for the Central Coast Region 7-55 

Water Conservation 7-60 

Urban 7-60 

Agricultural 7-60 

Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations 7-60 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 7-61 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 7-63 

Water Transfers/Exchange 7-64 

Water Recycling 7-64 

Desalination 7-65 

Other Local Options 7-65 

iv DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Statewide Options 7-66 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 7-66 

State Water Project Improvements 7-66 

Enlarged Shasta Lake 7-66 

Water Resources Management Plan for Central Coast Region 7-66 

South Coast Hydrologic Region 7-69 

Description of the Area 7-69 

Water Demands and Supplies 7-71 

Los Angeles Aqueduct 7-72 

Colorado River Aqueduct 7-72 

State Water Project 7-74 

Local Surface Water Supplies 7-75 

Groundwater Supplies 7-78 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 7-80 

Water Supply Reliability 7-80 

Eastside Reservoir 7-81 

San Diego Emergency Storage Project 7-81 

Management of California's Colorado River Water 7-82 

Mono Basin 7-83 

Restoration of Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries 7-83 

Ballona Wetlands Preserve 7-83 

Santa Monica Bay 7-84 

Flood Control 7-85 

Los Angeles River 7-85 

Santa Ana River 7-86 

Water Quality Issues Associated with Imported Water 7-86 

MWDSC/USBR Salinity Management Study 7-87 

Groundwater Issues 7-89 

San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys 7-89 

San Bernardino 7-90 

Ventura County 7-91 

Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study 7-92 

Water Transfers 7-92 

Mexican Border Environmental Quality Issues 7-93 

Water Management Options for South Coast Region 7-94 

DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Water Conservation 7-98 

Urban 7-98 

Agricultural 7-98 

Reoperation of Flood Control Reservoirs 7-98 

Prado Dam 7-99 

Hansen and Lopez Dams 7-99 

Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams 7-99 

New Reservoirs 7-99 

Groundwater Conjunctive Use Storage 7-100 

Water Transfers 7-101 

Colorado River Region Transfers 7-101 

Central Valley Water Transfers 7-107 

Water Recycling 7- 1 07 

Desalination 7-110 

Groundwater Recovery 7-110 

Ocean Water Desalination 7-111 

Statewide Options 7-112 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 7-112 

State Water Project Improvements 7-112 

Drought Water Bank 7-113 

Enlarged Shasta Lake 7-113 

Water Resources Management Plan for South Coast Region 7-113 

Chapter 8. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Interior Regions of California . 8-1 

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region 8-1 

Description of the Area 8-1 

Water Demands and Supplies 8-5 

CVP Water Supply 8-5 

Supply from Other Federal Water Projects 8-6 

SWP Water Supply 8-7 

Local Surface Water Supply 8-7 

Groundwater Supply 8-8 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 8-9 

Sierra Nevada Foothills 8-9 

vi DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Publ,c Rev,ew Draft cal,forn,a Water Plan 

Colusa Basin Drainage District g. 1 

Groundwater Management Actions g. 1 1 

Sacramento Water Forum g. 1 2 

Foothill Area Water Supply from American River Basin g-13 

American River Flood Protection g. 1 5 

Yuba River Flood Protection g.|g 

Sacramento River Mainstem Flood Protection and Water Supply g-1 7 

Reliability ofFacilities in the Sierra Foothills g.l7 

Putah Creek Adjudication g. I g 

Fish Passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam g.jg 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen g.] g 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Activities in the Sacramento Valley 8-19 

Water Needs for Rice Field Flooding g.2i 

Water Management Options for the Sacramento River Region 8-22 

Water Conservation g.24 



Urban 



8-24 



Agricultural g.24 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations g.25 

New Reservoirs g.25 

Onstream Storage g.25 

Offstream Storage g.27 



Groundwater 



8-28 



Conjunctive Use g.29 

Water Transfers g.29 

Water Recycling g.30 

Other Local Options g.30 

Statewide Options g.3Q 

SWP Supplies g.30 

Auburn Dam g.3 j 

CVPIA Water Acquisitions Program g-3 1 

Water Resources Management Plan for Sacramento River Region g-33 

San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region g.35 

Description of the Area g.35 

Water Demands and Supplies g.37 

Surface Water g.3g 

vii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Groundwater 8-41 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 8-42 

Cosumnes River Flood Management 8-42 

Integrity of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Levees 8-42 

Interim South Delta Program and Temporary Barriers Project 8-43 

San Joaquin County Groundwater Overdraft 8-44 

Penn Mine Remediation 8-45 

Conservation Storage in Farmington Reservoir 8-46 

New Melones Reservoir Water Supply and Operations 8-46 

Urban Growlh Pressures from San Francisco Bay Area 8-47 

East Contra Costa County Water Supply Management Study 8-47 

Los Banos Grandes Reservoir Studies 8-49 

Merced Area Conjunctive Use Study 8-50 

Managing Agricultural Drainage Discharges to the San Joaquin River 8-50 

Grassland Bypass Channel Project 8-51 

San Joaquin River Real Time Drainage Monitoring Program 8-53 

Enlargement of Friant Dam 8-53 

Instream Flow Requirements Below Friant Dam 8-54 

Environmental Restoration Activities in San Joaquin River and Tributaries 8-54 

Wetlands/Wildlife Refuge Water Supply Issues 8-57 

January 1997 San Joaquin River Region Flood Event 8-57 

Water Management Options for the San Joaquin River Region 8-58 

Water Conservation 8-58 

Urban 8-58 

Agricultural 8-58 

Modify Existing Reservoirs 8-60 

New Reservoirs 8-60 

Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage Project 8-61 

Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage Project 8-61 

New Conveyance Facilities 8-62 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 8-62 

Water Recycling 8-63 

Groundwater Desalination 8-63 

Statewide Options 8-64 

Enlarge Friant Dam 8-64 

viii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 

California Water Plan 
Auburn Dam . 

8-64 

CVPIA Water Acquisitions Program 

Water Resources Management Plan for the San Joaquin River Region ^4 

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 

8-A7 

Description of Area 

8-67 

Water Demands and Supplies 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 

8-72 

Groundwater Overdraft 

8-72 

Groundwater Banking Programs 

^ ^ 8-73 

uroundwater Quality 

^ . , 8-73 

Agricultural Drainage 

8-74 

Arroyo Pasajero and Other Westside Cross-drainages g 74 

Kings River Fishery Restoration Actions 
Water Management Options for the Tulare Lake Region 

Water Conservation 

8-77 

Urban .... 

8-77 

Agricultural .... 

8-77 

Modifying Existing Reservoirs and New Reservoirs ... 

o-7o 

Additional Storage in Kings River Basin 

o-7o 

Additional Storage in Kaweah River Basin 3 ^o 

Additional Storage in Tule River Basin .... 

8-79 

New Conveyance Facilities 

8-80 

Groundwater and Conjunctive Use 

8-80 

Water Transfers . . 

8-82 

Water Recycling 

^ ,. . 8-83 

Uesalmation . . . 

8-83 

Statewide Options 

8-84 

Land Retirement . . 

8-84 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

State Water Project Improvements 

8-84 

Drought Water Bank 

8-84 

Enlarged Shasta Lake 

8-84 

CVPIA Water Acquisition Program 

8-85 



Water Resources Management Plan for Tulare Lake Region 



8-86 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Califomia Water Plan 

Chapter 9. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 

Regions of California 9-1 

North Lahontan Hydrologic Region 9-1 

Description of the Area 9-1 

Water Demands and Supplies 9-4 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 9-10 

Truckee River Operating Agreement 9-10 

Walker River 9-11 

Lake Tahoe 9-12 

Leviathan Mine 9-13 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project 9-13 

January 1997 flood event 9-14 

Water Management Options for the North Lahontan Region 9-14 

Water Conservation 9-15 

Urban 9-15 

Agricultural 9-15 

New Reservoirs 9-17 

Groundwater 9-17 

Water Resources Management Plan for the North Lahontan Region 9-18 

South Lahontan Hydrologic Region 9-20 

Description of the Area 9-20 

Water Demands and Supplies 9-23 

Los Angeles Aqueduct 9-24 

State Water Project 9-25 

Local Surface Water Supplies 9-26 

Groundwater Supplies 9-27 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 9-29 

Owens Valley Area 9-29 

Mono Basin 9-30 

Mojave River Adjudication 9-32 

Antelope Valley Water Management 9-33 

Interstate Groundwater Basins 9-34 

Water Management Options for South Lahontan Region 9-35 

Water Conservation 9-35 

DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Urban 9-35 

Agricultural 9-35 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 9-35 

New Reservoirs 9-35 

Water Transfers and Banking 9-37 

Water Recycling 9-37 

Other Local Options 9-37 

Line Palmdaie Ditch 9-37 

Reduce Outflow to Playa Lakes 9-37 

Statewide Options 9-38 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 9-38 

State Water Project Improvements 9-38 

Enlarged Shasta Lake 9-38 

Water Resources Management Plan for the South Lahontan Region 9-39 

Colorado River Hydrologic Region 9-4 1 

Description of the Area 9-4 1 

Water Demands and Supplies 9-43 

Supplies from the Colorado River 9-44 

Supplies from Other Sources 9-49 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 9-50 

Management of California's Colorado River Water 9-50 

Tribal Water Rights 9-54 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 9-54 

San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act 9-54 

Water Conservation and Transfers 9-55 

Salton Sea 9-56 

Coachella Valley Groundwater Overdraft 9-59 

Environmental Water Issues in the Colorado River Basin 9-60 

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Consen'ation Program 9-61 

Water Management Options 9-62 

Potential Sources of Water for Intrastate Transfers 9-62 

Other Conservation Actions 9-66 

Urban 9-66 

Agricultural 9-66 

Intrastate Groundwater Recharge or Banking 9-66 

xi DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Interstate Banking/Conservation 9-67 

Prior banking 9-67 

Future banking 9-67 

Land Fallowing Program 9-68 

Reoperating Colorado River System Reservoirs 9-68 

Water Augmentation (Weather Modification) 9-68 

Options for Coachella Valley 9-69 

Conjunctive Use Programs 9-69 

Purchase Additional SWP Water/Transfers Conveyed by SWP 9-69 

Statewide Options 9-70 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 9-70 

State Water Project Improvements 9-70 

Enlarged Shasta Lake 9-70 

Water Resources Management Plan 9-70 

Chapter 10. Conclusions 10-1 

Meeting Demands with Existing Facilities & Programs 10-1 

Water Supply 10-2 

Water Demand 10-2 

Water Shortages 10-3 

Recommended Options to Meet Future Demands 10-5 

Summary of Options 10-6 

Statewide Overview 1 0-9 

Recommended Actions 10-13 

FIGURES 

Figure 7- 1 . Coastal Hydrologic Regions 7-2 

Figure 7-2. North Coast Hydrologic Region 7-3 

Figure 7-3. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region 7-22 

Figure 7-4. Central Coast Hydrologic Region 7-48 

Figure 7-5. South Coast Hydrologic Region 7-70 

Figure 7-6. South Coast Groundwater Basins 7-79 

Figure 8-1 . Interior Regions Hydrologic Area 8-2 

Figure 8-2. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region 8-3 

xii ' DRAFT 



Bullelin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Figure 8-3. San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region 8-36 

Figure 8-4. Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 8-68 

Figure 9-1 . Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Hydrologic Regions 9-2 

Figure 9-2. North Lahontan Hydrologic Region 9-3 

Figure 9-3. South Lahontan Hydrologic Region 9-21 

Figure 9-4. Colorado River Hydrologic Region 9-42 

Figure 9-5. Lower Basin Allocations and Consumptive Use 9-48 

SIDEBARS 

Salinas Valley Reclamation Project/Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project 7-52 

San Diego Area Reclamation Program 7- 1 09 

Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility 7-1 11 

Sacramento River Flood Control Project 8-15 

Westlands Water District Distribution System 8-77 

Water Marketing - WaterLink Program 8-83 

Searles Lake 9-28 

Colorado River Operations 9-53 

Colorado River Board of California 9-53 

Multipurpose Facility Considerations 10-6 

TABLES 

Table 7-1 . Population and Crop Acreage 7-4 

Table 7-2. North Coast Region Water Supply and Demand 7-5 

Table 7-3. North Coast Region Comprehensive List of Water Management Options 7-14 

Table 7-4. Ranking Options for the North Coast Hydrologic Region 7-16 

Table 7-5. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 7-20 

Table 7-6. Population and Crop Acreage 7-21 

Table 7-7. San Francisco Bay Region Water Supply and Demand 7-23 

Table 7-8. Major North Bay Water Suppliers 7-24 

Table 7-9 . Reservoirs of Local Agencies Serving the North Bay 7-24 

Table 7- 1 0. Major South Bay Water Suppliers 7-26 

Table 7-11. Local Surface Reservoirs Serving the South Bay 7-26 

Table 7-12. Comprehensive List of Options 7-36 

Table 7-13. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Options Ranking 7-43 



xin 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Table 7-14. Options Most Likely to be Implemented 7-45 

Table 7-15. Population and Crop Acreage 7-47 

Table 7-16. Central Coast Region Water Demands and Supplies 7-49 

Table 7-17. Comprehensive List of Options 7-56 

Table 7-18. Ranking of Options 7-59 

Table 7-19. Options Most Likely to be Implemented 7-68 

Table 7- 20 Population and Crop Acreage 7-71 

Table 7-21. South Coast Region Water Demand and Supply 7-72 

Table 7-22. Member Agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 7-73 

Table 7-23. State Water Project Contractors in the South Coast Region 7-74 

Table 7-24. Major Reservoirs in the South Coast Region 7-75 

Table 7-25. Major Local Storage Reservoirs in MWDSC's Service Area 7-76 

Table 7-26. San Diego County Water Authority Member Agencies 7-77 

Table 7-27. Member Agencies of Municipal Water District of Orange County 7-78 

Table 7-28. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins in the South Coast Region 7-80 

Table 7-29. TDS of Groundwater Supply 7-88 

Table 7-30. South Coast Region Options Comprehensive List 7-95 

Table 7-31. Some Initial Elements of the Colorado River 4.4 Plan 7-106 

Table 7-32. Options Ranking 7-115 

Table 7-33. Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 7-116 

Table 8- 1 . Population and Crop Acreage 8-4 

Table 8-2. Sacramento River Region Water Demand and Supply 8-5 

Table 8-3. Comprehensive List of Options Sacramento River Region 8-23 

Table 8-4. Options Evaluations Sacramento River Region 8-32 

Table 8-5. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

Sacramento Region 8-33 

Table 8-6. Population and Crop Acreage 8-35 

Table 8-7. San Joaquin River Water Demands and Supplies 8-37 

Table 8-8. Actual New Melones Releases 8-47 

Table 8-9. Selenium Load Values 8-52 

Table 8- 1 0. Monthly Exceedance Fees 8-52 

Table 8-11. Annual Exceedance Fees 8-52 

Table 8-12. Comprehensive List of Options San Joaquin River Region 8-59 

Table 8-13. Options Evaluation San Joaquin River Region 8-65 

Table 8-14. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

xiv DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

San Joaquin River Region 8-66 

Table 8-15. Population and Crop Acreage 8-67 

Table 8-16. Tulare Lake Region Water Demands and Supplies 8-70 

Table 8-17. Comprehensive List of Options Tulare Lake Region 8-76 

Table 8-18. Options Evaluation Tulare Lake Region 8-85 

Table 8-19. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

Tulare Lake Region 8-87 

Table 9- 1 . Population and Crop Acreage 9-4 

Table 9-2. North Lahontan Region Water Demands and Supplies 9-5 

Table 9-3. Statistics for Major Reservoirs on the Truckee River in California 9-7 

Table 9-4. North Lahontan Region Comprehensive List of Options 9-16 

Table 9-5. Options Evaluation. North Lahontan Region 9-18 

Table 9-6. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020. North Lahontan Region . . 9-19 

Table 9-7. Population and Crop Acreage 9-22 

Table 9-8. South Lahontan Region Water Demands and Supplies 9-24 

Table 9-9. Los Angeles Aqueduct System Reservoirs 9-25 

Table 9-10. SWP Contractors in the South Lahontan Region 9-25 

Table 9-11. South Lahontan Region Comprehensive List of Options 9-36 

Table 9-12. Options Evaluation. South Lahontan Region 9-39 

Table 9-13. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020. 

South Lahontan Region 9-40 

Table 9-14. Population and Crop Acreage 9-4 1 

Table 9-15. Colorado River Region Water Demands and Supplies 9-44 

Table 9-16. Key Elements of the Law of the River 9-45 

Table 9-17. Apportionment of the Colorado River 9-46 

Table 9-18. Colorado River Inflow and Uses 9-49 

Table 9-19. State Water Project Contractors in the Colorado River Region 9-49 

Table 9-20. Existing Colorado River Water Conservation Programs 9-56 

Table 9-2 1 . Comprehensive List of Options. Colorado River Region 9-63 

Table 9-22. Potential Colorado River Water Conservation Programs 9-64 

Table 9-23. Colorado River Region Options Evaluation 9-72 

Table 9-24 Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020. Colorado River Region 9-73 

Table 10-1. California Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 10-1 

Table 10-2. Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region 10-4 

Table 10-3. California Water Plan 2020 Options Summary by Category 10-7 

DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Table 10-4. California Water Budget with Recommended Options 10-10 

Table 10-5. Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region. With Implementation of 

Water Management Options 10-12 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating and Managing 

Water Resources in California 2A-1 

Allocation and Management of California's Water Supplies 2A-1 

California Constitution Article X, Section 2 2A-1 

Riparian and Appropriative Rights 2A-1 

Water Rights Permits and Licenses 2A-2 

Groundwater Management 2A-2 

Public Trust Doctrine 2A-3 

Federal Power Act 2A-5 

Area of Origin Statute 2 A-6 

Environmental Regulatory Statutes and Programs 2A-7 

Endangered Species Act 2A-7 

California Endangered Species Act 2A-7 

Natural Community Conservation Planning 2A-8 

Dredge and Fill Permits 2A-8 

Public Interest Terms and Conditions 2A-9 

Releases of Water for Fish 2A-9 

Streambed Alteration Agreements 2A-9 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 2A- 1 

Environmental Review and Mitigation 2A-10 

National Environmental Policy Act 2A-10 

California Environmental Quality Act 2 A- 10 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 2A- 1 1 

Protection of Wild and Natural Areas 2A-1 1 

Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2A-1 1 

California Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2A-12 

National Wilderness Act 2A- 1 2 

Water Quality Protection 2A- 1 3 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 2A-13 



XVI 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Clean Water Act -- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2A-13 

Safe Drinking Water Act 2A- 1 4 

California Safe Drinking Water Act 2A-14 

Historic Background -- Bay-Delta Regulatory Actions 2A- 1 5 

Decision 1485 2A- 1 5 

Racanelli Decision 2A- 1 6 

SWRCB Bay-Delta Proceedings 2A-16 

Fish Protection Agreements 2 A- 1 7 

Surface Water Management 2 A- 1 8 

CVPIA 2A-18 

Regional and Local Water Projects 2A-20 

Water Use Efficiency 2A-20 

Urban Water Management Planning Act 2A-2 1 

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act 2A-21 

Agricultural Water Management Planning Act 2A-21 

Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act 2A-22 

Agricultural Water Conservation and Management Act of 1992 2A-22 

Water Recycling Act of 1 99 1 2A-22 

Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 4A-1 

Water Retail Pricing 4A-I 

Acquisition and Delivery Costs 4A-1 

Water Availability 4A-2 

Characteristics of Service Area 4A-3 

Rate Structure 4A-3 

Fixed Charges 4A-3 

Consumption-Based Charges 4A-3 

Assessments 4A-4 

Urban Retail Water Costs 4A-4 

Impacts of Retail Prices on Water Use 4A-5 

Price Elasticity of Demand 4A-5 

Factors That Affect the Price Elasticity of Residential Water Demand 4A-6 

Recent Studies of the Urban Price Elasticity of Demand 4A-6 

Agricultural Water Costs 4A-8 

xvii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Impacts of Price on Agricultural Water Use 4A-10 

Comparing Agricultural and Urban Water Costs 4A-1 1 

Source and Reliability Costs 4A-1 1 

Transportation Costs 4A-1 1 

Delivery Costs 4A-1 1 

Appendix 4B. BMP Revisions 4B-1 

Appendix 6A. Estimating a Water Management Option's Cost Per Acre-Foot 6A-1 

Common Cost Issues 6A- 1 

Data Availability 6A- 1 

Assumptions 6A-3 

Method of Analysis 6A-3 

Option-Specific Cost Issues 6A-4 

Conservation 6A-4 

Water Recycling 6A-5 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 6A-5 

Surface Water Reservoirs 6A-5 

Water Transfers 6A-6 

Appendix 6B. Ratings of Alternative South-of-Delta Reservoir Sites 6B-1 

Appendix 7A 7A-1 

Appendix 8A 8A-1 

Appendix 9A 9A-1 

Appendix lOA lOA-1 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ABB-1 

Glossary Gl-1 

xviii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

TABLES 

Table 2A-1. Agencies with AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plans 2A-3 

Table 4A-1 . Types of Local Water Agencies in California 4A-2 

Table 4A-2. Studies of Urban Water Demand Price Elasticity 4A-7 

Table 4A-3. DWR Survey of 1996 Agricultural Surface Water Costs 4A-8 

Table 4A-4. Average Water Costs as a Percent of Total Production Costs for Selected Crops in the 

Tulare Lake Region 4A-9 

Table 4A-5. Price Elasticities of Demand for Surface Water for Irrigation 4A-1 1 

Table 6A-1. Economic Cost/af Examples 6A-4 

Table 7A-1 . Options Evaluation North Coast Region 7A-2 

Table 7A-2. Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region 7A-3 

Table 7A-3. Options Evaluation Central Coast Region 7A-6 

Table 7A-4. Options Evaluation South Coast Region 7A-8 

Table 8A- 1 . Options Evaluation Sacramento River Region 8A-2 

Table 8A-2. Options Evaluation San Joaquin River Region 8A-4 

Table 8A-3. Options Evaluation Tulare Lake Region 8A-5 

Table 9A-I . Options Evaluation North Lahontan Region 9A-1 

Table 9A-2. Options Evaluation South Lahontan Region 9A-2 

Table 9A-3. Options Evaluation Colorado River Region 9A-3 

Table lOA-1. North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-2 

Table lOA-2. San Francisco Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-2 

Table lOA-3. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-3 

Table lOA-4. South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-3 

Table lOA-5. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-4 

Table lOA-6. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-4 

Table lOA-7. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-5 

Table lOA-8. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-5 

Table lOA-9. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-6 

Table lOA-lO. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs lOA-6 

Table lOA-1 1 . North Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-7 

Table lOA-12. San Francisco Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-7 

Table lOA-13. Central Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-8 

Table lOA-14. South Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-8 

Table lOA-15. Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-9 

xix DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft California Water Plan 

Table lOA-16. San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-9 

Table lOA-17. Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-10 

Table lOA-18. North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-10 

Table lOA-19. South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-1 1 

Table IOA-20. Colorado River Region Water Budget with Recommended Options lOA-1 1 



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 1998 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 1995 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 shovm 
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 160-98 is printed. 

2. SWRCB'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 shown in data tables may not add due to rounding. 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Chapter 7. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in 
Coastal Regions of California 

This chapter covers the Coastal hydrologic regions of the State: the North Coast, San 
Francisco Bay, Central Coast, and South Coast (Figure 7-1). These four regions make up 29 
percent of the State's land area but was home to 78 percent of the State's population in 1995. 
North Coast Hydrologic Region 
Description of the Area 

The North Coast Region comprises the Pacific Ocean coastline from Tomales Bay to the 
Oregon border, extending inland to the crest of coastal watersheds. The region includes all or 
large portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte. Trinity. Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma 
counties. Small areas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn. Colusa, and Marin counties are also within the 
North Coast Region (see Figure 7-2). 

Most of the region is comprised of rugged mountains; the dominant topographic features 
are the Klamath Mountains and the Coast Range. Mountain elevations range from 5,000 feet 
along the coast to more than 8,000 feet in the Klamath River watershed. Valley areas include the 
high plateau of the Klamath River basin in Modoc County, the Eureka/Arcata area, Hoopa Valley 
in Humboldt County, Anderson Valley, the Ukiah area, Alexander Valley, and the Santa Rosa 
plain. 

Precipitation in the region varies depending on location and elevation. In the Modoc 
Plateau of the Klamath River basin, annual precipitation averages 10 inches, while higher 
elevation lands of the Smith River basin in Del Norte County average more than 100 inches of 
rain a year. The southern portion of the region is drier; Santa Rosa averages about 29 inches of 
rain annually. 



7-1 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Coastal Regions of California 



Figure 7-1. Coastal Hydrologic Regions 



North 


/ t 


^ North 


Coast J 


Socromento 
River 


La h onto 



San Froi.^..-^^-' 
Boy 



San Joaquin 
River 



South 
Coast 



7-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Ctiapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Figure 7-2. North Coast Hydrologic Region 




10 20 30 

SCM-E tN MILES 



7-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Most land area in the North Coast Region is forest or range land. Irrigated agriculture is 
concentrated in the narrow river valleys such as the Russian River in Sonoma County, and on the 
high plateau of the Klamath River basin. The primary crops are pasture, grain, alfalfa, 
winegrapes, truck crops, and nursery stock. Principal cities in the region include Crescent City, 
Eureka, Fort Bragg. Ukiah, Santa Rosa, Mendocino and Rohnert Park. Table 7-1 shows the 1995 
population and irrigated crop acreage in the region and 2020 forecasts. 

Most of the region is comprised of rugged mountains; the dominant topographic features 
are the Klamath Mountains and the Coast Range. Mountain elevations range from 5.000 feet 
along the coast to more than 8,000 feet in the Klamath River watershed. Valley areas include the 
high plateau of the Klamath River basin in Modoc County, the Eureka/ Areata area, Hoopa Valley 
in Humboldt County. Anderson Valley, the Ukiah area, Alexander Valley, and the Santa Rosa 
plain. 

Precipitation in the region varies depending on location and elevation. In the Modoc 
Plateau of the Klamath River basin, annual precipitation averages 10 inches, while higher 
elevation lands of the Smith River basin in Del Norte County average more than 100 inches of 
rain a year. The southern portion of the region is drier; Santa Rosa averages about 29 inches of 
rain annually. 

Most land area in the North Coast Region is forest or range land. Irrigated agriculture is 
concentrated in the narrow river valleys such as the Russian River in Sonoma County, and on the 
high plateau of the Klamath River basin. The primary crops are pasture, grain, alfalfa, 
winegrapes, truck crops, and nursery stock. Principal cities in the region include Crescent City, 
Eureka, Fort Bragg, Ukiah, Santa Rosa, Mendocino and Rohnert Park. Table 7-1 shows the 1995 
population and irrigated crop acreage in the region and 2020 forecasts. 



Table 7-1 . Population and Crop Acreage 
(in thousands) 

1995 2020 

Population 606 83.'^ 

Irrigated Crop Acres 323 335 



7-4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Water Demands and Supplies 

Because of the water allocated to the North Coast's wild and scenic rivers, environmental 
water use comprises the majority of the total water demand in the North Coast Region. 
Water shortages are only expected to occur under drought conditions in the North Coast Region, 
as shown in Table 7-2. These water shortages will be mostly in the USBR's Klamath Project's 
service area and some small coastal communities. 

Table 7-2. North Coast Region Water Supply and Demand (taf) 





1995 


2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 










Urban 


169 


Ml 


201 


212 


Agricultural 


894 


973 


927 


1,011 


Environmental 


19,544 


9,518 


19,545 


9,518 


Total Applied Water 


20,607 


10,668 


20,672 


10,740 


Supplies 










Surface Water 


20.331 


10,183 


20,371 


10,212 


Groundwater 


263 


294 


288 


321 


Recycled and/or Desalted 


13 


14 


13 


14 


Total Supplies 


20,607 


10,491 


20,672 


10.546 


Shortages 





r^ 





194 



Three existing projects provide much of the North Coast's developed surface water supply 
— USBR's Klamath Project. USACE's Russian River Project, and Humboldt Bay Municipal 
Water District's Ruth Lake. The primary water storage facilities of USBR's Klamath Project are 
Upper Klamath Lake, Clear Lake, and Gerber Reservoir. This project was authorized by the 
Secretary of the Interior in 1905. and is one of the nation's earliest reclamation projects. The 
project's primary purpose is to store and divert water for agricultural use. The project service 
area includes more than 230.000 acres of irrigable lands in Oregon and California. The project 
also serves four national wildlife areas including the Lower Klamath. Tule Lake. Clear Lake, and 
Upper Klamath refuges. 

B^Photo: one of Klamath Project dams from USBR 



7-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Lake Mendocino on the East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and Lake Sonoma on Dry 
Creek near Geyserville are the water storage facihties of USACE's Russian River Project. 
SCWA receives most of the water from this project. SCWA delivers about 29.000 af annually to 
Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park. Cotati, and Forestville in the North Coast Region, and another 25,000 
af per year to Novate. Petaluma. the Valley of the Moon, and Sonoma in the San Francisco Bay 
Region. The Russian River project also regulates flow in the Russian River for agricultural, 
municipal, and instream uses within Mendocino and Sonoma counties, and municipal uses in 
Marin County. Water is imported from the Eel River into Lake Mendocino through the PG&E's 
Potter Valley Project. 

The 48.000 af Ruth Lake is Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District's water storage 
facility on the Mad River. Downstream Ranney collector wells direct water that is released from 
Ruth Lake for distribution in the Eureka-Arcata-McKinleyville area. Humboldt Bay MWD is a 
water wholesaler with seven municipal, two industrial, and about 200 miscellaneous water 
customers. The district has been delivering water since 1962. 

There is another large water development project in the North Coast ~ the Trinity River 
Division of the CVP -- but those facilities develop supply for the Central Valley and do not 
deliver water in the North Coast Region. The USBR constructed Trinity River facilities in the 
early 1 960s to augment CVP water supplies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. The 
principal features of the Trinity Division are Trinity Dam and the 2,477,700 af Clair Engle Lake 
on the upper Trinity River, Lewiston Dam. the 10.7-mile Clear Creek Tunnel beginning at 
Lewiston Dam and ending at Whiskeytown Lake in the Sacramento River basin. Spring Creek 
Tunnel, and Spring Creek Power Plant. 

Exports from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River basin began in 1963. From 1980 
through 1995, Trinity River exports averaged 825,000 af annually. In 1981. the Secretary of the 
Interior made a decision to increase instream flows in the Trinity River from 120,500 af to 
286,700 af in dry years, and 340,000 af in wet years. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior 
amended the 1981 decision, directing that at least 340,000 af be released into the Trinity River 
for water years 1992 to 1996, pending completion of a USFWS instream flow study. In 1992, 
CVPIA mandated that the secretarial decision remain in place until the instream flow study was 



7-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



completed, at which time the study's recommendations would be implemented. Currently, the 
USFWS administrative review draft of the Trinity River flow evaluation report recommends that 
537.000 af, 480.000 af, and 365,000 af be released in the Trinity River during normal, dry. and 
critically dry years, respectively. 

■tsfPhoto: Trinity Dam from USBR 
Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Klamath River Fishery Issues 

The primary water issue in the Klamath River basin is the restoration offish populations 
listed under the ESA. The Lost River and shortnose suckers have been listed under the ESA. 
The Lost River sucker is native to Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, and the shortnose 
sucker is found in the Lost River, Clear Lake, and Tule Lake. Both species spawn during the 
spring. Higher water levels in Klamath Lake may be a goal to aid recovery of these fisheries. 
Coho and steelhead were recently listed under the ESA. Water supply implications of the listing 
decisions will not be known until instream flow studies are completed and recovery goals are 
established. 

To address competing water needs for irrigation and fishery purposes. USBR began 
preparing a Klamath Project Operations Plan in 1995. This planning process was originally 
scheduled to reach consensus on drought-year water allocation by 1996. but the difficult and 
complex nature of the KPOP process have delayed plan preparation. The Klamath River Basin 
Compact Commission is attempting to assist in developing a project operations plan. This 
three-member commission was established by an interstate compact ratified by Congress in 1957 
to facilitate integrated management of interstate water resources and to promote 
intergovernmental cooperation on water allocation issues. Members include a representative 
from the Department, the Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, and a 
presidentially-appointed federal representative. 

Operation of the Klamath Project is presently in a state of flux. In 1996, USBR set an 
advisory water allocation schedule to maintain higher lake levels, and at the same time increased 
releases from Upper Klamath Lake to 1,000 cfs (290 cfs above the required minimum FERC 
releases of 710 cfs.) The purpose of higher Upper Klamath Lake levels was to protect the Lost 

7-7 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



River sucker and shorlnose sucker. Increased releases downstream of the Link River Dam were 
intended to protect salmon and steelhead populations in the Klamath River. The higher river 
releases and lake levels, coupled with less water in storage, impact late season irrigation 
deliveries to irrigators in the Klamath Project service area. 

c-^Photo: sucker 
Trinity River Fish & Wildlife Management Program 

Following completion of the Trinity River Division of the CVP in 1963, fish and wildlife 
populations in the Trinity River Basin declined dramatically. To reverse the fishery decline, the 
California Resources Agency established a statewide task force in 1967 to identify the causative 
factors and prescribe a corrective program. State and federal funds were budgeted to define 
problems, develop solutions, and begin restoring the river. 

One of the most significant problems identified was the inflow of decomposed granitic 
sand from Grass Valley Creek. In September 1980, Congress passed Public Law 96-335, which 
authorized construction of Buckhorn Mountain Debris Dam on Grass Valley Creek and sediment 
dredging in the Trinity River below Grass Valley Creek. In September 1982, a 5-year sediment 
dredging agreement was signed by DFG, DWR, and USBR. This agreement provided that the 
Department would be responsible for all work related to sediment dredging until October 1988 
and after that, the Department would continue to perform this work under contract to USBR. 

In 1983, the Secretary of the Interior increased downstream releases from Lewiston Dam 
to improve fishery habitat and allow the USFWS to conduct a 12-year instream flow study, 
which was originally scheduled to end in 1996. 

In October 1984. Congress passed PL 98-541 which authorized the Trinity River Fish and 
Wildlife Management Program. This Act provided $57 million (excluding the Buckhorn 
Mountain Debris Dam on Grass Valley Creek and sediment dredging costs) to implement actions 
needed to restore fish and wildlife populations in the Trinity River Basin to pre-project levels. In 
1993, an additional $15 million was authorized for the purchase of 17,000 acres of the Grass 
Valley Creek watershed and its restoration. 

Congress passed PL 104-143 in 1996, which extended the program three years from its 
original termination date to September 30, 1998. to allow expenditure of funds previously 



7-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



authorized, but not yet appropriated. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act (PL 93-638) has recently become an important part of the Trinity River Program. Three 
Indian tribes have indicated they want to participate in the program under the rules of this Act. 
which basically establish a government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the 
federal government. 

Further reauthorization the Trinity River Fish & Wildlife Management Program is 
currently under consideration. A draft environmental impact statement is being prepared which 
will deal with proposed streamflow changes and mainstem Trinity River restoration actions. 
Small Coastal Communities 

The town of Klamath in Del Norte County obtains its water supply from two wells 
adjacent to the Klamath River. During the recent drought, Klamath Community Services District 
wells experienced seawater intrusion, forcing the district to use an upstream private well in the 
Hoop Creek drainage area. All of Klamath's water supply in 1995 was obtained from the private 
well, and no water was pumped from the Klamath CSD's wells. In 1996, Klamath CSD pumped 
adequate supplies from its two wells, but seawater intrusion during dry years remains a problem. 
Although the Hoop Creek drainage area has adequate groundwater supplies, Klamath CSD does 
not have fiinding to construct an additional well. 

The town of Smith River, 13 miles north of Crescent City, gets its water supply from 
wells along Rowdy Creek. The town is experiencing spill-over growth from Brookings, a popular 
retirement and resort community on the Oregon Coast, about 7 miles north of the 
California-Oregon border. Water demands in the town of Smith River are expected to exceed the 
capacity of the town's delivery system if projected growth occurs. There are no plans to upgrade 
Smith River's water system. 

Growth in the Crescent City area created the need to expand the city's water distribution 
system, which consists of a Ranney collector well and pump station on the Smith River to a 
50,000 gallon storage tank. The Ranney collector can produce about 7,800 af, but the capacity of 
the existing transmission and storage system is only about 4,500 af. Crescent City is planning to 
add new mains, a new pump station, one additional booster pump, and a 4-mgd storage tank. 
The upgraded system will produce 5,900 af. The estimated cost is $6.74 million. A second 



7-9 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



phase will make additional distribution system improvements. These new conveyance facilities 
should meet the city"s demands through 2007. 

The Weaverville Community Services District in Trinity County serves about 1,370 
metered connections. In average water years, demands within the district are met with existing 
supplies from East and West Weaver creeks. During drought years, water rationing and building 
moratoria were needed to reduce demands. In response to drought year demands, a new diversion 
of up to 3 cfs from the Trinity River was constructed. The Weaverville area is expected to have 
adequate water supplies to meet demands over the next 30 years. 

Trinity County Water Works District #1 is investigating a wastewater treatment and reuse 
project for the Hayfork area. The project would treat wastewater currently disposed of by 
individual septic systems. This project would eliminate septic tank seepage into local streams 
and pro\ide infrastructure needed for new industries which might locate in the Hayfork Valley. 
The district's feasibility study identified a gravity collection system with a six acre oxidation 
pond and two smaller marsh areas as the best alternati\e for wastewater treatment. The project 
would treat 160 af annually, and has an option to reuse the treated water for irrigate agricultural 
lands or landscaping. The estimated cost for this project is $8,885,000. 

The City of Rio Dell obtains its water from a well on property owned by the Eel River 
Saw Mill. Pentachlorophenol has been detected in groundwater on the saw mill's property, 
although not in the city's well water. Rio Dell is planning to find an alternate water supply. The 
most likely alternative will be treated surface water from the Eel River. 

The Cit>' of Fort Bragg experiences water shortages during drought }'ears. The main water 
sources for the city are direct diversions from the Noyo River. Newman Reservoir, and Waterfall 
Gulch south of Highway 20. During a\erage rainfall years, water rights from these three sources 
are enough to meet the city's demands to the year 2020. However, supplies are inadequate to 
meet the city's needs during drought years while maintaining instream fish flows required by 
DFG. Due to drought year shortages, DHS issued an order in 1991 prohibiting new demands on 
the water system until adequate water supplies were developed. The city has been investigating 
alternate sources of supply in addition to implementing water conservation measures and 
improving existing system capacity. As a result of these corrective measures, DHS lifted its 



7-lQ 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



order in 1993 and allowed the eity to begin issuing building permits and making other 
commitments for water connections. 

In some smaller communities along the coast, groundwater use is constrained by 
limitations in aquifer storage capacity. Wells on low terraces near the ocean are potentially 
\ulnerable to seawater intrusion. The town of Mendocino is completel) dependent on individual 
wells. A local sur\ey conducted in 1986 showed that about 10 percent of the wells go dry every 
year and 40 percent go dry during drought years. In 1986. water was trucked in during summer 
and fall to help alleviate chronic shortages. The Mendocino City Community Services District 
investigated a new water supply sources, including new wells in the Big River aquifer and 
desalination. To date, no acceptable water source has been identified. In 1990. town residents 
approved de\eloping a public water system if an adequate water source could be found. The 
district is currently collecting hydrogeological data of the basin. 
Russian River Environmental Restoration Actions 

Water quality issues and barriers to tlsh migration in the Russian Ri\er are of concern in 
this river basin. No future water suppK shortages are forecasted for the river basin, although 
actions taken to protect recently listed salmonids may affect existing or future diversions. A 
Russian River Action Plan, prepared by the SCWA in 1997. provides a regional assessment of 
needs in the watershed and identifies a fishery habitat restoration projects in need of funding. 
The SWRCB is promoting a coordinated Russian River fishery restoration plan. The impacts of 
recent ESA listing of coho and steelhead on water diversions have not \et been established. 

The Eel-Russian River Commission, made up of count) supervisors from Humboldt, 
Mendocino. Sonoma, and Lake counties. pro\ ides a regional forum for agencies and groups to 
stay informed about projects and issues affecting the Eel and Russian ri\ers. The Commission 
was formed in 1978. under a joint powers agreement among the counties, to aid in 
implementation of an Eel-Russian Ri\er watershed conser\ation and development plan. A 
regional issue currently being addressed by the commission is the review of a draft 1 0-year 
fishery study by PG&E for its Potter Valley Project, required as a condition of a 1983 FERC 
license. 



7-11 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regiorts 



A project proposed by SCWA would allow fish passage through a flood control structure 
on Matanzas Creek in downtown Santa Rosa. The original structure, constructed in the early 
1960s for flood control, does not permit fish passage. SCWA also proposes to install a fish 
ladder at Healdsburg Dam on the main stem of the Russian River, a small flashboard dam used in 
the summer to create a recreational pool. 
Improving Russian River Quality 

The City of Santa Rosa is expanding its wastewater reclamation program by exploring 
alternatives to discharging treated wastewater into the Russian River. These alternatives include 
two options for using wastewater for irrigation projects and a third option for recharging depleted 
geothermal fields in the Geysers area. Because the water discharged to the Russian River would 
have been reused downstream, these options are not being considered to produce a new water 
supply. 

The lower Russian River area has several unincorporated communities that do not have 
community sewerage systems. These communities use on-site wastewater collection, treatment 
and disposal systems, such as septic tanks. Construction of a transmission pipeline to connect 
the communities to existing treatment plants, and the construction of community leachfields, is 
being evaluated. 
SCWA Water Supply and Transmission Project 

SCWA is proposing a project to develop additional water supply and expand its existing 
transmission system. Project components consist of water conservation, increased use of the 
Russian River Project, and an aquifer storage and recovery program (to meet emergency and 
standby water supply needs). 
Potter Valley Project 

PG&E's Potter Valley Project diverts water from the Eel River to the East Fork of the 
Russian River for power generation and downstream agricultural and municipal water use The 
project consists of Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury, Van Arsdale Diversion Dam and tunnel, and 
the Potter Valley Power Plant. The project diverts about 159,000 af of water and generates about 
60 million kilowatts-hours of energy. Releases are limited by required minimum flows on the 
Eel River and by requirements to maintain reservoir levels during the summer recreation season 



7-12 - DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



in Lake Pillsbury. PG&E is trying to secure additional operating revenue from the project and. il" 
unsuccessful, may sell, or abandon the project. Local agencies have expressed interest in 
acquiring the project if it were to be sold. 

Water Management Options for the North Coast Region 
Table 7-3 shows a comprehensive list of options for this region, and the results of an 
initial screening of the options. The retained options were evaluated (see Table 7A-1 in 
Appendix 7A) based on a set of fixed criteria as discussed in Chapter 6. The results of the 
evaluation are shown in Table 7-4. 



7-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-3. North Coast Region Comprehensive List of Water Management Options 



Category 



Option 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8ET„ 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior Cll Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 
Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficienc> Improvements 
Flexible Water Delivery' 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailvvater Recoverv 



Retain 

Defer A low level of water use has already been achieved. 

Retain 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Ewing Reservoir Enlargement 



Defer No demand for additional supply 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Boundary Reservoir - Lost River 
Beatty Reservoir - Sprague River 

Chiloquin Narrows Reservoir - Sprague River 

Montague Reservoir - Shasta River 

Grenada Ranch Reservoir - Little Shasta River 



Defer 
Defer 



Defer 



Defer 
Defer 



Low y ields. high cost. 

High cost, Indian archaeology and sucker habitat are 

concerns. 

High cost. Indian archaeology and sucker habitat are 

concerns. 

Low yields, high cost. 

Low yields, poor dam site and reservoir geology, high 



Table Rock Reservoir - Little Shasta River 
Highland Reservoir - Moffett Creek 
Callahan Reservoir - Scott River 
Grouse Creek Reservoir - E.F. Scott River 

Etna Reservoir - French Creek 
Mugginsville Reservoir - Mill Creek 
Various sites in Noyo/Navarro River Basins 



Long/Round/Aspen Valley Reservoirs - Klamath River Defer 



Georgia-Pacific Wood Waste Disposal Site 

Georgia-Pacific Replacement Site 

Georgia-Pacific Site No. 3 

Newman Gulch Site 

Large reservoir at Boddy Property Site 



Defer No surplus water, no local interest. 

Defer Low yields, high cost. 

Defer Low yields, high cost, no local interest. 

Defer Reservoir seepage a problem, high cost, no local 
interest. 

Defer Low yields, high cost, no local interest. 

Defer Low yields, excessive cost. 

Defer No local interest in off-stream storage: unfavorable 
environmental conditions 

Excessive capital cost, questionable reservoir geol- 
ogy. 

Defer Site not available. 

Defer Unfavorable geotechnical conditions. 

Defer Unfavorable geotechnical conditions. 

Defer Unfavorable geotechnical conditions. 

Defer Excessive capital cost. 



Smaller reservoir (at Boddv property site or alternate Retain 
location) 



7-14 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 





Table 7-3. Continued 


Waterfall Gulch Intake Improvement 
South Basin (City of Fort Bragg) 


Retain 
Retain 


Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

New wells 


Retain 


Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 


Water Recycling 

City of Fort Bragg 


Defer Unfavorable costs 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

City of Fort Bragg Project 
Seawater 

City of Fort Bragg Project 



Retain 



Retain 



Other Local Options 



Statewide Options 



7-15 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-4. Ranking Options for the North Coast Hydrologic Region 



Option 



Rank 



Cost per 
af 

($) 



Potential Gain 

(taf) 



Avg 



Drt 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Vse - New Development 
Outdoor Water Use -New and Existing Development 
Interior CII Water Use (2%) 
Interior CII Water Use (3%) 



IM 


750 


2 


2 


L 


* 


10 


10 


M 


500 


2 


2 


L 


750 


3 


3 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Smaller Reservoir (® Boddy property site or alternate 
location) 

Waterfall Gulch Intake Improvement 

South Basin (City of Fort Bragg) 



980 



M 


330 


M 


380 


H 


no 


M 


* 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

New wells - Fort Bragg and other small Coastal Communities 
Agricultural Groundwater Development 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

City of Fort Bragg Project 
Seawater 

City of Fort Bragg Project 



770 



4,400 



Data not available. 
Less than 1,000 a f. 



7-16 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Water Conservation 

Urban. The urban water supply forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; 
consequently, only those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as 
options. All urban conservation options except reducing residential interior water use were 
retained. The later option was deferred because interior water use has, on average, already 
attained the levels evaluated in the Bulletin for future water management options. Reducing 
outdoor water use to 0.8 ET„ in new development would attain about 2 taf per year of depletion 
reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development would reduce 
depletions by about 10 taf per year. Reducing commercial and industrial water use an additional 
2 percent and 3 percent would attain 2 and 3 taf per year of depletion reductions, respectively. 
There is less than 1 taf of depletion reductions attainable with reduction in distribution system 
losses. 

Agricultural. Agricultural conservation options were deferred from evaluation because 
there is little potential to create new water (reduce depletions) from them in the North Coast 
Region. 
Modifying Existing Reservoirs or Operations 

Trinity County Works District #1 has considered raising Ewing Dam. The dam was 
designed to be raised up to 12 feet to meet future water supply needs, increasing reservoir 
capacity from 800 af to 1.450 af Raising the dam 12 feet and modifying the spillway and outlet 
works would cost $1 .5 million. Plans to enlarge the reservoir were halted when a local lumber 
mill, the primary employer in Hayfork, closed, reducing the district's customer base by about 10 
percent. 
New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities 

Onstream Storage. Eleven onstream reservoirs in the Klamath River basin were evaluated 
and deferred, mainly because of high costs and relatively low yields. Cursory investigations of 
these projects were completed by USBR, the Department, or the Oregon State Water Resources 
Board. Recent studies completed by the City of Fort Bragg identified potential onstream 
reservoir sites in the Noyo River watershed; however, these sites were deferred due to environ- 
mental and economic concerns. 



7-17 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Offstream Storage. USBR investigated three offstream reservoirs in Oregon's Long, 
Aspen, and Round valleys adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake. These offstream storage plans were 
deferred due to excessive capital costs and the subsequent high cost for stored water. 

In 1993, the City of Fort Bragg moved forward with preliminary plans and an environ- 
mental impact report on its preferred long-term project, which included a 1,500 af offstream 
reservoir. The most promising location for the storage facility was the Georgia-Pacific Wood 
Waste Disposal site, which was being considered for closure. However, the company decided 
not to close the site. The city investigated other locations, but geotechnical investigations 
indicated that all except one of the sites was unsuitable. The most promising reservoir site, on the 
Boddy property, would store water pumped from the Noyo River during winter high flows. The 
water would be used during the summer months when the city cannot divert water and meet 
bypass flow requirements. The project originally envisioned was deferred due to high capital 
costs. A smaller reservoir (about 1,000 af at this or an alternate site) was evaluated. 

Conveyance Facilities. The City of Fort Bragg is investigating alternatives that could 
provide smaller amounts of additional water to help meet short-term needs. The city's diversion 
from Waterfall Gulch could be improved to capture an additional 1 1 af per year by lowering the 
intake structure. The city has also identified a number of small surface sources in the South Basin 
area. One location has significant flows in the season and could provide about 200 af per year. 
The city has initiated discussions with the Harbor District who owns the property where the 
diversion would be located. 
Groundwater and Conjunctive Use 

Surface water sources meet most of the water needs in the coastal regions. Communities 
with water shortage problems continue to look for possible groundwater sources and well 
locations to provide adequate supplies at reasonable cost. Although groundwater quality is 
generally good, supplies are limited by aquifer storage capacity. For example. Fort Bragg began 
a test program in 1994 to identify possible well sites that could produce about 400 af in drought 
years. 



7-18 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Water Recycling 

The City of Fort Bragg had considered a water reclamation project which involved using 
tertiary treated wastewater to replace the potable water used at a lumber processing plant. 
However, water conservation efforts by the plant since 1 990 reduced its water demand by more 
than 50 percent, rendering this option uneconomical. 

Other water recycling projects planned in the region would not generate a source of new 
supply from a statewide perspective. Recycling is a potentially important water source for local 
purposes, but does not create new water that would otherwise be lost to the hydrologic system. 
There are several projects planned which would produce about 15,000 af of recycled water to 
serve local water management needs for agricultural, environmental, and for landscape irrigation 
purposes. 
Desalination 

Interest in desalination as a long-term solution for the City of Fort Bragg increased when 
feasibility studies showed it was economically competitive with storage alternatives. The city 
evaluated two reverse osmosis alternatives — one involving seawaters and one involving brackish 
water. Both plant designs would produce about 1,000 af of potable water in drought years. 
Major cost components for the seawater plant would include the ocean intake structure, 
feedwater pipeline to the plant, and processing equipment. The brackish groundwater water plant 
would require wells, well field collection piping, and a feedwater pipeline into the plant. The city 
is conducting more detailed studies to identify the location of brackish water sources and brine 
disposal options. 

Water Resources Management Plan for North Coast Region 

By 2020, shortages in the region are forecast to be 1 94 taf in drought years. No average 
year shortages are forecast in 2020. The options likely to be implemented in this region to meet 
shortages are limited (Table 7-5). The majority of shortages in the region are agricultural and are 
expected to occur in the Klamath Project. The economics of crop production have a major 
influence on the extent to which growers can afford to find drought year water supply 
improvements. Additional groundwater development is a possibility in some areas of the 
Klamath Project, but there are little data available to evaluate this option. The ability to change 



7-19 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



cropping patterns in the northern part of the region is limited by the area's climatic conditions. 
There are no quantifiable options available in to meet agricultural shortages. 

Urban water conservation options could provide 4,000 af per year in water savings. The 
City of Fort Bragg is investigating short- and long-term options to improve its water supply 
reliability. The Waterfall Gulch Intake Improvement and the South Basin Diversion are smaller, 
short-term options for the Fort Bragg area, which would augment the city's water supply by 300 
af per year. Favorable long-term options are either an offstream storage facility or desalination 
project, which are not likely to be implemented in the near future. Small communities along the 
coast generally do not have the financial resources to construct major water supply projects, 
therefore they will continue to investigate new groundwater supplies. 



Table 7-5. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

North Coast Region 



Potential Gain 
Option (^^^ 



Avg Drt 



Shortage * 194 

Conservation - 4 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Recycling 

Desalination 

Statewide Options 



Total Potential Gain 



Remaining Shortage 190 

* Majority of shortages in this region are agricultural. Most agricultural shortages in this 
region are expected to occur in the Klamath Project area. 

* * Options with less than 1 ,000 af of yield are not shown. 



7-20 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region 
Description of the Area 

The San Francisco Bay Region (Figure 7-3) extends from soutiiern San Mateo County 
north) to Tomales Bay in Marin County, and inland to tlie confluence of the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin rivers near Collinsville. The eastern boundary follows the crest of the Coastal Ranges. 
The region includes all of San Francisco and portions of Marin. Sonoma. Napa, Solano, San 
Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. The San Francisco Bay Region is 
divided into the North Bay and South Bay planning subareas. Geographic features include the 
Marin and San Francisco peninsulas; San Francisco, Suisun, and San Pablo bays; and the Santa 
Cruz Mountains, Diablo Range, Bolinas Ridge, and Vaca Mountains of the Coastal Ranges. 
Streams flow into the bays or to the Pacific Ocean. 

The climate within the region varies significantly from west to east. The coastal 
areas are typically cool and often foggy. The inland valleys and interior portions of San 
Francisco Bay are warmer, with a Mediterranean-like climate. Consequently, per capita water use 
increases from west to east. The average annual precipitation in the region is 3 1 inches, ranging 
from 13 inches in Pittsburg to 48 inches at Kentfield, below Mount Tamalpias in Marin County. 

The region is highly urbanized and includes the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose 
metropolitan areas. Agricultural acreage is mostly in the north, with the predominant crop being 
grapes. In the south, more than half of the irrigated acres are in high-value specialty crops, such 
as artichokes or flowers. Table 7-6 summarizes the population and irrigated crop acreage for the 
region. 

Table 7-6. Population and Crop Acreage 
(in thousands) 



1995 2020 



Population 5,780 7,025 

Irrigated Crop Acres 65 65 



7-21 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Figure 7-3. San Francisco Bay IHydrologic Region 




SCALE IN MILES 



7-22 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Water Demands and Supplies 

Table 7-7 shows the water budget for the San Francisco Bay Region. Environmental 
water demands, primarily Bay-Delta outflow, account for most of the San Francisco Bay 
Region's water use. Water demands for Suisun Marsh are also included in environmental water 
needs. As shown in the table, water shortages are forecast only for drought years. 

Table 7-7. San Francisco Bay Region Water Supply and Demand(taf) 





1995 




2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 










Urban 


1,255 


1,358 


1,317 


1,428 


Agricultural 


98 


108 


98 


108 


Environmental 


5,762 


4,294 


5,762 


4,294 


Total Applied Water 


7,115 


5,760 


7.176 


5,830 


Supplies 










Surface Water 


7,011 


5,285 


7,067 


5,328 


Groundwater 


68 


92 


74 


91 


Recycled and/or Desalted 


35 


35 


35 


35 


Total Supplies 


7,115 


5,412 


7,176 


5,454 


Shortages 





349 





376 



North Bay 

Municipal and industrial water use will continue to grow as the population in the North 
Bay grows. The fastest growing communities have been municipalities in southwestern Soliino 
County, such as Fairfield and Benicia. Growth in the larger communities of Sonoma and Napa 
counties, such as Petaluma and Napa, has also been fairly rapid (more than 20 percent during the 
1980s). Growth in Marin County has been slowed both by a lack of land available for 
development and by two water hook-up moratoriums administered by Marin Municipal Water 
District. The most recent moratorium was lifted in 1993 when the drought ended and a new 
Russian River water contract was ratified. 

The Suisun Marsh is the only managed wetland in the North Bay that requires deliveries 
of fresh water. Its annual water demand is expected to remain constant at 1 50,000 af 



7-23 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-8. Major North Bay Water Suppliers 



Water Agency 



Primary Source of Supply 



Sonoma County Water Agency 

Marin Municipal Water District 

Napa Co. Flood Control & Water Cons. Dist. 

Solano County Water Agency 



Russian River Project 
Local Surface and Sonoma CWA contract 
Local Surface and State Water Project 
Solano Project and SWP 



Table 7-8 lists the major water suppliers within the North Bay, along with their primary 
sources of supply. Each of these agencies represent a number of municipalities or water retailers 
within their county. Groundwater and small locally developed supplies serve the remainder of 
the water users in the area. Table 7-9 lists local agency water supply reservoirs serving the North 
Bay with capacity greater than ten thousand acre feet. 

Table 7-9 . Reservoirs of Local Agencies Serving the North Bay 



Agency 


Reservoir 


Capacity 


Year 


Region 






(af) 


Constructed 


Located 


COE/SonomaCWA' 


Lake Mendocino 


118,900 


1922 


North Coast 


COE/SonomaCWA' 


Lake Sonoma 


381.000 


1982 


North Coast 


Pacific Gas & Electric 


Lake Piilsbury 


73,000 


1921 


North Coast 


Marin Municipal WD 


Kent Lake 


32,895 


1953 


San Francisco 


Marin Municipal WD 


Nicasio Res. 


22,430 


1960 


San Francisco 


Marin Municipal WD 


Soulajule Res. 


10,572 


1979 


San Francisco 


City of Napa 


Lake Hennessey 


31,000 


1946 


San Francisco 


CityofVallejo 


Lake Curry 


10,700 


1926 


San Francisco 



The Corps of Engineers built Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma primarily for flood control. However, SCWA paid for, 
operates, and holds the water rights for the water supph portion of these facilities. Water from these projects is shown in the 
water budgets as Local Surface in the North Coast Region and Local Import in the San Francisco Region, 

» Sonoma CWA, which wholesales water throughout Sonoma and Marin counties, is 

forecasting no water shortages through 2020, and is not looking at water supply reliability 
enhancement options. 



7-24 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



• Marin MWD was once one of the most vulnerable water suppliers in the state. However, 
the district negotiated a 10,000 at' water supply contract with Sonoma CWA in 1991 and 
now expects to have a more reliable supply as it develops infrastructure to import Russian 
River water. 

ra-Photo: Napa terminal tank 

• Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a contract for SWP 
water with a maximum entitlement of 25,000 af per year. The City and County of Napa 
are examining water supply enhancement options to ensure future supply reliability. 

• Solano County WA anticipates a water supply deficiency as municipalities in the western 
part of the county continue to urbanize rapidly without developing additional water 
supply sources. Solano CWA's 1995 SWP supply was about 35,000 af The agency will 
reach its maximum SWP supply entitlement of 42.000 af in 2015. Benicia is the most 
vulnerable of the agency's service areas to drought conditions because it is entirely 
dependent on SWP water. Fairfield also is forecasting fiiture drought water shortages. 

South Bay 

The South Bay is highly urbanized— about 16 percent of the State's population lives in 2 
percent of the South Bay's land area. During the 1980s, the growth rate in the South Bay was 
about 14 percent. The fastest growing communities in the area had been almost exclusively in the 
East Bay — such as Dublin. Emeryville, and San Ramon. 

A minor portion of South Bay water use is for agriculture. Hayward Marsh is the only 
identified envirorunental water use within the South Bay. The marsh, part of the Hayward 
Regional Shoreline, has an annual fi-eshwater use of approximately 10,000 af of reclaimed 
wastewater from Union Sanitation District. Industrial water use for cooling is primarily 
associated with independently produced industrial water along the Carquinez Straits. 

Table 7-10 lists the major water suppliers in the South Bay and their primary sources of 
supply. Those areas not served by the listed suppliers get their water from groundwater and from 
small locally developed surface supplies. Alameda County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District, Zone 7. and Santa Clara Valley Water District recharge and store local and 
imported surface water in local groundwater basins. Each of the major water agencies represent 

7-25 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



several municipalities or water retailers within their service areas. Table 7-1 1 lists all local 
agency surface supply reservoirs serving the North Bay with capacity greater than ten thousand 
acre feet. 

Table 7-10. Major South Bay Water Suppliers 



Water Agency 



Primary Source of Supply 



San Francisco PUC 
Santa Clara Valley Water District 
Alameda County Water District 
Alameda CFC&WCD Zone 7 
East Bay Municipal Utility District 
Contra Costa Water District 



Hetch Hetchy project and local surface 

Local surface, groundwater, CVP, and SWF 

Local surface, groundwater, SWP, and Hetch Hetchy project 

Local Surface, groundwater, and SWP 

Mokelumne River project and local surface 

CVP and local surface 



Table 7-11. Local Surface Reservoirs Serving the South Bay 



Agency 


Reservoir 


Capacity 
(af) 


Year 
Constructed 


Region 
Located 


San Francisco PUC 


Lake Lloyd 


273,400 


1956 


San Joaquin River 


San Francisco PUC 


Lake Eleanor 


27,300 


1918 


San Joaquin River 


San Francisco PUC 


Hetch Hetchy Res. 


340,830 


1923 


San Joaquin River 


San Francisco PUC 


Calaveras Res. 


96,842 


1925 


San Francisco 


San Francisco PUC 


Lower Crystal Springs 


58,375 


1888 


San Francisco 


San Francisco PUC 


San Andreas Res. 


18,996 


1870 


San Francisco 


San Francisco PUC 


San Antonio Res. 


50,496 


1964 


San Francisco 


East Bay MUD 


Camanche Res. 


417,120 


1963 


San Joaquin River 


East Bay MUD 


Pardee Res. 


197,950 


1929 


San Joaquin River 


East Bay MUD 


San Pablo Res. 


38,600 


1920 


San Francisco 


East Bay MUD 


Briones Res. 


60,510 


1964 


San Francisco 


East Bay MUD 


Chabot Res. 


10,350 


1892 


San Francisco 


East Bay MUD 


Upper San Leandro Res. 


41,440 


1977 


San Francisco 


Contra Costa WD 


Los Vaqueros Res. 


100,000 


under 
construction 


San Joaquin River 


Santa Clara Valley WD 


Calero Res 


10,050 


1935 


San Francisco 


Santa Clara Valley WD 


Coyote Res. 


22,925 


1936 


San Francisco 


Santa Clara Valley WD 


Leroy Anderson Res. 


89,073 


1950 


San Francisco 


Santa Clara Valley WD 


Lexington Res. 


19,834 


1953 


San Francisco 



7-26 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



SFPUC provides water to more than 2.3 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, 
Santa Clara, and Alameda counties, and is forecasting drought year shortages through 
2020. In 1990 and 1991 (at the end of the recent drought), wholesale and retail customers 
received 25 percent rationed supplies (based on historic use). In 1991, SFPUC adopted, 
but did not implement a 45 percent rationing plan. Recently revised instream flow 
requirements in the Tuolumne River basin have reduced the available Hetch Hetchy 
supply. The city's studies indicate that the annual safe yield of the Hetch Hetchy system 
has dropped from 336.000 af to 271 ,000 af 

"s^Photo: Crystal Springs Reservoir 
SCVWD provides water to 1 6 municipal and industrial retailers as well as to agricultural 
users in Santa Clara County. A number of these retailers also contract with San Francisco 
Water District for water from Hetch Hetchy. The district possesses one of the most 
diverse supplies in the state with imported state project and federal project water, locally 
developed surface supplies and extensive groundwater recharge programs. Some of the 
retail agencies in the district are vulnerable to drought deficiencies imposed by the SWF, 
CVP, and Hetch Hetchy. These deficiencies may be intensified by locally diminished 
runoff during drought conditions. 

ra-Photo: SCVWD recharge site 
AC WD serves a population of 286,000 in southwestern Alameda County, adjacent to San 
Francisco Bay. ACWD's Niles Cone groundwater basin supply is augmented by SWP and 
Hetch Hetchy supplies, which makes the district vulnerable to drought deficiencies 
imposed by SWP or SFPUC. 

ACFCifeWCD, Zone 7 delivers water in the Livermore-Almaden Valley in eastern 
Alameda County, including the communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, as 
well as various agricultural and industrial customers. Zone 7 will reach its maximum 
SWP entitlement of 46 taf in 1997. 

EBMUD provides water to 1.2 million people in the remainder of northern Alameda 
County, as well as part of western portion of Contra Costa County. Virtually all of the 
water used by EBMUD comes from the 577-square-mile watershed of the Mokelumne 



7-27 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



River, which collects runoff from Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras counties, on the west 
slope of the Sierra Nevada. EBMUD has water rights for up to 364,000 af per year from 
the Mokelumne River. In average years, district reservoirs in the East Bay receive an 
additional 30.000 af from local watershed runoff In dry years, evaporation and other 
reserx'oir losses may exceed local runoff 

ES'Photo: EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct in Delta 
• CCWD delivers municipal and industrial water throughout eastern Contra Costa County. 

Drought water use in the district may actually increase, since industrial diverters along 
the Bay and Delta often switch to the district supply during drought conditions because of 
water quality constraints. The district contracted for up to 195 taf from the CVP; this 
contract was recently renegotiated to include operation of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, now 
under construction by the district. Under its new CVP contract, CCWD will receive 
75 percent of the contract amount, or 85 percent of historic use, during drought periods. 
Under severe drought conditions, the CVP supply may be reduced to 75 percent of 
historic use. CCWD has a smaller locally developed source at Mallard Slough, with an 
associated right to take up to 26.700 af 

'ts'Photo: Los Vaqueros from CCWD 
Small, independent water systems, such as those along the San Mateo coast, also suffer 
water supply reliability problems during a drought. These systems are often dependent on a 
single source, such as groundwater, and do not have connections to the larger systems throughout 
the Bay Area. Consequently, transfers are not feasible. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Bay-Delta Estuary 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, charged with developing a long-term solution to 
Bay-Delta Estuary problems, is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. The 1995 State Water 
Resources Control Board Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco 
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, which established water quality control measures to 
protect the beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta Estuary, is described in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. The 
plan includes a list of the beneficial uses of water to be protected, water quality objectives, and 



7-28 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



an implementation program. The SWRCB is examining alternatives for achieving the water 
quality plan objecti\es. An environmental review will select a preferred alternative to allocate 
responsibility for Delta flows and diversions to and from the Delta. Currently, the Department 
and USBR— as operators of the SWP and CVP— are responsible for meeting existing standards. 
The Board may amend water rights for users who depend upon in-Delta supplies as well as those 
who divert upstream of the Delta. 
Suisun Marsh 

In 1995, USBR, DWR, DFG, and the Suisun Resource Conservation District began 
negotiations to update the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement. In 1996, the negotiators 
agreed in principle to 10 joint actions designed to lower soil salinity on Suisun Marsh managed 
wetlands (especially in the Marsh's western halO and to use water more efficiently. SWRCB 
will review western Suisun Marsh water quality objectives and water rights issues. A more 
detailed discussion of Suisun Marsh and other Bay-Delta environmental issues can be found in 
Chapters 2, 4, and 6. 
Local Water Agency Issues 

The primary water supply source for Sonoma County Water Agency, the Russian River, 
is in the North Coast Hydrologic Region. Issues related to SCWA and the Russian River are 
discussed in the North Coast Region portion of this chapter. Issues facing other major water 
suppliers in the North Bay are discussed below. 

In 1995. the SWRCB issued Decision WR 95-1 7. which designates instream flow 
requirements in the Lagunitas Creek watershed. Marin Municipal Water District estimates that 
the decision will diminish its system supply by 3.000 af annually during drought years. In the 
past, MMWD had examined desalination as an option to augment its water supph-. studying 
construction of a 10 mgd reverse osmosis desalination plant near the western end of the San 
Rafael Bridge. The plant's yield would be approximately 10 taf at a cost of $1,900 per af. The 
desalination project was included in a 1991 bond measure that was not approved by the voters. 
The following year, a bond measure for new facilities to bring more Russian River water to 
Marin passed, and MMWD's need for the desalination option diminished. The new MMWD 



7-29 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Russian River facilities will be on line by 2020. Since the district has all the necessary permits, 
this new water is not listed as an option but is included in its base supply. 

USBR and Solano County Water Agency have been involved in water rights disputes for 
Putah Creek both upstream and downstream of USBR's Solano Project facilities. In 1995, a 
settlement agreement was reached with water users in Lake and Napa counties upstream of Lake 
Berryessa. The agreement establishes limits on future water development in the Lake Berryessa 
watershed and allocates water use for the upstream users. A court appointed watermaster will 
monitor water uses and enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. 

Downstream of the Solano Project, disputes are centered around environmental water use 
and riparian water rights. The Putah Creek Council brought a suit in 1 990 against Solano Project 
water users to increase flows in the lower reaches of the creek. In 1996, the Sacramento County 
Superior Court ruled on instream flow requirements for Putah Creek downstream from Solano 
Diversion Dam, where water is diverted to Putah South Canal for delivery to agricultural lands 
and to communities in Solano County. The judgment cites the public trust doctrine as well as 
California Fish and Game code requirements and requires higher (and year-round) flows from the 
creek into the Yolo Bypass. SCWA estimates the additional requirements are approximately 
10,000 acre feet during an average year and 20,000 acre feet during a dry year. Solano County 
interests are appealing the judgment, which has been stayed until the case is heard by the State 
Appellate Court. Meanwhile, USBR is seeking an out-of-court settlement of the case. Under 
the Superior Court judgment, Solano County water users would be responsible for meeting the 
instream flow requirements in the downstream portion of the creek. Solano County water users 
have asked the SWRCB to participate in the settlement process so that regulation of ripariein 
diversions can be included in the final instream flow requirements for the creek. 

SCWA's contract with USBR for the Solano Project water supply will expire in 1999. 
The contract is renewable, but the terms and conditions of the contract will be renegotiated. 
SCWA will then need to renegotiate its contracts with Solano Project member units. 

Solano County water agencies are monitoring use of groundwater from the Putah 
Fan/Tehama Formation groundwater basin because of concerns about the condition of the shared 
basin. The City of Vacaville, Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, and 



7-30 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Reclamation District 2068 have all implemented AB 3030 groundwater management plans. 
SCWA has initiated a groundwater monitoring and data collection program and will prepare an 
armual groundwater report to be used by the agencies in making decisions about the basin. In 
addition, Vacaville, SID, Dixon, and Solano County developed a 1 995 agreement to 
cooperatively mitigate any adverse conditions related to the basin. 

Alameda County Water District is continuing to monitor and manage saline water 
intrusion in its bayside aquifers. The district is dependent upon the Niles Cone Groundwater 
Basin, which includes at least three distinct aquifers, for district supplies. The district recharges 
locally developed water and imported surface water to the basin and extracts recharged supplies 
from the basin. Prior to the 1 960s, when AC WD began importing surface supplies, the upper 
two aquifers were overpumped, causing saline intrusion into the basin. In 1974. ACWD began 
its aquifer reclamation program, which includes nine wells designed to pump and discharge 
saline groundwater from the basin. Because of further intrusion of saline water during the recent 
drought, ARP operations have been modified to pump and dispose of more saline water than had 
been thought necessary. In 1992. a recormaissance level study was conducted to evaluate the 
feasibility of desalting water pumped from ARP wells and blending it with groundwater and 
imported surface water. This desalination option is discussed in the following option evaluation 
section. 

The district is also developing a groundwater model to simulate the effectiveness of ARP, 
movement of saline water, and remediation of the basin. Careful management of the basin, 
including water level and water quality monitoring, is designed to protect the integrity of the 
groundwater resource and maintain efficient use of imported supplies. 

ACWD entered into a one-year agreement in 1 996 w ith Semitropic Water Storage 
District to transfer up to 6,700 af of water to Semitropic as part of an in-lieu groundwater 
recharge program. The agreement provides for the return of ACWD' s stored water during 
drought years through groundwater extraction. ACWD recently completed a long-term transfer 
and banking agreement for 50.000 af of storage in Semitropic's basin. 

San Francisco Public Utility Commission and the Bay Area Water Users Association 
(SFPUC Bay Area Water contractors) are cooperatively developing a water supply master plan 



7-31 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



for the PUC s retail and wholesale service areas. Phase 1 of the three-phased plan was recently 
completed. The preliminary list of water supply options to be considered in Phase 2 includes: 

• short- and long-term Central Valley water transfers 

• conjunctive use / groundwater banking within the Hetch Hetchy system (Tuolumne River 
basin and areas adjacent to the aqueduct alignment) 

• transfers within the Hetch Hetchy system 

• additional surface storage within the Hetch Hetchy system 

• conjunctive use / groundwater banking within the Bay Area system 

• transfers within the Bay Area system 

• additional surface storage within the Bay Area system 

• desalination 

• other local projects 

Phase 2 will ultimately produce a master plan for the PUC system, and is scheduled for 
completion in 1999. Phase 3 is the implementation phase of the master plan, and will include an 
environmental review, design, and construction of the plan elements. Construction is anticipated 
as early as 2001. 

"S'Photo: San Francisco Water Temple 

Without any improvements to its water supply reliability, SCVWD is forecasted to face 
the largest drought year shortages in the San Francisco Bay Region. The District released an 
integrated water resources plan in December 1 996 to address water supply reliability through 
2020. The primary components of the preferred strategy include water banking, water transfers, 
water recycling, and water conservation. Components are scheduled to be phased into operation 
as necessary to meet increasing demands. Implementation of specific components is designed to 
be flexible, with a list of contingency strategies to meet changing conditions. The plan is to be 
updated every three to five years. 

SCVWD had also entered into a one-year contract with Semitropic WSD to transfer 
45,000 af of SWP water to Semitropic for in-lieu groundwater recharge in 1996. A long-term 
contract for 350,000 af of transfer and storage is currently being finalized. One issue to be 
resolved is wheeling arrangements for the California Aqueduct. 



7-32 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



EBMUD's board approved its water supply action plan in 1995 to meet the objectives of 
its 1993 Water Supply Management Program EIR. The action plan and the 1993 EIR address 
improving water supply reliability in the EBMUD service area. The action plan's 
recommendation was to construct a Folsom South Canal connection to EBMUD's Mokelumne 
Aqueduct, which will allow the district to make use of its contract with the USBR for up to 
150 taf of American River water. The project would be designed to operate in accordance with 
the 1990 Alameda County Superior Court's Hodge Decision, which confirmed the District's 
right to divert its contract amount subject to the court's physical solution. The physical solution 
contains instream flow requirements for the Lower American River which must be met prior to 
diversion. 

EBMUD and USBR released an EIR/EIS to choose a preferred alternative for conveying 
American River supply in November 1997. Four alignment alternatives were evaluated for the 
enviromnental document. One alternative incorporates a concept developed by Sacramento 
County, the City of Sacramento, and EBMUD to construct a joint diversion facility near the 
American River's confluence with the Sacramento River. The joint water supply project would 
divert water near the confluence to Sacramento's Fairbaim Water Treatment Plant. EBMUD 
would then convey treated water to the Folsom South Canal and a proposed canal extension, and 
ultimately, to the Mokelumne Aqueduct. Sacramento City and County would deliver their share 
of the diverted water to local water users. 

In 1 997, San Joaquin County interests proposed a groundwater storage project that would 
allow EBMUD to store surface water in San Joaquin County aquifers and would provide 
significant benefits to San Joaquin County water users. A JPA of San Joaquin County water 
agencies hopes to initiate a pilot project that would help assess the feasibility of this conjunctive 
use proposal. EBMUD has agreed to provide water for the project and is retaining this 
alternative for consideration as a means to provide more out-of-service area storage and 
improved supply reliability during droughts. 

EBMUD has also been involved in negotiations related to instream flows in the 
Mokelumne River. In 1981, FERC issued a license to EBMUD for operation of hydropower 
facilities at Pardee and Camanche reservoirs, which incorporated an existing instream flow 

7-33 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



agreement between the district and the DFG. During the 1987-1992 drought, poor fishery 
conditions on the Mokelumne and fish losses at the district's Camanche fish hatchery prompted 
FERC to investigate and evaluate fishery flows. FERC issued a Final EIS in November 1993, 
which was opposed by all the included parties. Subsequent negotiations led to preparation of a 
settlement agreement by EBMUD, DFG, and USFWS which was submitted to FERC for review 
in June 1997. The agreement's flows, which have already been implemented by EBMUD, will 
significantly impact the district's water supply. EBMUD estimates that the 2020 shortage during 
the design drought period with the new agreement flows would increase from 130 taf to 185 taf 
The district will continue to pursue reliability enhancement options to meet the expected 
increased shortage. 

Contra Costa Water District is facing a number of issues associated with its CVP 
supply, which is delivered via the Contra Costa Canal. The district is primarily dependent upon 
its supplies provided by its CVPcontract, which was amended in 1994 to include operation of 
Los Vaqueros Reservoir. (The District's Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an offstream storage facility 
designed to improve water supply quality and to provide emergency storage within the service 
area. It does not develop new water supply for the District.) CCWD's contract is scheduled to 
expire in 2010, but CVPIA established financial penalties for not renewing by 1997. The district 
will continue to weigh the potential loss of supply associated with renewal against the financial 
penaUies. The agency anticipates that its current 195 taf contract may be reduced during contract 
renewal. 

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program With passage of Title 16 of PL 102-575 in 
1992, USBR joined with Bay Area water and wastewater agencies to fund a study of regional 
water recycling potential. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (formerly Central 
California Regional Water Recycling Program) was established in 1 993 to develop a regional 
partnership to maximize Bay Area water recycling. The BARWRP is sponsored jointly by 
USBR, the Department, and 13 Bay Area water and wastewater agencies. During the first phase 
of the program, completed in April 1996, the participating agencies explored potential uses for 
water recycled from Bay Area wastewater treatment plants. The feasibility study showed that a 



7-34 « DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regiorts 



regional approach to water recycling to achieve water supply increases and environmental 
benefits would be productive. 

A major component of the 1996 feasibility study was the assessment of potential recycled 
water use in the Central Valley and other locations outside the Bay Area. The regional water 
recycling master plan, currently imderway, will focus on recycled water markets in the Bay Area. 
A limited assessment of agricultural uses immediately south of Santa Clara County will occur, 
but no further assessment of Central Valley uses will be included. Another major component of 
the feasibility study was the assessment of options to improve recycled water quality with respect 
to salinity. Two options originally assessed will not be considered in the master plan ~ on-site 
agricultural salt management and management of agricultural drainage. 

Water Management Options for the San Francisco Bay Region 

Agencies throughout the Bay Area are in various stages of developing plans to improve 
the water service reliability of their service areas. Table 7-12 shows the comprehensive options 
list for the San Francisco Bay Region. The table reflects the results of the initial screening and 
indicates the reason for those options which are deferred. The retained options were evaluated 
and scored (see Table 7A-2 in Appendix 7A) based on criteria discussed in Chapter 6. The results 
of the options evaluation are shown in Table 7-13. 



7-35 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Ctiapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-12. Comprehensive List of Options 



Category 



Option 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to O.8ET0 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 
Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements 
Flexible Water Delivery 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailwater Recovery 



Retain 
Defer 
Retain 
Retain 



A low level of water use has already been achieved. 



Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Enlarge Lake Hennessey / Napa River Diversion Retain 

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir Retain 

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir / Napa River Retain 
Diversion 

Enlarge Pardee Reservoir Retain 

Enlarge Camanche Reservoir Retain 

Enlarge Briones Reservoir Defer 

Enlarge Chabot Reservoir Defer 

Enlarge Leroy Anderson Reservoir Retain 

Upgrade Milliken Treatment Plant Retain 

Reoperate Rector Reservoir Retain 



geologic hazards 

substantially developed residential 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Chiles Creek Reservoir Project / Napa River 
Diversion 

Enlarge Lake Hennessey / Chiles Creek Project / 
Napa River Diversion 

Cameros Creek Reservoir / Napa River Diversion 

Upper Del Valle Reservoir 

Buckhorn Dam and Reservoir 

Upper Kaiser Reservoir 

Upper Buckhorn Reservoir 

Middle Bar Reservoir (Amador & Calaveras 
counties) 

Duck Creek Offstream Reservoir 

Devils Nose Project (Amador County) 

Clay Station Reservoir (Sacramento County) 



Retain 

Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 

Retain 
Retain 
Defer wetlands, endangered species 



Alamo Creek Reservoir 
Bolinger Reservoir 



Defer substantially developed residential 
Defer substantially developed residential 



7-36 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-12. Comprehensive List of Options (cont.) 



Cull Canyon Dam 

Canada del Cicrbo Reservoir 

Curr> Canyon Reservoir 

Delta Island Storage (San Joaquin County) 

Lower Kaiser Reservoir 

Bailey Road Reservoir 

Folsom South Canal Connection Project 



Oder 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Retain 



suhstantiall) developed residential 
Storage cost too high ($I6,000/AF) 
substantially developed residential 
Storage cost too high ($I7,000/AF) 
Storage cost too high ($9.000/AF) 
Storage cost too high ($2 1 ,000/AF) 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Milliken Creek Conjunctive Use Retain 

Lake Hennessey / Conn Creek Conjunctive Use Retain 

Recharge Dumbarton Quarry Pits Defer 

Sunol Valley Groundwater Recharge Defei 

AC WD Increased Local [Recharge Defer 



Unsuitable, fractured bedrock 
Limitecj aquifer production 
Insignificant yield increase 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Napa / Solano County Water Agency Exchange Defer 

Solano County Water Agency Defer 

Contra Costa Water District Defer 

Alameda County FC&WCD, Zone 7 Retain 

Santa Clara Vallev Water District Retain 



SCWA is not interested in exchange 
No proposals identified at this time. 
No proposals identified at this time. 



Water Recycling 

Group I (Cost < $500/AF) 

Group 2 (Cost $500/AF - $1.000/AF) 

Group3(Cost>$I.OOO/AF) 



Retain 
Retain 
Retain 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

.\lameda County Water District Aquifer Retain 
Recovery Project 

Seawater 

Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Retain 
Project 



Other Local Options 

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento 
River bv cities of Benicia. Fairfield. & Vallejo 



Statewide Options 

CALLED Bay / Delta Program Retain 

SWF Interim South Delta Program Retain 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program Retain 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program Retain 

Drought Water Bank Retain 

Enlarge Shasta Lake Retain 



7-37 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regior)s 



Conservation 

Urban. The urban water supply forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; 
consequently, only those urban conservation efforts which exceed the BMPs are considered as 
options. All urban conservation options except reducing residential interior water use were 
retained. The latter option was deferred because interior water use has, on average, already 
attained the levels evaluated in the Bulletin for future water management options. Reducing 
outdoor water use to 0.8 ET^ in new development would attain about 20 taf per year of depletion 
reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development would reduce 
depletions by about 140 taf per year. Reducing commercial, institutional, and industrial water 
use by an additional 2 percent and 3 percent would attain 1 taf and 1 5 taf of depletion 
reductions per year, respectively. About 2 taf of depletion reductions would be attained by 
reduction distribution system losses to 7 percent. 

Agricultural. Agricultural conservation options were deferred for this region. Due to the 
relatively small amount of irrigated acreage in the region and the high seasonal application 
efficiencies attained on average throughout the region, no significant depletion reductions would 
accrue. 
Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

As shown in Table 7-12, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 
has considered a number of reservoir enlargement options which would provide additional 
offstream storage for Napa River flows. In the South Bay, Santa Clara is evaluating enlarging 
Leroy Anderson Reservoir, which would increase SCVWD's supply by about 25,000 af 
EBMUD has several proposals to enlarge both of its Mokelumne River reservoirs. The 
improvement of system yields associated with these projects has not been determined. 

Reoperating Rector Reservoir in Napa County would provide a small increase of 
approximately 1 ,200 af in system yield. Napa CFC&WCD is also considering a modification of 
its Milliken Water Treatment Plant, which would generate a small increase (450 af) in its water 
supply. 



7-38 . DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regiorts 



New Reservoirs and Conveyance Facilities 

Ten new reservoirs were evaluated for Bay Area water agencies. Napa CFC&WCD 
investigated several diversion and storage projects, including Chiles Creek Reservoir Project and 
Cameros Creek Reservoir Project. The viability of these offstream storage projects depends 
upon the district's ability to make Napa River diversions. (SWRCB has declared the Napa River 
to be fully appropriated during parts of the year.) Some agencies, including AC WD, have 
examined an Upper Del Valle Reservoir Project. EBMUD has considered three new storage 
reservoirs in its service area and two new reservoirs in the Mokelumne basin (Middle Bar and 
Devil's Nose projects). These storage options have been inactive since EBMUD's focus on the 
Supplemental Water Supply Project 

As discussed in the Water Management Issues section, EBMUD and USBR released a 
DEIR/EIS in 1997 for EBMUD's diversion of its American River CVP supply. The district has 
estimated that the drought year yield of this project would be 16,900 af (The DEIR/EIS 
evaluates alternatives for conveyance of the water. Project yield remains the same in either of the 
conveyance alternatives.) 

13-Photo: Folsom South Canal from USBR 
Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Only two groundwater or conjunctive use options passed the initial evaluation. Napa 
CFC«S:WCD has two proposals to construct conjunctive use facilities adjacent to existing surface 
water facilities. The proposed Milliken Creek Conjunctive Use Project would allow the City of 
Napa and the Silverado Country Club to share surface and groundwater supplies, and would 
provide an additional drought yield of 1 .900 af The proposed Lake Hennessey/Corm Creek 
conjunctive use project would make the City of Napa's surface water available to agricultural 
users in exchange for rights to pump groundwater during droughts. This option would provide 
an estimated additional 5,000 af during drought years. 
Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Agencies throughout the Bay Area are proposing to negotiate for new or additional water 
imports into the region. Most of these proposals are preliminary. Water transfer proposals by 
SCWA, CCWD, and, ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 all include transfers from some as-yet-unnamed 



7-39 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Sacramento Valley water users. The actual amount of water available through these proposals is 
unknown and the competition for transfers will certainly impact both price and availability. A 
likely transfer option for ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 is the permanent transfer of 7,000 af of SWP 
entitlement from Kern County Water Agency. Transfers of this type are provided for in the 
Monterey Agreement. 

In addition to the long-term agreement with Semitropic for banking 350,000 af of water, 
SCVWD has entered into a three-way transfer agreement with the San Luis Delta Mendota Water 
Authority and USBR. Under this option, participating member agencies of SLDMWA can 
receive some of SCVWD's federal water allocation in normal and above-normal water years in 
exchange for committing to make available a share of their federal allocation during drought 
years. This option would provide SCVWD with up to 14,250 af in drought years and is discussed 
in more detail in Chapter 6. 
Water Recycling 

A recent water recycling survey indicated there are 29 water recycling options in the San 
Francisco Bay Region, with a total proposed 2020 yield of 92,000 af. The average price of 
recycled water from these options is just over $500 /af, with a range from $95 to $2,060 /af. The 
most common use for recycled water would be for landscape irrigation. A few options are 
proposed for either industrial use, agricultural use, or both. 

One consideration in evaluating water recycling proposals is that a number of options 
may be proposed for the same wastewater treatment plant. These options depend upon different 
distribution systems and are therefore considered separately for this report. Some of the larger 
projects with their associated 2020 yield include the South Bay Water Recycling Program 
(21,000 af), the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District Industrial Use Project (20,000 af), the 
San Francisco Water Recycling Management Plan (1 1,000 af), and the San Ramon Valley 
Recycled Water Project (9,000 af). Most of the remaining water recycling options are in the 
range of 1,000 to 4,000 af 

Several South Bay wastewater and water agencies are participating in the Bay Area 
Regional Water Recycling Program, which would develop and maintain a regional water 
recycling distribution system. This regional approach would allow more extensive use of 



7-40 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



recycled water throughout the South Bay, and perhaps provide an opportunity for sales or 
exchanges of water outside of the region. The local options discussed above, however, depend 
upon much of the same recycled water considered for use in the BARWRP option. 
Desalination 

Alameda County Water District has evaluated a brackish water desalting plant to 
indirectly increase overall water supply reliability by increasing use of groundwater resources. 
Water pumped from the district's aquifer recovery project wells would be desalinated and 
blended with groundwater and Hetch Hetchy water to provide a quality consistent with other 
sources of supply. The plant would produce 9 taf per year at a cost of about $500/ af 

In the past, Marin Municipal Water District examined seawater desalination as an option 
to augment its water supply. The district studied constructing a 10 mgd reverse osmosis 
desalination plant near the western end of the San Rafael Bridge. The plant's yield would be 
approximately 10 taf at a cost of $l,900/af 
Other Local Options 

SCWA and its member agencies have been examining several surface water management 
projects to improve their water supply reliability. One proposal is to increase diversion through 
the SWP's North Bay Aqueduct by applying for additional water rights from the Delta. The cities 
of Benicia, Fairfield, and Vallejo have filed water right applications for a total of 31,000 af per 
year. (Vacaville, in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region, would receive 8,500 af per year 
from this source). 
Statewide Options 

Active planning for statewide water supply options is being done currently for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and for SWP future supply. See Chapter 6. Evaluating Options 
fi-om a Statewide Perspective, for discussion on statewide water supply augmentation options. 
[The following text on SWP and CALFED supplies is a placeholder for potential outcomes of 
CALFED process. Text will he changed as CALFED results become available.] 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Improving conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
River Delta would provide improvement to SWP supply reliability. For illustrative purposes. 



7-41 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



assuming improved Delta conditions through the implementation of C ALFED alternatives, 
additional SWP yield to the region could be 10,000 af in drought years. 

State Water Project Improvements . The Department has three programs underway to 
improve SWP yields to its contractors. Each program is discussed in Chapter 6. The ISDP would 
augment SWP supplies to the San Francisco Bay Region 7,000 af in drought years. The 
American Basin Conjunctive Use Program would provide 18 taf to the region in drought years, 
and the Supplemental Water Purchase Program could provide an additional 12 taf in drought 
years. 

Drought Water Bank. Based on past experience with the Drought Water Bank, it is 
estimated that about 250,000 af of water is available for allocation. Of this amount, past 
experience suggests that about 58,000 af would be made available to the San Francisco Bay 
Region. 

Enlarged Shasta Lake. Enlarging Shasta Lake to 1 3 maf of storage would increase 
drought year yield by about 1 .5 maf. If we assume one-third of this yield is allocated to the 
environment, and the remaining two-thirds is allocated among the State and federal projects, the 
region could potentially receive about 40 taf per year. 



7-42 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-13. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Options Ranking 



Option 



Rank 



Potential 
Gain 
Cost (taf) 

per af 

($) 



Avg Drt 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use - New Development 

Outdoor Water Use -New and Existing Development 

Interior CII Water Use (2%) 

Interior CII Water Use (3%) 

Distribution Svstem Losses (7°i)) 



750 

* 

500 

750 

300 



20 


20 


140 


140 


10 


10 


15 


15 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Enlarge Lake Hennessey / Napa River Diversion 

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir 

Enlarge Bell Canyon Reservoir / Napa River Diversion 

Enlarge Pardee Reservoir 

Enlarge Camanche Reservoir 

Enlarge Leroy Anderson Reservoir 

Upgrade Milliken Treatment Plant 

Reoperate Rector Reser\ oir 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Milliken Creek Conjunctive Use 

Lake Hennesse\ / Conn Creek Conjunctive Use 



500 



4,400 



800 



120 

250 



12 



2 

4 

30 

IS 

25 

1 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Chiles Creek Resersoir Project / Napa River Diversion M 960 12 

Enlarge Lake Hennessey / Chiles Creek Project / Napa River Diversion M 840 15 

Cameros Creek Reservoir / Napa River Diversion L 1,750 12 

Upper Del Valle Reservoir M 1,600 5 2 

Buckhom Dam and Reservoir M * * 23 

Upper Kaiser Reservoir M * * 6 

Upper Buckhom Reser% oir L * * 3 

Middle Bar Reservoir M * * 15 

Duck Creek Offstream Reservoir M ♦ * 15 

Devils Nose Project M * ♦ 23 

EBMUD American River Supply M 850 * 17 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Alameda Countv FC&WCD. Zone 7 



7-43 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-13. Continued 



SCVWD / Delta Mendota Authority 



Water Recycling 

Group 1 (Cost < $500/AF) 

Group 2 (Cost $500/AF - $1.000/AF) 

Group 3 (Cost > $I,000/AF) 



H 


500 


24 


24 


M 


1.000 


63 


63 


M 


1.500 


5 


5 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

Alameda County Water District Aquifer Recovery Project 
Seawater 

Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Project 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program 

SWP Interim South Delta Program 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program 

Drought Water Bank 

Enlarge Shasta Lake 



500 



Other Local Options 

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento River by cities of M 
Benicia, Fairfield, & Vallejo 



M 


* 


M 


100 


H 


150 


L 


175 


H 


175 


M 


* 



38 



* Data not available to quantify. 

** The three cities have applied for 31 taf of supplemental water. 

*** Because the region does not have average year shortages, the region's SWP supplies from these options have been 
reallocated to the South Coast Region. 



7-44 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Water Resources Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region 

Water shortages in the region are forecasted to be 376 taf by 2020. These shortages are 
expected to occur only in drought years and are primarily due to increased urban demands. 
Options likely be implemented by 2020 to meet these forecasted shortages are shown in 
Table 7-14. 



Table 7-14.Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

San Francisco Bay Region 

Potential Gain 

Option (ta^ 

Avg Drt 

Shortage 376 

Conservation - 32 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations - 34 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities - 17 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use - 7 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange - 21 

Recycling - 92 

Desalination - 9 

Statewide Options - 93 

Total Potential Gain - 305 

Remaining Shortage 71 



Implementation of BMPs will continue through 2020 and is reflected in the base demand 
levels for urban water use. Urban conservation options most likely to be implemented, based on 
costs and feasibility, would provide 32 taf in water savings in the region. 

Several Bay Area agencies will likely reduce shortages by about 40 taf by implementing 
conjunctive use projects and modifying existing facilities or operations. Identified conjunctive 
use and treatment plant upgrade options could provide 9 taf to Napa Valley communities. 
Raising Pardee Dam could add 150 - 200 taf of storage capacity which could provide 30 taf in 
drought years for EBMUD's service area. 

Agencies throughout the region have ambitious plans for water recycling as a fiiture water 
supply option. These options could provide an additional 92 taf to the region by 2020. EBMUD's 

7-45 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



American River supply would augment drought year supplies by 1 7 taf. Water transfer agree- 
ments being negotiated with Central Valley agencies will likely add 21 taf in the near future. 
Statewide options including a Delta fix, SWP improvements, and drought water bank would 
likely augment supplies by 93 taf. Even with implementing the most likely options, a shortage of 
71 taf in the region would remain. Additional options exist to meet more of the shortages, but are 
quite costly. The remaining shortages, mostly in the South Bay, could be met by drought 
contingency measures implemented by local water agencies. 

Many South Bay water purveyors' systems are interconnected, reflecting a common 
reliance on the SWP, CVP, and Hetch Hetchy facilities for their water supplies. EBMUD has 
connections to CCWD and the city of Hayward, which also contracts with the SFPUC. CCWD 
and SCVWD are connected to the Delta via CVP facilities. SCVWD, ACWD, and 
ACFC&WCD, Zone 7 are connected by the SWP's South Bay Aqueduct. SFPUC now has a 
permanent connection to the SWP, to allow it to take delivery of water transfers wheeled by the 
SWP. These interconnections facilitate water transfers and are positive factors in water resources 
management in the South Bay. 



7-46 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Central Coast Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The Central Coast Region (Figure 7-4) is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and extends from 
Santa Cruz County in the north to Santa Barbara County in the south. The region includes part of 
Santa Clara County, most of San Benito County, and all of Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis 
Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. The major topographic features include Monterey and Morro 
bays; the Pajaro, Salinas, Carmel, Santa Maria, Santa Ynez and Cuyama valleys; the Coast 
Range and the coastal plain of Santa Barbara County. The region is divided into two planning 
subareas: Northern (including all counties except San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara) and the 
Southern (San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties). During the summer months, tempera- 
tures are cool along the coastline and warmer inland. In the winter, temperatures remain cool 
along the coast but become cooler inland. Annual precipitation ranges from about 10 inches on 
valley floors at the south end of the region to as much as 50 inches on some of the highest peaks. 
The year-round frost-free climate of the coastal valleys makes them ideal for production of 
specialty crops such as strawberries and artichokes. 

The principal population centers in the region are Santa Cruz, Hollister, Salinas, 
Monterey, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria. Goleta. and Santa Barbara. Intensive 
agriculture is found in the Salinas and Pajaro valleys in the north and the Santa Maria and lower 
Santa Ynez valleys in the south. Agricultural acreage has remained fairly stable during recent 
years, although urban development is encroaching on some valley agricultural lands. In the 
Pajaro and Salinas valleys, the major crops include vegetables, specialty crops, and cut flowers. 
Winegrape acreage has increased in the upper Salinas Valley. The flower seed industry in 
Lompoc Valley is thriving and attracts many tourists each year. Parts of the upper Salinas Valley 
and Carizo Plain are dry-farmed to produce grains. Table 7-15 shows the region's population 
and crop acreage for 1 995 and 2020. 

ea^Photo: artichoke fields 
Table 7-15. Population and Crop Acreage(ln thousands) 



1995 2020 



Population 1,346 1.946 

Irrigated Crop Acres 572 570 



7-47 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Figure 7-4. Central Coast Hydrologic Region 






p.)'-'™^ 



I HoUister 
Conduit 



^ . -s-j\ M 





I S P 



TtriTCHSli' - ^S^ip^ 
RESBirorR — ^* 

^-^UB^^.^ S A M T h 

S/sgtiouc 



■^- 



J^t4, 



3 A n S A ft"^-' 



^ Ct' GJBRALTARt 
' ■" f^ SESSRyOIBl 



South Coast Condui t ' 



SCOLE IN MILES 



7-48 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Major industries include tourism; agricultural-related processing; and government and 
service sector employment. Oil production and transportation sites onshore and offshore are 
important to the economies of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. San Luis Obispo 
County also has major thermal powerplants at Diablo Canyon and Morro Bay. Military facilities 
include Hunter-Leggett Military Reservation, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Camp San Luis 
Obispo (Army Reserve). 

Water Demands and Supplies 

The water budget for the Central Coast Region is shown in Table 7-16. Groundwater is 
the primary source of water in the region, followed by local surface water. CVP water supply is 
delivered to the northern part of the region from San Luis Reservoir. SWP Coastal Branch 
deliveries to the southern part of the region are expected to begin in late 1997. Most of the water 
shortage in the region occurs as groundwater overdraft, although the overdraft is expected to 
lessen with SWP water deliveries and decreased agricultural demands. 

Table 7- 16. Central Coast Region Water Demands and Supplies (taf/yr) 





1995 




2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 










Urban 


286 


294 


379 


391 


Agricultural 


1,192 


1.279 


1,127 


1,223 


Environmental 


108 


27 


108 


27 


Total Applied Water 


1,585 


1,600 


1,614 


1,642 


Supplies 










Surface Water 


308 


150 


367 


183 


Groundwater 


1,045 


1,142 


1,029 


1.145 


Recycled and/or Desalted 


18 


26 


42 


42 


Total Supplies 


1,371 


1,318 


1,437 


1,369 


Shortages 


214 


282 


177 


273 



Northern PSA 

This planning subarea includes Santa Cruz, Pajaro Valley, the Monterey Peninsula, 
Salinas Valley, and Northern Monterey County. Water agencies include the Monterey County 



7-49 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Cliapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Marina County 
Water District, California-American Water Company of Carmel, the Pajaro Valley Water 
Management Agency, the city of Santa Cruz, and San Benito County Water Conservation and 
Flood Control District. 

The Northern PSA is comprised of a number of medium-to-small independent water- 
sheds. There is limited infrastructure for water transfers among the watersheds and from outside 
of the region. The only water import from outside the region comes from CVP's San Felipe 
Unit, which imports 53,000 af per year into southern Santa Clara and San Benito counties. 

Groundwater is the primary water source for the subarea. Groundwater recharge is 
provided by the Pajaro, Salinas, and Carmel rivers. San Clemente and Los Padres dams on the 
Carmel River (Monterey County), San Antonio Dam on the San Antonio River (Monterey 
County), and Nacimiento Dam on the Nacimiento River (in San Luis Obispo County) are the 
region's main surface water storage facilities. Water impounded in these reservoirs is managed 
to provide groundwater recharge. 
Southern PSA 

The largest water agencies in the southern PSA are two countywide agencies ~ the San 
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Santa Barbara 
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Central Coast Water Authority was 
formed in 1991 to construct, manage, and operate Santa Barbara County's 42 mile portion of the 
Coastal Aqueduct. There are additionally many small retail agencies and small municipalities 
which provide their own water supplies. 

The major source of water in the two counties is from coastal groundwater basins. 
SLOCFCWCD and SBCFCWCD contract with the Department for SWP water, which began 
delivery to the area with the completion of SWP's Coastal Branch. San Luis Obispo County 
water agencies have requested 4,830 af per year of SWP water and Sant^ Barbara County water 
agencies have requested 42.486 af per year. 

ra-Photo: Coastal Branch Construction-pipe laying 

Due to the 1987-1992 drought, two seawater desalination plants were constructed in the 
region. One plant, at Morro Bay, has an annual capacity of 670 af The City of Santa Barbara's 

7-50 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



plant has an annual capacity of 7,500 af. Although the Santa Barbara plant only operated briefly 
in 1992. it is considered in the water balance as an existing drought year supply under 1995 level 
of development. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 

With limited surface supply and few surface water storage facilities, the growing demand 
for water is placing an increased dependence on groundwater resources in the Central Coast 
Region. As groundwater extractions exceed groundwater replenishment, the region's aquifers 
experience overdraft conditions. This condition has allowed seawater to advance into some 
coastal freshwater aquifers, causing long-term water quality degradation. Groundwater overdraft 
and the resulting seawater intrusion is a major concern in the region, especially in smaller coastal 
groundwater basins with limited storage capacities. 

Salinas Valley In aquifers underlying the lower Salinas Valley, seawater intrusion was 
detected in wells about 8 miles from the coastline. In 1994, the SWRCB began investigating 
groundwater conditions in the Salinas Valley. SWRCB has suggested that adjudication may be 
necessary if the local agencies cannot halt seawater intrusion. The Monterey County Water 
Resources Agency has constructed a Castroville seawater intrusion project/Salinas Valley 
reclamation project in cooperation with the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. 
Completed in 1997, the CSIP/SVRP will deliver about 20,000 af annually of tertiary treated 
water to agricultural users, thereby reducing groundwater pumping in areas most affected by 
seawater intrusion. 



7-51 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Salinas Valley Reclamation Project/Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project 

Several decades of overpumping groundwater have caused seawater from the 
Monterey Bay to intrude into the aquifers that supply the Salinas Valley with nearly 100 
percent of its fresh water. Seawater has intruded almost six miles inland to the 1 80-foot 
aquifer and two miles inland into the 400-foot deeper aquifer. This intrusion has rendered the 
groundwater too salty for either domestic or agricultural use. Replenishment of groundwater 
occurs primarily from percolation of surface water from the Salinas River and its tributaries. 
The construction of Nacimiento and San Antonio dams in 1957 and 1965, respectively, have 
helped keep groundwater levels relatively stable south of Gonzales, but because recharge from 
the river occurs so far south of this area and water moves very slowly through the ground, 
they have been of questionable benefit to the Castroville area. In 1994, the SWCRB began 
investigating the Salinas Valley. The SWRCB suggested that adjudication may be necessary 
if the local agencies could halt the seawater intrusion. 

In late 1997, the MCWRA and the MRWPCA jointly completed the $78 million 
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project . The 
SVRP is an upgrade of the existing regional secondary treatment plant in Marina into a 19,500 
af/yr tertiary water reclamation plant. The CSIP distributes the reclaimed water, which 
accounts for approximately two-thirds of the area's irrigation needs, to 12,000 acres of 
Castroville area farms. During the low irrigation demand periods in winter, early spring and 
late fall, reclaimed water will supply most of the water needed for irrigation. During late 
spring, summer, and early fall, growers will receive a blend of reclaimed water and 
groundwater. This project will reduce groundwater pumping in the project area, thus reducing 
seawater intrusion. A two-year phase out following completion of the project will reduce the 
number of wells from 300 to 22. Additionally, the project will reduce the amount of 
secondary-treated wastewater to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary 
is a federally-protected aquatic ecosystem extending from Point Reyes to San Luis Obispo 
with abundant marine resources including kelp forests, marine mammals, sea and shore birds 
and numerous fishes. 



The MCWRA is also preparing a basin management plan for the Salinas Valley. Major 
components of the plan will likely include recommendations for dam modifications and reservoir 
reoperation, new conveyance systems, groundwater recharge, water recycling, conservation, 
weather modification (cloud seeding), regulatory tools (such as ground'\yater extraction ordi- 
nances), and drought contingencies. The basin management plan also will address nitrate 
management problems. Flood control is also a significant issue, as seen along the Salinas and 
Pajaro rivers during the 1 995 floods. 



7-52 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Pajaro Valley Groundwater overdraft and seawater intrusion are also problems facing the 
Pajaro Valley. A basin management plan was approved in December 1993 by the PVWMA. 
Major components of the plan include new reservoirs and conveyance facilities, groundwater 
recharge; water imports; and conservation. Failing to implement the plan could result in 
intervention by the SWRCB, resulting in basin adjudication and restrictions on extractions. 

Monterey Peninsula Between urban growth and the growth of the tourism industry, the 
Monterey Peninsula is expected to experience more frequent shortages in dry years. Water 
supply for the area comes from the Carmel River, which has relatively little developed storage. 
In its Monterey Peninsula water supply project final EIR/EIS, MPWMD chose the 24,000 af 
New Los Padres Reservoir on the Carmel River as its preferred alternative for meeting fiitiu-e 
water needs. The proposed reservoir would expand the Peninsula's water supply and protect and 
restore natural resources on the Carmel River. However, voters defeated bonds for the project in 
a 1995 election. MPWMD staff prepared an plan for water supply alternatives in 1996 which 
included recommendations for expanded groundwater production, additional recycled water use, 
desalination, and additional conservation programs. 

ea^Photo: sea otter 

In 1995, SWRCB determined that Cal-Am was diverting approximately 10,700 af from 
the Carmel River without valid water rights. As a result, the SWRCB ordered that diversions 
from the Carmel River be reduced, and that sources outside of the basin be used. One of these 
sources could be additional groundwater production from the Seaside basin, but the use of this 
basin as a replacement for diversions from the Carmel River is being challenged in litigation. 
SWRCB indicated that the New Los Padres Reservoir should be reconsidered to restore Carmel 
River habitat values and provide for Cal-Am's water supply. In 1996. Cal-Am decided to 
proceed with the New Los Padres Reservoir, but with a reduced urban yield of 10.700 af to 
support only its existing water needs, without providing supplies for future growth. 

Water management concerns in the Northern Monterey County include declining 
groundwater levels because of overdraft (estimated at about 1 1,700 af annually), seawater 
intrusion, and nitrate contamination. The area overlies parts of the Salinas and Pajaro groundwa- 
ter basins and includes the area between the adopted boundaries of these two basins. (Within 



7-53 DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft • Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Monterey County, groundwater management activities and authority are divided between the 
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency and the Monterey County Water Management 
Agency.) Agricultural water demand is about 85 percent of total water demand. Residential 
development is scattered, and most residences are on wells and septic systems. There are no 
existing regional water delivery or sewer systems. Because of water supply problems, some 
restrictions on lot subdividing or adding second dwelling units have been instituted. An interim 
water management plan for the north county area has been prepared. 

Santa Cruz County relies mostly on surface water diversions. Dry years pose a threat of 
water rationing and shortages because of the lack of adequate storage facilities. Seawater 
intrusion is a concern for groundwater users. For example, after years of stable conditions 
groundwater quality in municipal wells in the Soquel-Aptos area began to degrade in 1993-94 
(Soquel Creek water, the largest purveyor in this part of the county, relies primarily on ground- 
water). As measured by chloride concentrations in monitoring wells along the Monterey Bay 
coastline, groundwater quality degraded noticeably in less than 4 years with salinity concentra- 
tions increasing from 20 to 40 mg/1 to about 250 mg/1 to 2,500 mg/1. These conditions occurred 
despite the District's managing its extractions to inaintain coastal groundwater levels above sea 
level and decreasing its pumping. 

Santa Clara Valley Water District and various retail agencies supply water throughout 
Santa Clara County. No additional water management programs are proposed for areas of the 
county in the Central Coast Region. Since most of Santa Clara County is in the San Francisco 
Bay Region, options for the county are discussed in that region. 

The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing a Salinas Reservoir expansion project to 
supplement its water supply. The existing reservoir is owned by the USACE and is managed by 
the SLOCF&WCD. The expansion project involves installing spillway gates to expand the 
storage capacity of the existing reservoir from about 24 taf to 42 taf The proposed project would 
increase the city's annual water supply by about 1,650 af but would only supply a portion of the 
city's expected future water demands. An initial draft EIR was issued in late 1993. A revised 
draft EIR was issued in May 1997. 



7-54 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Current municipal seawater desalting capacity in the Central Coast Region is about 
8,500 af, almost all of which is in the city of Santa Barbara's desalting plant. The remainder of 
the plants are small, less than 750 af in capacity. During the 1987-1992 drought, a number of 
seawater desalting projects were anticipated, but the return of average water years has put most 
of these plants on hold. Only Santa Barbara, Morro Bay, and the San Simeon Beach State Park 
installed plants because of the drought. A bond issue referendum on a 3 million-gallon-per-day 
seawater desalting plant for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District was rejected by 
voters in 1992. The plants in Santa Barbara and San Simeon are on standby. The plant at Morro 
Bay is used only during dry periods when groundwater supplies are limited. 

In 1996, due to seawater intrusion in its groundwater basin, the Marina Coast Water 
District completed a 300,000 gallon per day (330 af per year) seawater desalting plant. The plant 
produces about 14 percent of the district's water supply. 

"^-Aerial photo: Guyama Valley 
Water Management Options for the Central Coast Region 

Table 7-17 shows a comprehensive list of the options and whether an option was retained 
or deferred from further evaluation. The retained options were evaluated and scored (see Table 
7A-3 in Appendix 7A) based on the criteria discussed in Chapter 6. The results of the options 
evaluation are shown in Table 7-18. 



7-55 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-17. Comprehensive List of Options 
Central Coast Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to O.8ET0 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 
Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements 
Flexible Water Deliver) 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailwater Recoverv 



Retain 

Defer A low level of water use has already been achieved. 

Retain 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Modify Nacimiento Spillway 

Inter-Lake Tunnel - Nacimiento/San Antonio 

Reservoirs 

Enlargement of Salinas Reservoir 

Enlargement of Cachuma Reservoir 

Enlargement of Lopez Reservoir 



Retain 
Retain 

Retain 
Retain 
Defer Too many acres of land inundated. 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

College Lake 

Bolsa De San Cayetano Reservoir 

Corncob Canyon Reservoir 

Pescadero Reservoir 

Gabilan Creek Dam 

Feeder Streams (Various Sites) 

Chalone Canyon Dam 

Vaqueros Canyon Dam 

New Los Padres Reservoir 

Nacimiento Pipeline 

Arroyo Seco Dam 

Barloy Dam 

Mathews Dam 

Jerret Dam 

New San Clemente Reservoir 

San Clemente Creek Reservoir 

Cachuga Reservoir 

Canada Reservoir 



Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 

Defer 



Impacts to environment, residences, small resort. 

Questionable water supply. 

Questionable water supply. 

Questionable water supply. 

Strong regulatory agency objections. 

High probability of inundating spotted owl habitat. 

Questionable supply and located outside MPWMD 

boundaries. 

Questionable characteristics of rocks at dam site. 



7-56 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-17. Continued 



Klondike Dam 



Defer 



Located near active faults; inundation of expensive 
residences. 



Chupines Creek Reservoir Defer 

Pine Creek Defer 

Buckeye Creek Defer 

Transfer from Lower Salinas Basin Defer 

Transfer from Little and Big Sur Rivers Defer 

Lower Jack Defer 

Santa Rita Defer 

Camuesa and Salsipuedes Reservoirs Defer 

Hot Springs, New Gilbraltar. and Round Corral Defer 
Reservoirs 



Questionable supply and located outside MPWMD 
boundaries. 

Potential impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. 
Located near active faults; unsuitable dam foundation. 
Water rights problems. 
Both rivers protected by State. 
Environmentally infeasible; riparian oak grassland. 
Environmentally infeasible; riparian oak grassland. 
Environmental impacts; presence of endangered spe- 
cies. 
Insufficient yield, high unit cost of water. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

College Lake Injection/Extraction Wells 

Increase Groundwater Development in Seaside 

Basin 

Seaside Conjunctive Use 

Salinas River Well System 

Storage and Infiltration Basins/Recharge 
Upper/Lower Carmel Valley Well Development 



Retain 
Retain 

Defer Insufficient yield. 

Defer Will not produce supply without implementing other 

new supply component. 

Defer Questionable water supply. 

Defer Questionable water suppis . 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

CVP (San Felipe Project Extension) 

SWP (Coastal Branch/Salinas River/Nacimiento 

transfer) 



Retain 
Defer 



Significant institutional issues. 



Water Recycling 

Scotts Valley WD Retain 

Watsonville Reclamation Retain 

Santa Cruz Reclamation Retain 

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Retain 
Water Recycling - Golf Courses/Cemeteries/Open Retain 
Space 

Injected Treated Water/Carmel River Mouth Defer 

City of San Luis Obispo Retain 

Morro Bay Retain 

Chorro Basin Retain 

Santa Barbara Regional Reuse Retain 



Health concerns. 



Desalination 



7-57 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-17. Continued 
Brackish Groundwater 

City of Santa Cruz Retain 
Seawater 

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Retain 
Other Local Options 

Weather modification Defer Difficult to quantify. 
Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program Retain 

SWP Interim South Delta Program Retain 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program Retain 

Enlarge Shasta Lake Retain 



7-58 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-18. Ranking of Options Central Coast Region 







Cost 


Potential Gain 


Option 


Rank 


per af 

($) 


(taf) 






Avg Drt 




Conservation 










Urban 










Outdoor Water Use - New Development 


M 


750 


10 


10 


Outdoor Water Use -New and Existing Development 


L 


* 


30 


30 


Interior CII Water Use (3%) 


L 


"5(1 


2 


2 


Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 










ModifS Nacimiento Spillway 


H 


80 


20 


- 


Inter-Lake Tunnel - Nacimiento/San Antonio Reservoirs 


H 


170 


20 


- 


Enlargement of Salinas Reservoir 


M 


300 


2 


2 


Enlargement of Cachuma Reservoir 


M 


1,200 


17 


17 


New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 










College Lake 


M 


320 


3 


- 


Bolsa De San Ca\ etano Reservoir 


L 


640 


4 




Corncob Canyon Reservoir 


L 


590 


10 


- 


Pescadero Reservoir 


M 


450 


10 


- 


Gabilan Creek Dam 


L 


1,570 


* 


* 


Feeder Streams (Various Sites) 


M 


400 


* 


* 


Chalone Canyon Dam 


M 


460 


* 


* 


Vaqueros Canyon Dam 


L 


1,020 


* 


* 


New Los Padres Reservoir (24 taf) 


M 


400 


24 


24 


New Los Padres Reservoir ( 1 1 taf) 


M 


770 


11 


11 


Nacimiento Pipeline 


M 


950 


16 


16 


Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 










College Lake Injection/Extraction Wells 


M 


100 


2 


2 


Increase Groundwater Development in Seaside Basin 


L 


370 


I 


1 


Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 










CVP (San Felipe Project Extension) 


M 


540 


13 


2 


Water Recycling 










Group 1 (Cost < $500/AF) 


H 


500 


25 


25 


Group 2 (Cost $500/AF - $I.OOO/AF) 


M 


1,000 


8 


8 


Group 3 (Cost >$1.000/AF) 


M 


1,500 


5 


5 



7-59 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-18. Continued 



Desalination 










Brackish Groundwater 










City of Santa Cruz 


M 


MOO 


5 


5 


Seawater 










Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 


L 


1,700 


3 


3 


Statewide Options 










CALFED Bay / Delta Program 


M 


* 


2 


3 


SWP Interim South Delta Program 


M 


100 


1 


1 


SWF Supplemental Water Purchase Program 


L 


175 


-- 


4 


Enlarge Shasta Lake 


M 


* 


8 


13 


* Data not available. 



Water Conservation 

Urban. The urban water supply forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; 
consequently, only those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as 
options. All urban conservation options except reducing residential interior water use were 
retained. Reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ETg in new development would attain about 10 taf 
per year of depletion reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development 
would reduce depletions by about 30 taf per year. The remaining options were deferred or would 
only achieve minimal depletion reductions. Interior water use in the region is, on average, 
already at the levels evaluated as options in this Bulletin. Reducing CII water use by an 
additional 3 percent would attain 2 taf of depletion reductions per year. There is less than 1 taf of 
depletion reductions attainable with reduction in distribution system losses. 

Agricultural. Agricultural conservation options were deferred for this region, because no 
depletion reductions would be achieved. Excess applied irrigation water recharges overdrafted 

s 

aquifers in the major agricultural areas. 
Modify Existing Reservoirs or Operations 

In the Northern PSA, most of these options involve Nacimiento and San Antonio 
reservoirs. The options include raising and widening the spillway at Nacimiento Reservoir; 



7-60 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



constructing a tunnel or pipeline between the two reservoirs, changing reservoir operation rules; 
or any combination of these reservoir modification options would likely be combined with other 
options (such as improved conveyance facilities or groundwater recharge projects). Some of 
these options are estimated to cost less than $100 /af ~ raising and widening the spillway at 
Nacimiento Reservoir is one such option. Sediment removal may provide a very small amount of 
additional supply, and MPWMD is studying the effectiveness of sediment removal from its 
existing reservoirs (Los Padres and San Clemente). 

There are two proposals for reservoir enlargements in the Southern PSA. The Salinas 
Reservoir enlargement project would install a radial gate to raise the spillway height 19 feet 
above the existing elevation, increasing the reservoir's storage capacity by 1 7,950 af, and the city 
of San Luis Obispo's annual yield by 1,650 af In Santa Barbara County a proposed project 
would raise USSR's Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir) 50 feet for additional water supply 
plus an additional 40 feet for flood surcharge storage. The reservoir would serve the South Coast 
and the Santa Ynez Valley. This project could result in an additional annual yield of 1 7,000 af at 
a cost of about $1,200 per af 
New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Local water agencies have studied several new reservoir/conveyance facilities at different 
sites. In the Pajaro Valley, constructing a 27-foot high dam at the existing College Lake drainage 
pump house would create a 10,000 af reservoir at College Lake. The reservoir could be supplied 
with natural runoff and a supplemental 25 cfs diversion from Corralitos Creek during the winter. 
Its annual yield of 3,400 af could be supplied to the coastal or inland distribution systems 
through a 5-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline. The cost of this option is estimated to be under 
$400/af. Other reservoir options include Corncob Canyon and Pescadero Creek, both of which 
could store up to 10,000 af; both of these options are estimated to cost less than $600 per 
acre-foot. Bolsa De San Cayetano (estimated to cost $640 per acre-foot) could store up to 
4,000 af 

In the Salinas Valley, reservoir options include two offstream storage facilities in the 
Chalone Canyon and in Vaqueros Canyon, and an onstream reservoir on Gabilan Creek. A dam 
on Arroyo Seco was removed from further consideration as a water supply project, although 



7-61 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



MCWRA may evaluate it as a flood control project. The Monterey Peninsula could receive 
about 24,000 af from the proposed New Los Padres Reservoir, at a cost of about $400/af 
Located on the Carmel River, this new reservoir would inundate the existing Los Padres Dam. 
Although bonds to fund this option were narrowly rejected in a 1995 election, Cal-Am 
announced its intentions to proceed with the project, but at a reduced yield of 10,700 af. The 
southern parts of the North County could be served by supplies developed in the Salinas River 
basin. However, the cost of a distribution system for this water could be prohibitive. 

SLOCFC&WCD has an annual 17,500 af entitlement from Nacimiento Reservoir, only 
about 1,300 af of which is now used. A pipeline would be needed for distributing the remaining 
16,200 af The preferred pipeline route would go through the communities of Paso Robles, 
Templeton, Atascadero, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Obispo and terminate near Avila Beach. 
It would serve 1 8 purveyors. This option is not affected by reservoir modifications under 
consideration by MCWRA. 

Santa Barbara County has run into difficulties providing additional water supply because 
of the long-term environmental impacts from a single damsite or the presence of endangered 
species, as in the case of Camuesa and Salsipuedes reservoirs. In other cases, such as Hot 
Springs, New Gibraltar, and Round Corral reservoirs, insufficient yield or the high unit cost of 
water were sufficient to eliminate these projects as an option. These reservoir alternatives were 
evaluated in the 1985 DWR/Santa Barbara County report, Santa Barbara County SWP 
Alternatives. 

There are opportunities to import water from these projects from the CVP or SWP into 
the Northern PSA. In the Pajaro Valley, an option involves extending a pipeline from the 
USSR's San Felipe Unit, which delivers water from San Luis Reservoir into Santa Clara and San 
Benito counties. PVWMA does not have a CVP water service contract. CVPIA banned 
execution of new water service contracts for an indefinite period of time. ^PVWMA could 
connect to the San Felipe Unit by constructing a 22-mile pipeline from the Watsonville Turnout. 
This 42-inch diameter pipeline, with a capacity of 75 cfs, would be able to deliver a maximum of 
20,000 af per year. The agency expects the average annual yield of the project to be 13,000 af, if 



7-62 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



a source of transferred water could be found. Northern Monterey County could also benefit from 
a San Felipe extension because of the close proximity to the Pajaro Valley 
Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Because groundwater is the primary water source for the Central Coast Region, many 
options have a groundwater recharge component either by itself, or in conjunction with surface 
water development projects. In the Northern PSA, the Salinas Valley well system would include 
16 wells along the Salinas River between Greenfield and Chualar. Water pumped from these 
wells would induce additional groundwater recharge. This option could only be implemented in 
combination with other options, such as modifying and reoperating existing reservoirs, a 
diversion structure and off-stream storage facility along the Salinas River, or related conveyance 
facilities, and is thus deferred as a stand-alone option. In the Pajaro Valley, options include the 
Pajaro recharge canal (1,500 af annually) and the College Lake injection/extraction wells (seven 
wells to inject diverted surface runoff, which is currently captured in College Lake). These wells 
would be used to extract groundwater during dry years when deliveries of San Felipe water are 
reduced. In the Monterey Peninsula, the Seaside groundwater basin has the potential to produce 
an additional 1,000 af; this option may be pursued because of SWRCB's order which encourages 
the maximum use of supplies from Seaside to reduce diversions from the Carmel River. Another 
option would be to retrofit existing wells in the Seaside Basin with injection/extraction 
equipment to increase storage and use of Carmel River and other supplies more efficiently. This 
option would include a series of new wells and pipeline system from inland areas (Fort Ord) to 
the Monterey Peninsula. The system would be operated primarily for drought year supply. Yields 
and costs of this option are unknown at present. 

In Santa Cruz County, options include several new wells and deep brackish groundwater 
wells (with reverse osmosis treatment facilities) in the northern coast area. The new wells would 
provide an additional water supply of about 3,000 af while the brackish wells would be used for 
drought contingency. The groundwater resources of the north county could be increased by 
developing small local recharge projects, such as retention basins. However, the incremental 
yield of these projects would be small since the soils in the area are sandy and runoff is minimal. 
There are no physical facilities available for artificial recharge in the Southern PSA, but there are 



7-63 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



some potential sites along coastal streams in San Luis Obispo County where additional runoff 
could be used for recharging groundwater basins. 
Water Transfers/Exchange 

In the Salinas Valley, the best opportunity for imported supplies involves purchasing 
S WP water from the Coastal Branch which could either ( 1 ) be traded with San Luis Obispo 
County for that county's existing entitlement to Nacimiento reservoir water, or (2) be delivered 
directly through a pipeline constructed from the aqueduct's crossing at the Salinas River. This 
option is deferred in this Bulletin because of its significant institutional issues. 
Water Recycling 

For the Northern PSA, options under consideration would treat wastewater to tertiary 
levels, then deliver it for direct agricultural irrigation in the Castroville area (similar to the 
Castroville seawater intrusion project) or for groundwater recharge. In the Salinas Valley, an 
aquifer storage and recovery program would use injection wells to store recycled water produced 
during the winter, then extract this water for irrigation in the Castroville area during the summer 
months. This program has an estimated annual yield of up to 10,000 af 

In the Pajaro Valley, a 12-or 18-mgd reclamation plant would be constructed adjacent to 
the existing Watsonville Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 12 mgd plant (about 13,400 af 
annually) would only treat water from the Watsonville area, whereas the 1 8 mgd plant (about 
20,100 af annually) would treat water from both Watsonville and Santa Cruz. The 18 mgd 
option would require constructing a pipeline from Santa Cruz to Watsonville to transport 
treatment plant effluent. 

In the Monterey Peninsula, the Carmel Area Wastewater District/Pebble Beach 
Community Services District treatment plant could be expanded to provide more recycled water 
(up to 100 af annually) which could be used on golf courses, open space, or cemeteries. In 1992, 
local water agencies studied potential markets for recycled water produce^ by the regional 
reclamation plant near Marina. Potential uses of reclaimed water in Fort Ord, Seaside, and other 
Monterey Peninsula communities with a potential annual demand of up to 1,000 af were 
identified, but the uses were deemed economically infeasible at that time. This study is currently 
being updated to reflect the closure of Fort Ord. 



764 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



For the Southern PSA, recycled water projects have been proposed in conjunction with 
construction of new or expanded municipal wastewater treatment plants. In coastal areas— such 
as San Luis Bay, Estero, and south San Luis Obispo County— treated wastewater is discharged to 
the ocean, and reusing the wastewater would help reduce water supply shortages. (In the city of 
San Luis Obispo and in communities along the Salinas River, the wastewater recharges to the 
groundwater basin.) 

Planned reuse projects in Santa Barbara County include the Santa Barbara regional water 
reuse project, which would provide 1,555 af of reclaimed water annually for landscape irrigation 
within the city of Santa Barbara, Montecito Water District, and Summerland County Water 
District. This project would replace potable water being used for irrigation. Another project 
could be expanding Lompoc's secondary treatment facilities and Santa Barbara's tertiary 
treatment facilities for an additional annual yield of 2,000 af by the year 2000. 
Desalination 

Several coastal cities in the region have identified desalination as options for additional 
water supply. The city of Santa Cruz is conducting a feasibility study on a 4,500 af per year 
brackish groundwater desalting plant to supplement local water supplies. The Cambria and San 
Simeon community services districts had plans to jointly construct a sea water desalting plant 
with 320 af per year capacity initially, ultimate capacity of 1,300 af armually. This project has 
recently been put on hold. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District had plans for a 3,400 
af per year sea water desalting plant which was defeated by voters in the 1 992 election. 

B5"Photo: Marina CWD's new desalter 
Other Local Options 

In the Northern PSA, MCWRA has a weather modification program which targets the 
watersheds of the Nacimiento and San Antonio rivers and the Arroyo Seco. As a result, 
MCWRA estimates that increased annual flows into reservoirs ranged from about 8,000 af to 
68,000 af between 1990 to 1994. San Luis Obispo had a 3-year cloud seeding program that 
began in January 1991 to produce more runoff in the Salinas and Lopez watersheds. Although 
this program has ended, future programs may be a possibility. Future weather modification 
options are difficult to quantify and are deferred from further evaluation in this Bulletin. 



7-65 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Statewide Options 

Active planning for statewide water supply options is being done currently for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and for SWP future supply. See Chapter 6 for discussion on 
statewide water supply augmentation options. [The following text on SWP and CALFED 
supplies is a placeholder for potential outcomes of CALFED process. Text will be changed as 
CALFED results become available] 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Improving conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
River Delta would provide improvement to SWP supply reliability. For illustrative purposes, 
assuming improved Delta conditions through the implementation of CALFED alternatives, 
additional SWP yield to the region could be 2,000 and 3,000 af in average and drought years, 
respectively. 

State Water Project Improvements. The Department has two programs underway which 
would improve SWP yields to its contractors in the Central Coast Region. Each program is 
discussed in Chapter 6. The ISDP would augment SWP supplies to the region by 1,000 af in 
average and drought years. The Supplemental Water Purchase Program could provide an 
additional 4 taf in drought years. 

Enlarged Shasta Lake. Enlarging Shasta Lake to 13 maf of storage would increase 
drought year yield by about 1.5 maf. If we assume one-third of this yield is allocated to the 
environment, and the remaining two-thirds is allocated among the State and federal projects, the 
region could potentially receive 8 taf and 13 taf in average and drought years, respectively. 
Water Resources Management Plan for Central Coast Region 

By 2020, shortages in the region are projected to be about 177 taf for average year 
conditions and 273 taf for drought year conditions. Table 7-19 shows the options most likely to 
be implemented to meet these shortages. As discussed earlier, local water agencies in the Central 
Coast have done extensive water management planning. In most cases, the recommendations 
contained in the local agencies' basin management plans or other planning documents were 
reviewed and incorporated into the option evaluation process. 

A mix of options can help alleviate projected water shortages in the Central Coast 
Region. Local options include urban water conservation, modifying existing reservoirs, new 

7-66 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



reservoirs and conveyance, groundwater conjunctive use, water transfers, water recycling and 
desalination. To a lesser extent, statewide options could add 3 to 4 taf in average and drought 
years respectively. Even with these options, however, some remaining shortages are projected to 
occur in 2020, mostly in the Southern PSA. 

The urban water conservation options beyond BMPs that would likely be implemented 
would add 10 taf in depletion reductions in the region. Additional reliance on water recycling 
will be likely in the future to alleviate shortages. There could be 40 taf of additional water 
recycling in the region, producing 38 taf of new water supply. This amount is in addition to the 
2020 base level of 42 taf of new water supply from water recycling. Recycled water would be 
used for landscaping, direct agricultural application, and groundwater recharge. 

In the Pajaro Valley, options that would most likely be implemented by 2020 would 
include a pipeline to connect to the CVP's San Felipe Unit to provide an opportunity for water 
transfers. 

Modifying existing reservoirs or constructing new reservoirs are likely options for the 
region. One likely option to augment water supplies in the Salinas Valley would be to raise and 
widen Nacimiento Spillway. Raising the spillway 6.5 feet would increase storage capacity by 
34,000 af, increasing the reservoirs yield by about 20,000 af. A long-term water management 
plan for the Monterey Peninsula would likely include construction of the proposed New Los 
Padres Dam, which could augment supplies by 24 taf if the larger reservoir was built. 

In San Luis Obispo County, current planning focuses upon the Nacimiento pipeline, 
which would convey a portion of the county's entitlement of 17,500 acre-feet per year from Lake 
Nacimiento in northern San Luis Obispo County. Communities potentially receiving supplies 
from this option include the City of San Luis Obispo and Cayucos (through an exchange of water 
from Nacimiento and Whale Rock Reservoirs). In addition, the communities of Paso Robles, 
Templeton, and Atascadero may also receive supplies for groundwater recharge. Other sources of 
supply for San Luis Obispo County include enlarging Salinas Reservoir to increasing the City of 
San Luis Obispo's water supply by about 1 ,650 acre-feet per year. 

Statewide options would add onh 3 to 4 taf to the region. However, the completion of 
SWP's Coastal Branch makes water transfers and exchanges an option in the future. 



7-67 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



If implemented, the identified options would still leave remaining shortages in average 
and drought years of 34 taf and 1 70 taf, respectively. 

Table 7-19. Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 Central Coast Region 



Option 



Potential Gain (taf) 



Avg 


Drt 




177 




273 


10 




10 


22 




2 


50 




40 


2 




2 


13 




2 


38 




38 


5 




5 


3 




4 



Shortage 

Conservation 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Recycling 

Desalination 

Statewide Options 



Total Potential Gain 



143 



103 



Remaining Shortage 



34 



170 



7-68 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



South Coast Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The South Coast is the most urbanized California's region (Figure 7-5). AUhough it 
covers only about 7 percent of the State's total land area, it is home to roughly 54 percent of the 
State's population. Extending eastward from the Pacific Ocean, the region is bounded by the 
Santa Barbara- Ventura county line and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains on the 
north, and a combination of the San Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in 
central San Diego County on the east, and the Mexican border on the south. Topographically, 
the region is comprised of a series of broad coastal plains, gently sloping interior valleys, and 
mountain ranges of moderate elevations. The largest mountain ranges in the region are the San 
Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Laguna mountains. Peak elevations are 
generally between 5,000 and 8,000 feet above sea level; however, some peaks are nearly 1 1,000 
feet high. 

The climate of the region is Mediterranean-like, with warm dry summers followed by 
mild winters. In the warmer interior, maximum temperatures during the summer can be over 
90°F. The moderating influence of the ocean results in lower temperatures along the coast. 
During winter, temperatures rarely descend to freezing except in the mountains and some interior 
valley locations. 

About 80 percent of the precipitation occurs during the four-month period from Decem- 
ber through March. Average annual rainfall quantities can range from 1 to 15 inches on the 
coastal plains and 20 to 45 inches in the mountains. Precipitation in the highest mountains 
commonly occurs as snow. In most years, snowfall quantities are sufficient to support winter 
sports in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains. 

There are several prominent rivers in the region, including the Santa Clara, Los Angeles, 
San Gabriel, Santa Ana, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey. Some segments of these rivers have 
been intensely modified for flood control. Natural runoff of the region's streams and rivers 
averages around 1,200,000 af annually. 



7-69 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Figure 7-5. South Coast Hydrologic Region 



PYRAitm 
LAKE \ 

Sespe y 

VENTURA ^ 
LAKE Clara 



CASTAIC^ 
LAKE 



% CASITAS 



River \^ 



LOS A M G E L E'S 
/' 









■% LAKE 
^ «*^, FERRIS 

^laKs _ 

HaZ^EWS r 1 V E R S 1 D E 



s^JD R A M G E 



y 



- - ■a- — 



.S»*' 



S^^ f 



SAN 

J D 1 E G 01 

e 



et 




irTx 



SCOLE IN MILES 



7-70 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



The largest cities in tlie region are Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Santa Ana, and 
Anaheim. Despite being so urbanized, about one-third of the region's land is publicly owned. 
About 2.3 million acres is public land, of which 75 percent is national forest. Irrigated crop 
acreage accounts for a small percent of land use. Table 7-20 shows the region's population and 
crop acreage for 1995 and 2020. 

Table 7- 20. Population and Crop Acreage (In thousands) 



1995 2020 



Population 17,299 24,327 

Irrigated Crop Acres 313 190 

Water Demands and Supplies 

Since the turn of the century, extensive water development has been carried out through- 
out the South Coast Region. Steady expansion of population and the economy lead to sufficient 
demand and financial resources to build large water supply projects for importing water to the 
region. In 1913, the Los Angeles Aqueduct began importing water from the Mono-Owens area 
to the South Coast region (a second conduit was added in 1970). In 1941, the MWDSC 
completed its Colorado River Aqueduct, which now provides about 25 percent of the region's 
supply. SWP began delivering water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the South Coast 
Region in 1972. Table 7-21 shows the water budget for the region. 



7-71 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-21. South Coast Region Water Demand and Supply (taf) 





1995 




2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 










Urban 


4,340 


4,382 


5,519 


5,612 


Agricultural 


784 


820 


462 


484 


Environmental 


31 


31 


35 


35 


Total Applied Water 


5,155 


5,232 


6,015 


6,130 


Supplies 










Surface Water 


3,770 


3,085 


3,764 


3,084 


Groundwater 


1,177 


1,371 


1,196 


1,422 


Recycled and/or Desalted 


207 


207 


328 


328 


Total Supplies 


5,155 


4,664 


5,288 


4,835 


Shortages 





568 


728 


1,295 



ra^Photo: LA Aqueduct 
Los Angeles Aqueduct 

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power owns and operates the LAA which 
diverts both surface and groundwater from the Owens Valley and surface water from the Mono 
Basin. The combined carrying capacity of the two aqueducts is about 780 cfs. or about 564,000 
af per year. An average of 400,000 af of water is delivered through the LAA with a record 
534,000 af in 1983. Court-ordered restrictions on diversions from the Mono Basin and Owens 
Valley have reduced the amount of water the City of Los Angeles can divert (see South Lahontan 
Region). 
Colorado River Aqueduct 

MWDSC was created in 1928 to construct and operate the Colorado River Aqueduct so 
that Colorado River water could be delivered to Southern California. MWDSC wholesales water 
supplies from the Colorado River and the SWP to water agencies throughout Southern Califor- 
nia. 

MWDSC and its 27 member agencies (see Table 7-22) serve 95 percent of the South 
Coast Region. Some agencies rely solely on MWDSC for their water supply, while many, like 
the City of Los Angeles and San Diego County Water Authority, rely on MWDSC to supplement 



7-72 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



existing supplies. Between fiscal years 1970 and 1994, the City of Los Angeles purchased an 
average of 130,000 acre-feet per year from MWDSC, about 20 percent of the City's total water 
supply. In 1995. approximately 77 percent (396,000 af) of San Diego County Water Authority's 
total water supply was purchased from MWDSC. 

Table 7-22 
Member Agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Member Cities Municipal Water Distri cts Water Authority 

Anaheim Calleguas San Diego County 

Beverly Hills Central Basin 

Burbank Chino Basin 

Compton Coastal 

Fullerton Eastern 

Glendaie Foothill 

Long Beach Las Virgenes 

Los Angeles Orange County 

Pasadena Three Valleys 

San Fernando West Basin 

San Marino Upper San Gabriel Valley 

Santa Ana Western of Riverside County 

Santa Monica 

Torrance 



MWDSC has received Colorado River water since 1941 under contracts with USBR. 
These contracts have allowed the diversion of 1.21 million af each year, as well as 180,000 af per 
year of surplus water when available. (The maximum capacity of the CRA is 1.3 maf per year.) 
In 1964, a U.S. Supreme Court decree, Arizona v. California, limited California's basic 
apportionment of Colorado River water to 4.4 maf per year. However, California was able to use 
the amount allocated to, but not used by, Nevada and Arizona. With completion of the Central 
Arizona Project and the 1996 enactment of a state groundwater banking act, Arizona projects that 
it will use virtually all of its apportionment for the first time in 1998. The fact that California 
will have to reduce its Colorado River use from current levels to 4.4 maf per year has significant 

7-73 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Cliapter 7. Coastal Regions 



implications for the South Coast Region. (See the Issues section below and the Colorado River 
Region in Chapter 9). California's Colorado River use in 1996 was 5.3 maf, and has varied from 
4.5 maf to 5.3 maf annually over the past 10 years. 
State Water Project 

Local agencies contracting with the State Water Project for part of their supplies are 
shown in Table 7-23. 

Table 7-23 
State Water Project Contractors in the South Coast Region 



Agency 



Maximum Contract 

Entitlement 

(af/yr) 



SWP Deliveries in 
1995 
(af/yr) 



Castaic Lake Water Agency 

San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 

San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District 

San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Ventura County Flood Control District 



54,200 


27,233 


102,600 


696 


28,800 


12,922 


17,300 


-0- 


2,011,500 


436,042 


20,000 


-0- 



MWDSC is the largest SWP contractor with ultimate entitlement of more than 2 maf In 
1992, Castaic Lake Water Agency assumed the SWP contract of Devil's Den Water District in 
the Tulare Lake Region, increasing Castaic' s entitlement to 54,200 af. Within the San 
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District service area, groundwater is the major source of 
water for customers, and hence the District has used little of its SWP water. Ventura County 
Flood Control District also relies mostly on groundwater and has taken delivery of SWP supply 
only twice, during the drought in 1990 and 1991 . San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (which also 
serves a portion of the Colorado River Region) lacks the facilities to take delivery of SWP water, 
and to date has received no actual supply from the SWP. 

The Department is working with the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency and the San 
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to extend the East Branch of the California 
Aqueduct SGPWA, which serves the Banning Pass area of Riverside County including the 
communities of Banning and Beaumont, and to provide system improvements to SBVMWD. 



7-74 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I construction will begin early in 1998 and 
is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 1999. Water deliveries should commence by the 
fall of 1999. A second phase will be constructed to serve the Mentone area if demand increases. 

■^Photo: Edmonston Pumping Plant 
Local Surface Water Supplies 

Table 7-24 lists major local storage reservoirs in the region. Most of the largest reser- 
voirs in the region have water supply as their primary purpose. However, several of the larger 
water supply reservoirs do not actually develop local supply ~ they are the terminal facilities of 
the major conveyance facilities that import water to the region. 

Table 7-24. Major Reservoirs in the South Coast Region 



Reservoir Name 



Owner 



Capacity 
(taf) 



Primary 
Purpose 



Casitas 

Lake Piru 

Pyramid 

Castaic 

Big Bear Lake (Bear Valley) 

Ferris 

Mathews 

Vail 

Henshaw 

San Vicente 

El Capitan 

Morena 

Whittier Narrows 

Prado 

Seven Oaks 

Eastside 



USBR 

United WCD 

DWR 

DWR 

Big Bear MWD 

DWR 

MWDSC 

Rancho California WD 

Vista ID 

City of San Diego 

City of San Diego 

City of San Diego 

COE 

COE 

COE (under construction) 

MWDSC (under construction) 



254 


Water Supply 


88 


Water Supply 


171 


Water Supply 


324 


Water Supply 


73 


Water Supply 


132 


Water Supply 


182 


Water Supply 


50 


Water Supply 


53 


Water Supply 


90 


Water Supply 


113 


Water Supply 


50 


Water Supply 


67 


Flood Control 


183 


Flood Control 


146 


Flood Control 


800 


Water Supply 



Reservoirs with capacity greater than 50,000 acre-feet. 



Table 7-25 lists the local reservoirs in MWDSC's service area with at least 10 taf storage 



capacity. 



7-75 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter A Coastal Regions 



Table 7-25. Major Local Storage Reservoirs in MWDSC's Service Area 







Storage Capacity 


Member Agency/Subagency 


Reservoir 


(taf) 




Calleguas MWD 


Lake Bard 




10.0 


Eastern MWD 








Rancho California WD 


Vail Lake 




51.0 


Lake Hemet MWD 


Lake Hemet 




14.0 


Las Virgenes MWD 


Westlake Reservoir 




10.0 


City of Los Angeles 


Los Angeles 




10.2 




Stone Canyon 




10.8 


MWD of Orange County 








Irvine Ranch WD & Serrano ID 


Santiago 




25.0 


San Diego CWA 








Vista ID 


Henshaw 




51.8 


Helix ID 


Cuyamaca Dam & Lake Jennings 




18.0 


City of San Diego 


Barrett 




38.0 




El Capitan 




112.8 




Lake Hodges 




.33.6 




Morena 




50.2 




Lower Otay 




49.5 




San Vicente 




90.2 




Sutherland 




29.7 


Sweetwater Authority 


Lake Loveland 




25.4 




Sweetwater 




27.7 


Western MWD of Riverside 








Temescal Water Company 


Railroad Canyon 




12.0 


Total 






670.0 



SDCWA supplies water to the western third of San Diego County through water supplies 
from MWDSC. About 96 percent of the county's population resides within SDCWA' s service 
area. SDCWA, a wholesale water agency, purchases imported water from MWDSC and delivers 
it to its 23 member agencies (Table 7-26 ) through two aqueducts systems. SDCWA's maxi- 
mum armual delivery was 647,000 acre-feet in 1990. Local agencies' surface reservoirs provide 
most of San Diego County's local water supplies. Twenty-four surface Reservoirs are located 
within its service area, with a combined capacity of approximately 569 taf Some reservoirs are 
connected to SDCWA's aqueduct system and can receive imported water in addition to surface 
runoff. In 1995, local water sources provided 118 taf, or 23 percent of the water used in 



7-76 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



SDCWA's service area. (Since 1980, local surface water supplies have ranged from 33 taf to 
174 taf annually.) 

Table 7-26. San Diego County Water Authority Member Agencies 



Member Cities 

Del Mar 
Escondido 
National City 
Oceanside 
Poway 
San Diego 

Water Districts 

Helix 

Otay 

San Dieguito 

Vallecitos 



Municipal Water Districts 

Carlsbad 

Olivenhain 

Padre Dam 

Rainbow 

Ramona 

Rincon Del Diablo 

Valley Center 

Yuima 



Irrigation Districts 

Santa Fe 
South Bay 

Vista 

Public Utility District 

Fallbrook 

Reservation 

Pendleton Military 

Ex-Officio Member 

San Diego County 



Municipal Water District of Orange County, a wholesale water agency, purchases 
imported water from MWDSC and delivers it to its 28 member agencies (Table 7-27 ) serving 
about 65 percent of Orange County. In December 1997, hearings are expected to begin before 
the Local Agency Formation Commission to merge MWDOC and Coastal MWD, the two 
wholesale agencies serving Orange County. Local supplies developed by individual retail 
agencies, primarily groundwater, presently account for about 50 percent of Orange County's 
water use. The primary groundwater basin is located in the northern half of Orange County. 



7-77 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-27. Member Agencies of Municipal Water District of Orange County 



Cities 



Water Districts 



Other 



Brea 

Buena Park 
Fountain Valley 
Garden Grove 
Huntington Beach 
La Habra 
La Palma 
Orange 
Seal Beach 
Tustin 
Westminster 



Capistrano Valley 
East Orange County 
El Toro 
Irvine Ranch 
Los Alisos 
Mesa Consolidated 
Moulton Niguel 
Orange County 
Santa Margarita 
Santiago County 
Serrano 

Trabuco Canyon 
Yorba Linda 



County of Orange 
The Irvine Company 
Irvine Ranch LLC 
So. California Water Co. 



Groundwater Supplies 

There are numerous groundwater basins (Figure 7-6) along the coast and inland valleys of 
the region. Many of these basins are actively managed by a public agency or have been 
adjudicated by the courts. Recharge occurs from natural infiltration along river valleys, but in 
many cases facilities have been constructed to recharge local, imported or reclaimed supplies. 
Some groundwater basins are as large as several hundred square miles in area and have a 
capacity exceeding 10 maf The South Coast's current estimated armual groundwater use is 
about 1 .2 maf More groundwater is used in drought years when surface supplies are limited. 
During wetter periods, programs are in place to intentionally recharge groundwater basins. With 
1995 level of development, about 100 taf is intentionally recharged in average years. In the 
water budget, water supplies used to recharge groundwater basins are included as an urban water 
demand in average years. "" 

Table 7-28 shows adjudicated groundwater basins in the South Coast Region. In the 
adjudicated groundwater basins, the court appoints watermasters to oversee the court judgment. 
In these basins the court judgment limits the amount of groundwater that can be extracted by 
parties to the judgment. 



7-78 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Figure 7-6. South Coast Groundwater Basins 



10 



^ 



16 



Santa Clare Rlv«r 


Valley 


Ventura 




> 




1 


Pleasant Valley 




Ventura 








\ 


Los Posas Valla/ 




Ventura 








\ 


San Famando 




Los Angeles 






) Ji*-^ 


n 


Santa Monica 
Hol^rwood 




Lot Angeles 
Lot Angeles 






\^^y%^^^ 




Raymond 
Wast Coast 




Los Angeles 
Los Angeles 






^N 19 
^^^ 20 





Central 




Los Angeles 






21 C^-- 




Main San Gablel 




Los Angeles 










Orenga County Coaatal Plain 


Orangs 


No. 




Name 


fiumtl 


Upper Santa Ana 


Valley 


Riverside, San Bemartjino 


17 


El 


Cajon Valley 


San Diego 


San Jacinto 




Riverside 


IB 


Mission Valley 


San Diego 


Tsmecula Valley 




RIvertlde 


19 


Sweetwater Valley 


San Diego 


Warner Valley 




San Olego 


20 


Otay Valley 


Sen Diego 


San Diego River 




San Olego 


21 


Tla 


Juena 


San Diego 



7-79 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-28. Adjudicated Groundwater Basins in the South Coast Region 



Court Name 


Filed in 
Court 


Final 
Decision 


Watermaster 


Basin Name, County 


Upper Los Angeles 
River Area 


1955 


1979 


Superior Court appointee 


San Fernando Valle\ Basin (entire 
xsatershed), Los Angeles 


Ra> mond Basin 


1937 


1944 


Ra>mond Basin Management 
Board 


Northwest part of San Gabriel Val- 
le> Basin, Los Angeles 


Main San Gabriel 
Basin 


1968 


1973 


9-Member Board appointed by 
the LA Count) Superior Court 


San Gabriel Valles Basin, exclud- 
ing Raymond Basin. Los Angeles 


Central Basin 


1962 


1965 


DWR-Southern District 


Northeast part of Coastal Plain of 
Los Angeles County Basin, Los 
Angeles 


West Coast Basin 


1946 


1961 


DWR-Southern District 


Southwest part of Coastal Plain of 
Los Angeles County Basin. Los 
Angeles 



Puente 



1985 1985 Two consultants, one represent- 

ing the Walnut Valley WD and 
Rowland WD; and one for the 
Cit> of Industry and Industry Ur- 
ban De\ elopment Agency; and a 
third neutral party 



San Gabriel Valley Basin, exclud- 
ing Ray mond Basin. Los Angeles 



Santa Margarita 
River Watershed 



U.S. District Court appointee 



The entire Santa Margarita River 
watershed, including three ground- 
water basins — Santa Margarita Val- 
ley. Temecula Valley and Cahuila 
Valley. San Diego and Riverside. 



Santa Paula Basin 



1991 



3 person technical Advisor) 
Committee from United Water 
Conservation District. City of 
Ventura, and Santa Paula Basin 
Pumpers Association 



Sub-basin of Santa Clara River. 
Ventura County 



Chino Basin 



1978 



Chino Basin Municipal Water 
District 



Chino Basin, northwest part of Up- 
per Santa Ana Valley Basin, San 
Bernardino and Riverside counties 



Cucamonga Basin 



Not yet appointed, operated as 
part of Chino Basin 



Cucamonga Basin, north-central 
part of Upper Santa Ana Valley Ba- 
sin. San Bernardino Counlv 



San Bernardino 
Basin Area 



1969 One representative each from 

Western Municipal Water District 
and San Bernardino Valley Mu- 
nicipal Water District 



Northeast part of Upper Santa Ana 
Basin. San Bernardino and River- 
side Counties 



Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Water Supply Reliability 

The South Coast Region is the most populous in the State. Since local supplies are 
insufficient to meet water demands, the region imports more than 60 percent of its supply. A 



7-80 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 7 Coastal Regions 



natural disaster or other emergency that would curtail or limit imports to the region would be 
detrimental. Hence, water supply reliability is a critical issue for the region and water agencies 
are looking to ensure a more reliable and adequate supply in case of emergencies. 

Eastside Reservoir. MWDSC provides about 60 percent of the water used by the nearly 
1 6 million people living on the coastal plain between Ventura County and the Mexican border. 
To better manage its water supplies between wet and dry years, MWDSC is currently construct- 
ing Eastside Reservoir. The 800,000 af reservoir will nearly double the region's existing surface 
storage capacity. When completed and filled, Eastside Reservoir would provide the entire region 
with a six-month emergency supply after an earthquake or other disaster. It would also provide 
additional water supplies for drought protection and peak summer demands. 

Under construction in the Domenigoni and Diamond valleys near Hemet in southwestern 
Riverside County, the $2 billion project consists of two main embankments to block both the east 
and west ends of the valleys, as well as a saddle dam located along a low point in the hills which 
form the northern boundary of the reservoir. The reservoir also includes a forebay and pumping 
plant, the 8-mile, 12-foot diameter Eastside Pipeline. After reservoir completion in 1999, it will 
take up to four years to fill with water imported from the Colorado River and from the SWP. 
Water imported from the Colorado River Aqueduct will be delivered through the San Diego 
Canal into the reservoir forebay and pumped into the reservoir. SWP water will be released from 
Lake Silverwood into Eastside Reservoir by gravity through MWDSC's new 44-mile Inland 
Feeder pipeline. 

The Inland Feeder project is a new major conveyance facility to deliver SWP water made 
available by the enlargement of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct. The 43.5-mile 
tunnel/pipeline will provide system reliability by linking together the SWP and Colorado River 
systems, and will improve water quality by allowing blending of SWP and Colorado River 
waters. 

San Diego Emergency Storage Project. SDCWA does not own or operate treatment or 
storage facilities. It has a contractual agreement with the City of San Diego to store up to 40,000 
acre-feet of water in San Vicente and Lower Otay reservoirs. To increase local supplies that 
would be available during times of emergency, SDCWA has proposed an emergency storage 



7-81 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regiorts 



project that could increase the county's total water storage by 90,000 acre-feet. Use of the ESP 
would be limited to emergency situations, such as prolonged drought or catastrophic failure of 
SDCWA's pipelines during an earthquake or other disaster. Although the ESP is not a water 
supply development project, it does provide incidental local supply benefits by allowing capture 
of additional winter runoff. 

Four ESP alternatives were evaluated. All involved increased surface storage and new 
distribution systems. Three alternatives additionally involved reservoir reoperation. 

• San Vicente Stand Alone. Expand San Vicente Reservoir by raising the dam 83 feet to 
contain 90,100 af of emergency storage. 

• Moosa Canyon Construction/Lake Hodges Reoperation. Construct a new dam at Moosa 
Canyon to hold 68,000 af and reoperate Lake Hodges to hold 22,100 af 

• San Vicente Expansion and Reoperation. Raise the dam by 65 feet, adding 68,000 af of 
emergency storage and reoperate the reservoir to provide an additional 22,100 af. 

• Olivenhain Construction, Lake Hodges Reoperation. San Vicente Expansion. Build new 
320 -foot high dam at Olivenhain site to create 18,000 af of emergency storage. Reoper- 
ate Lake Hodges to hold an additional 20,000 af and raise San Vicente Dam by 54 feet to 
hold an additional 52,100 af 

The preferred project alternative is the Olivenhain-Hodges-San Vicente system. A new 
reservoir would be constructed about 1 mile northwest of Lake Hodges at Mount Israel in 
conjunction with Olivenhain Municipal Water District. The new Olivenhain Reser\'oir would be 
connected to Lake Hodges by a 1 .5-mile pipeline. San Vicente Dam would be raised from 
234 feet to 288 feet. The Olivenhain-Hodges-San Vicente system would add 90,100 af of 
emergency storage capacity. The final EIR and EIS were certified in 1997. 

Meanwhile, Olivenhain Municipal Water District is proceeding with plans to construct a 
reservoir at the Mount Israel site. Without participants such as SDCWA,-«the district would have 
constructed a 6 taf to 8 taf reservoir on Box Canyon Creek for emergency and operational supply. 
Management of California's Colorado River Water 

A major water management issue facing the South Coast Region (see Colorado River 
Region in Chapter 9 for a complete discussion) is California's use of Colorado River water in 



7-82 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



excess of its basic annual apportionment of 4.4 maf In the past, Arizona and Nevada were not 
using the full amount of their annual apportionments, and California was able to use the amount 
apportioned to, but not used by, Nevada and Arizona. 

Discussions among the seven Colorado River basin states over changes to Colorado River 
operating criteria and ways for California to reduce its use of Colorado River water have been 
ongoing. The other basin states have indicated that a temporary or short-term change to 
Colorado River operating criteria could be acceptable to them as part of a package of actions for 
California to reduce its annual use to 4.4 maf Discussions have been underway among 
California Colorado River water users to develop a consensus position on these issues. 

Options that would keep MWDSC's Colorado Aqueduct flowing at its full capacity of 1.3 
maf in the future are discussed in the following section. (At a California limitation of 4.4 maf, 
MWDSC would onh- be able to exercise its fourth priority right to 550 taf, as compared to 
maximum aqueduct capacity of 1 .3 maf) A more detailed review of Colorado River issues is 
provided in Chapter 9. 
Mono Basin 

The City of Los Angeles' water diversions from Mono Basin have lowered Mono Lake's 
water level by more than 40 feet since 1941 and also increased the lake's salinity. (See the South 
Lahontan Region in Chapter 10 for more detailed discussion on the Mono Lake issue.) In 1994, 
the SWRCB adopted Water Right Decision 1631 amending the City of Los Angeles' water right 
licenses for diverting water from Mono Basin. The decision restricts diversions from the basin to 
restore the lake level to 6,392 feet above sea level over an approximate 20-year period. Average 
exports during the 20-year period are estimated at 12,300 af/year, a reduction from an average of 
83,000 af/yr from the Basin between 1974 and 1989. 
Restoration of Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries 

Ballotta Wetlands Preserve. Although the majority of California's wetlands habitat is 
found in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay area, there are significant wetlands in the 
South Coast, as described below. The Ballona wetlands is one of the more well-known South 
Coast wetlands. 



7-83 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



The Ballona Wetlands Preserve, located in Los Angeles County near Marina Del Rey, is 
one of the few tidal marshes in Southern California. It is a complex of estuary, lagoon, salt 
marsh, freshwater marsh, and dune habitats. It provides nesting grounds for migrating water- 
fowl, supports a variety of plant, fish, and animal life, and is home to two endangered species — 
Belding's Savannah sparrow and the California least tern. The present Ballona wetlands is a 
small remnant of what existed in the early 1 800s, when the wetlands comprised more than 2,000 
acres. At the present time, it has been reduced to a little more than 1 80 acres. 

The Ballona Wetlands Preserve is the subject of a long-running debate among private 
property owners and environmental groups that began in 1984 when the California Coastal 
Commission approved a land use plan to develop the wetlands. In the years that followed, the 
plaintiffs and defendants have worked out a settlement to the lawsuit. The settlement provides 
for: 

• Major restoration of 1 90 acres of salt marsh habitat. Plans are underway to provide the 
eastern portion of the salt marsh with full tidal flow and expanded habitat for sub-tidal 
and mudflat organisms. The western portion would be provided with muted tidal flow to 
protect and enhance existing salt marsh habitat for pickleweed and the Belding's Savan- 
nah sparrow. 

• A 34-acre freshwater marsh. 

• A 25-acre corridor of riparian habitat along Centinela Creek. This area will potentially 
provide appropriate vegetation for Bell's least vireo and a wide variety of other birds 
which favor riparian trees for nesting. 

• Restoration of 48 acres of upland, bluff edge, and coastal strand habitat. 

When completed, the Ballona Wetlands Preserve will be one of the largest wildlife 
sanctuaries in any major U.S. city. 

Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay extends about 50 miles fi;om Point Dume to Palos 
Verdes Point. A coordinated effort to improve the Santa Monica Bay ecosystem began with 
establishment of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. SMBRP was accepted into the 
Clean Water Act's National Estuary Program in 1988, and was charged with assessing the bay's 



7-84 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



problems and with producing a bay restoration plan. Implementation of the plan, approved by 
the Governor in 1994, and by the Administrator of USEPA in 1995, is currently underway. 
Flood Control 

As noted earlier, groundwater constitutes most of the local water supply in the region. 
Local surface water resources are relatively limited. In the Los Angeles-Orange County coastal 
strip, most of the rivers and streams that drain to the Pacific Ocean have been developed 
primarily for flood control purposes, rather than for surface water supply. (Some of these 
reservoirs are operated to provide surface flows for groundwater recharge. A few of the existing 
flood control reservoirs are now being evaluated for their potential to provide some, albeit small, 
water supply benefits, usually by reoperation of the facilities to enhance groundwater recharge 
and provide limited year-round storage. Several of these facilities are discussed in the water 
management options section. Below, we discuss a few examples of flood control-related water 
management issues in the region. 

Los Angeles River. The USACE, in cooperation with Los Angeles County, has con- 
structed an extensive network of flood control facilities on the Los Angeles River, which passes 
through one of the most intensively urbanized areas in the South Coast Region. (In fact, 
discussions on transportation issues in the region sometimes mention converting the existing 
concrete channel into a freeway or high-occupancy-vehicle transit route.) USACE's flood control 
facilities on the Los Angeles River and its tributaries include five major dams, 22 debris basins, 
and 470 miles of channel modifications. 

Flood control operations in coastal Southern California, and their interaction with 
reservoir operations for water supply purposes, typically differ from those in Northern California. 
The Sierran reservoirs in the Central Valley that provide most of California's developed surface 
water supply are, as a broad generalization, operated from a water supply standpoint to manage 
snowmelt runoff that occurs over a period of several months, and to hold large volumes of carry- 
over storage throughout the year. Flood control reservoirs in coastal Southern California are 
operated to provide short-term detention (days to weeks) of peak flows from rainfloods. Many of 
these reservoirs impound ephemeral streams, or streams whose runoff is so small that little water 
supply benefit is available. 



7-85 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



usage's facilities on the Los Angeles River were designed to provide temporary 
detention of peak flows, to allow the flows to be released to the Pacific Ocean without exceeding 
downstream chaimel capacities. Continually increasing water demands in the South Coast 
Region have prompted reevalution of the operations of some of the larger flood control facilities, 
to determine if their operations could be modified to provide limited additional water supply. 
One example is a 67 taf flood control detention basin impounded by Whittier Narrows Dam on 
Rio Hondo, a Los Angeles River tributary, described in the following water management options 
section. 

Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River has been channelized for almost its entire length 
throughout the highly urbanized part of Orange County, from the river's mouth near Costa Mesa 
upstream to the vicinity of Placentia. Upstream, Prado Dam in the Santa Ana Mountains 
impounds a large flood control detention basin. The USACE has constructed several flood 
control features of the Santa Ana mainstem project, with the most recent facility of that project 
being Seven Oaks Dam. The 550-foot high Seven Oaks Dam, under construction now, is located 
about 35 miles upstream from Prado Dam and will have a gross storage capacity of about 
146,000 af As constructed, the 134-foot high earthfill Prado Dam has a storage capacity of 
217,000 af Future plans entail enlarging Prado's capacity to 363,000 af of flood control storage. 
After Prado Dam is enlarged, the Orange County Water District would propose to raise the 
reservoir's minimum pool level, to capture runoff for water supply purposes. This enlargement 
in storage would be accompanied by development of a new flood forecasting system for the 
reservoir. The District is currently undertaking a feasibility study with USACE to evaluate 
potential water supply gains from Prado's enlargement. It is estimated that allowing additional 
storage at Prado by modifying its flood control operation would provide an additional 3,000 af to 
5,000 af of aimual supply for groundwater recharge. 
Water Quality Issues Associated with Imported Water 

Imported water from the Colorado River and the SWP is a major source of supply for the 
South Coast Region. A critical factor in determining the usability of these supplies is the water 
quality. The total dissolved solids concentration in imported water has water management 
implications for the region, affecting the feasibility of water recycling and groundwater recharge 



786 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



programs. Because residential use of water adds TDS concentration, water recycled from a 
moderately high TDS source water can result in unacceptably high TDS concentrations. 
Groundwater recharge may be affected because some groundwater basins have water quality 
limitations on the use of high TDS recharge. These limitations are generally the result of water 
quality objectives developed by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 

Mineral concentrations in Colorado River water are higher than those found in the water 
taken from the Delta. The TDS of the Colorado River Aqueduct supply currently averages 650 
mg/L while SWP supply has a TDS of about 350 TDS mg/L. TDS of the CRA supply is 
expected to increase to about 700 mg/L even with planned salinity control measures for the 
Colorado River. Colorado River water is generally blended with SWP water to reduce TDS 
concentrations. As discussed in Chapter 3, SWP supplies contain disinfection by-product 
precursors, from bromides in seawater and from organics in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta soils. 
MWDSC/USBR Salinity Management Study 

In 1996, USBR and MWDSC began a joint salinity management study to develop 
information to support adoption of regional salinity management policies by MWDSC and to 
coordinate interagency action to solve salinity problems. The study's initial phase focuses on 
identifying problems and salinity management needs of MWDSC's service area. 

According to Phase I work performed for the study, the average salinity level in 
MWDSC's Colorado River water in 1996 was about 700 mg/L of TDS, and MWDSC's SWP 
supplies averaged about 300 mg/L. The City of Los Angeles' water suppl>' from the eastern 
Sierra Nevada was significantly lower in salinity, typically about 100 mg/L. TDS levels in local 
groundwater supplies in South Coast Region varj' considerably, ranging from 200 mg/L 
(Cucamonga Basin near Upland) to more than 1,000 mg/L (Arlington Basin near Corona). 
About 1 1 percent of the regional groundwater production has TDS concentrations in excess of 
1,000 mg/L. An additional 1 1 percent of production has TDS in excess of 500 mg/L. 



7-87 DRAFT 



TDS Concentration 


Annual Production 


(mg/L) 


(maf) 


Less Than 500 


1.06 


500 to 1,000 


0.15 


Greater than 1,000 


0.15 




1.36 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-29. TDS of Groundwater Supply 

Percent 

78 
11 
11 
100 

Local sources of salinity also contribute significantly to the problems within the region. 
Urban uses of water contribute between 250 to 500 mg/L of salts into the wastewater. Key 
sources of local salts include the use of water softeners (typically contributing from 5 to 10 
percent of the salt load) and industrial processes. See Table 7-29. 

The long-term salt balance of South Coast groundwater basins is an important manage- 
ment problem. Smaller basins like the Arlington and Mission groundwater basins were aban- 
doned for municipal supply because of high salinity levels. Only recently have these basins been 
restored to use through construction of desalting projects. Starting in the early 1970s with initial 
SWP deliveries to the South Coast, blending of SWP and Colorado River supplies, or using the 
SWP's relatively low TDS supplies for groundwater replenishment, became a goal in some areas. 
However, without an ocean outfall or stream discharge, some inland agencies that reuse 
wastewater have salt accumulation problems in their groundwater basins. Some inland agencies 
have access to a brine line for exporting salt and concentrated wastes to a coastal treatment plant 
and ocean outfall, while others have not found construction of a brine line economical. 

The apparent dilemma for the region is that during droughts when the use of recycled 
water projects and marginal quality groundwater are most important, some of these local supplies 
may be constrained by water quality problems. Beginning in the mid-1980s, with the expansion 
of water recycling programs, concerns about wastewater TDS have grown significantly. In 
general, TDS more than 1,000 mg/L is a quality problem for irrigation and industrial reuse 
customers. 

The study's second phase will evaluate TDS management options such as desalting 
source supplies (Colorado River), imported water blending strategies, desalting at the point of 
use (brackish groundwater and at wastewater treatment plants), dilution at point of use, source 

7-88 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



control regulations, and corresponding changes in Regional Water Quality Control Board basin 
plan requirements. 
Groundwater Issues 

San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys. Groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel 
Valley and San Fernando Valley basins has come from many sources dating back to the 1940s. 
Each basin has four areas on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund list. 

More than 30 square miles of groundwater under the San Gabriel Valley Basin may be 
contaminated. Contamination of the groundwater by volatile organic compounds was first 
detected in 1979 when Aerojet Electrosystems in Azusa sampled nearby wells in Valley County 
Water District. Subsequently. DHS initiated a well sampling program to assess the extent of 
contamination. By 1984, 59 wells were found to be contaminated with high levels of VOCs. 
The most prevalent are trichloroethene, perchloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride. 

The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority was created by the State Legislature in 
1993 to be the agency responsible for remediating groundwater contamination in San Gabriel 
Valley. WQA's mission is to plan and implement groundwater quality management programs 
£ind to protect the basin from future contamination. The WQA is under the direction and 
leadership of a 5-member board, comprised of one member from each of the overlying municipal 
water districts, one from a city with prescriptive water pumping rights and one from a city 
without prescriptive water pumping rights. The three municipal water districts are San Gabriel 
Valley MWD, Three Valleys MWD, and Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD. 

Currently, four areas of the basin are of concern: Whittier Narrows, Puente Basin, 
Baldwin Park/ Azusa, and El Monte/South El Monte. The WQA is involved in groundwater 
cleanup projects in these areas. The Whittier Narrows and Puente Basins are also being managed 
by USEPA under its Superfund program. An additional concern is that contamination in the 
South El Monte area might migrate from the San Gabriel Basin through the Whittier Narrows 
and into the Central Basin. 

The Arrow Well Treatment Plant in Baldwin Park was the first project implemented by 
the WQA, utilizing a $1 .3 million construction grant from SWRCB. The project, completed in 
1992, extracts about 3 taf per year of contaminated groundwater, treats the water, and distributes 



7-89 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



it to customers. The Big Dalton Well Treatment Project is the second in a series of WQA 
projects focusing on contamination problems in the Baldwin Park area. The new facility will 
form part of a three-well barrier to stop the migration of polluted groundwater. The Big Dalton 
Well Treatment Facility is designed to extract and treat approximately 4 taf of contaminated 
groundwater per year. The Monrovia Wells project will treat approximately 4.6 taf of contami- 
nated groundwater per year with airstripping. The project will give the City of Monrovia the 
ability to use water from contaminated aquifers while preventing the spread of contamination to 
adjacent clean aquifers. In 1996, legislation was enacted extending WQA's to authorization 
work on groundwater remediation in the San Gabriel Basin through July 1 , 2002. 

In the San Fernando Valley, about 50 percent of the water supply wells in the eastern 
portion of the basin were found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds. Many of 
the wells have been shut down. The basin provides drinking water to Los Angeles, Burbank, 
Glendale, and La Crescenta. The RWQCB is investigating area- wide sources of groundwater 
contamination for four Superfund sites in the San Fernando Valley Basin. Interim clean-up 
measures include groundwater pumping and treatment. 

San Bernardino Valley. As late as the 1940s, the lowest portion of San Bernardino 
Valley was composed mainly of springs and marshlands. Downtown San Bernardino is located 
over a confined aquifer which experiences high groundwater levels. Buildings have experienced 
seepage of water into basements or ground floors. High groundwater conditions increase soil 
liquefaction potential in an area that could be affected by movement along local segments of the 
Cucamonga, San Jacinto, or San Andreas faults. The presence of unreinforced masonry 
buildings (many of which have not received seismic upgrades) over the confined aquifer 
increases the risk of damage in the event of liquefaction. 

The Bunker Hill Basin Groundwater Extraction Project involves pumping groundwater 
fi-om the basin with the intent of lowering groundwater levels, thereby reducing seismic risks. 
The water could potentially be sold to help offset the pumping and other costs of the project. 
Extraction of groundwater for this project will not exceed the perermial yield of the San 
Bernardino Basin (which includes both the Bunker Hill and Lytic Creek basins). The ultimate 
goal of this water extraction project is to reduce the unacceptably high groundwater levels in the 



7-90 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



basin. A suggested minimum depth target of 30 feet below ground surface in the confined zone 
would minimize the risk of liquefaction and other adverse impacts associated with high ground- 
water. One plan being considered is for San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to 
pump between 20,000 and 70,000 af per yr, with larger volumes being extracted as necessary 
after exceptionally wet seasons. 

Ventura County. Groundwater is the main water supply for irrigation and urban use over 
much of the coastal plain of Ventura County (including the Oxnard Plain). As a result of 
increasing water demand, groundwater aquifers underlying the plain have been overdrafted. 
Seawater intrusion was initially observed in the late 1 940s, following the widespread develop- 
ment of agriculture and food processing on the Oxnard Plain. Recent estimates of overdraft on 
the Oxnard Plain are 2,000 af/year in the upper basin (Oxnard and Mugu Aquifers), and 10,000 
af/year in the lower basin (Hueneme, Fox Canyon, and Grimes Canyon Aquifers). 

The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency was formed to manage groundwater 
resources underlying the Fox Canyon aquifer zone. To eliminate overdraft in all aquifer zones, 
the agency adopted ordinances requiring meter installation on wells pumping more than 50 af per 
year. The objective of the ordinances is to limit the amount of groundwater that can be pumped 
and to restrict drilling of new wells in the North Las Posas Basin. In 1991. United Water 
Conservation District completed construction of the Freeman Diversion improvement project on 
the Santa Clara River. The improved structure increases average annual diversions from 40,000 
af to 57,000 af The diverted water is used for groundwater recharge and agricultural irrigation, 
thereby reducing agricultural groundwater demand. 

In an effort to prevent degradation of the Ojai groundwater basin, a coalition of growers, 
public agencies, water utilities, and pumpers decided in early 1990 to seek legislation to form the 
Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency. Its activities include implementing agency 
ordinance, monitoring key wells, determining amounts of extraction, amounts of groundwater in 
storage, and operational safe yield, surveying land use within the agency's boundaries, compiling 
water quality data, and recharging the basin. 



7-91 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study 

In 1993, USBR, seven Southern California municipalities and water agencies, and the 
Department adopted a plan of study to evaluate the feasibility of regional water recycling in 
Southern California. Regional planning would take advantage of potential surpluses in recycled 
water which could serve needs in areas throughout the Southern California coastal plain and 
inland valley areas. The plan of study calls for a three-part, six-year comprehensive effort to 
identify a regional recycling system and develop potential capital projects. 

The Department and USBR are to cooperate with the following seven agencies to conduct 
this comprehensive regional planning effort: 

• Central and West Basin Municipal Water Districts 

• City of Los Angeles 

• City of San Diego 

• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

• San Diego County Water Authority 

• Santa Ana Water Project Authority 

• South Orange County Reclamation Authority 

The SCCWRRS' goal is to identify opportunities and constraints associated with 
maximizing water recycling in Southern California. SCCWRRS has identified regional and 
area-wide water recycling potential for 20 and 50 year planning horizons. A regional data base is 
being used for analyzing alternatives using an economic distribution model. This model can be 
used to maximize the allocation of recycled water at minimum cost throughout the region. 
Water Transfers 

The South Coast Region is highly urbanized and the region relies substantially on 
imported water. Water wholesalers serving the region expect to acquire part of their future 
supplies from new water transfers, using the Colorado River Aqueduct and California Aqueduct 
to convey the acquired water. 

A difficulty associated with obtaining future supply from water transfers ~ as opposed to 
from fixed facilities such as reservoirs or wastewater reclamation plants ~ is the greater 
uncertainty involved in forecasting future contractual arrangements for transfers. An urban 



7-92 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



agency may plan to acquire some quantity of water from agricultural users in the Central Valley 
or the Colorado River Region, but terms and conditions of those transfers are subject to negotia- 
tion with potential sellers and the availability of conveyance. There are many ways to structure a 
transfer arrangement — long-term agreements for base year transfers that occur every year 
regardless of hydrology, drought year transfers tied to specific hydrologic criteria, or transfer 
options that may be exercised based on negotiated criteria. Transfers may also be accomplished 
through short-term (e.g., one year or less) agreements on the spot market. Of particular note in 
the South Coast Region, local agencies are planning to use water transfers to constitute part of 
their base or core supplies, a change from past years when transfers were viewed as primarily 
drought year supply. 

An example of a proposed base year transfer is the San Diego County Water Author- 
ity/Imperial Irrigation District transfer now under negotiation. (This proposed transfer is 
described in detail in Chapter 9.) The two agencies entered into a MOU in 1995 to explore 
potential transfer arrangements associated with a long-term transfer of up to 200 taf per year. 
SDCWA would need to use MWDSC's Colorado River Aqueduct to convey the transferred water 
to the South Coast Region. The conditions under which this wheeling would occur, and the cost 
to be charged for wheeling, have been a subject of discussion between SDCWA and MWDSC. 
MWDSC has not yet used its aqueduct to wheel water for others - unlike the conveyance for 
others which has been provided in CVP and SWP facilities. 
Mexican Border Environmental Qualit>' Issues 

Tijuana's excess sewage has plagued San Diego area beaches since the 1930s. During 
frequent failures of Tijuana's inadequate, antiquated sewage treatment system, millions of 
gallons of raw sewage have been carried across the border through the Tijuana River to its 
estuary in San Diego county. San Diego's first attempt to alleviate this problem was in 1965, 
when the city agreed to treat Tijuana's waste on an emergency basis. In 1983, the United States 
and Mexico signed an agreement stating that Mexico would modernize and expand Tijuana's 
sewage and water supply system and build a 34 mgd sewage treatment plant. Mexico received a 
grant for $46.4 million from the Inter-American Development Bank to help finance the expan- 
sion and was to spend an additional $1 1 million to build the wastewater treatment plant. 5 miles 



7-93 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



south of the International Border. Phase 1 of the facihty was completed in January 1987. The 
plant became fully operational in 1988. 

In July 1 990, the United States and Mexico, through the International Boundary and 
Water Commission, agreed to the construction of international wastewater treatment facilities in 
the United States to solve the continuing border sanitation problem. These facilities included the 
construction of a 25 mgd secondary treatment plant at a site just north of the international border 
and a 3.5 mile ocean outfall. Construction of the first phase of the international plant, a 25 mgd 
advanced primary treatment plant is being completed. Construction of the secondary phase of 
the International plant is on hold pending the completion of a supplemental environmental 
impact statement on alternative methods of secondary treatment. The second phase is expected to 
be complete by the end of December 2000. 

The EPA and IBWC have completed a SEIS on interim options for discharge of effluent 
from the international plant prior to completion of the ocean outfall and the secondary treatment 
component of the plant. The preferred option is a combination of discharging the effluent to the 
City of San Diego's Metropolitan Sewerage System and constructing a detention basin to hold 
flows for discharge during off peak hours. 

Water Management Options for South Coast Region 

Southern California's challenge in managing its water resources is driven by one of the 
most fundamental realities of the West — it is an arid region. The major water agencies in the 
South Coast Region are extensively involved in water resources management planning. Local 
water agencies are working to identify and evaluate water management options that can meet 
their water plaiming objectives. 

A mixture of water management options, including statewide options such as improving 
SWP reliability, will be needed to make up California's reduced supply from the Colorado River 
and to offer long-term reliability to the region. Water management option^ considered for 
achieving this goal are discussed below and listed in Table 7-30. 



7-94 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-30. South Coast Region Options Comprehensive List 



Category 



Option 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to O.8ET0 Retain 

Residential Indoor Water Use Defer 

Interior CII Water Use Retain 

Distribution System Losses Defer 
Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Defer 

Flexible Water Delivery Defer 

Canal Lining and Piping Defer 

Tailwater Recovery Defer 



A low level of water use has already been achieved. 

A low level system losses has already been achieved. 

No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 
No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 
No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 
No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Reoperate Prado Dam Retain 

Reoperate Hansen and Lopez Dams Retain 

Reoperate Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams Retain 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Freshwater Reserv oir in Long Beach Harbor 
New Aqueduct from Imperial Valley to San Diego 



Retain 

Defer Interstate issues. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Local Groundwater Banking/Conjunctive Use 



Retain 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Colorado River Watet Transfers/Interstate Banking 
(part of Colorado River 4.4 plan) 
MWDSC / Arvin Edison WSD Groundwater Banking 
Castaic Lake Water Agency 



Retain 



Retain 
Retain 



Water Recycling 

March Air Force Base Retain 

Carbon Canyon Reclamation Project-Phase I Retain 

Reclamation Distribution System Retain 

Upgrade-Padre Dam W.R. Facilities Retain 

Whittier Narrows Recreation Area Retain 

T-PIant Filter Washwater Recycling Project Retain 

Phase 3 & 4 Reclamation Expansion Retain 
Puente Hills/Rose Hills Reclaimed Water District Retain 
System 

Orange County Regional Reclamation Project Retain 

Lower Sweetwater River Demineralization Project Retain 

Regional Plant No. 4 Outfall Project Retain 

City of West Covina Retain 

Santa Margarita Live Stream Discharge Retain 



7-95 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-30. Continued 

Castaic Lake Water Agency Reclaimed Water Master Retain 

Plan 

Esteban Torres Water Recycling Project Retain 

Esteban Torres Water Recycling Project Retain 

West Basin Recycling Project-Phase 2 Retain 

Reclaimed Water System Retain 

Expanded Carbon Canyon Reclamation Project Retain 

Irrigation & Industrial Projects Retain 

Alamitos Barrier Recycled Water Project Retain 

Dominguez Gap Barrier Recycled Water Project Retain 

Irvine Ranch Water District Retain 

West Los Angeles Extension Retain 

Dove Canyon Weather Recovery System Retain 

East Valley Water Recycling Project Retain 

City of Escondido Regional Water Recycling Retain 

Program 

Lower Moosa Canyon W.R.F. -Expansion Retain 

Carlsbad Water Reclamation Plan-Encina Basin-P2 Retain 

South Bay Water Reclamation Project Retain 

North San Diego County Reclamation Project Retain 

Phase 2 

North City Reclamation Plant-Poway Resources Retain 

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority Retain 

Olivenhain/Kelwood Reclamation Project Retain 

Green Acres-Phase 2 Retain 

San Pasqual Groundwater Management Program Retain 

Central City/Elysian Park Water Recycling Project Retain 

Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility Retain 

Verdugo-Schol-Brand Project Retain 

Alamitos Barrier Retain 

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority WRF Retain 

Los Angeles Harbor Water Recycling Project Retain 

Headworks Water Recycling Project Retain 

North City Reclamation Plant Project Retain 

Water Repurification Project Retain 

Reclamation Project I Retain 

El Toro Water District Reclamation Retain 

Westside Water Recycling Project Retain 

Sepulveda Basin Water Recycling Project Retain 

Carbon Canyon Water Reclamation Facility Retain 



7-96 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Table 7-30. Continued 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

Huntington Beach Colored Water Retain 

IRWD Colored Water Treatment Project Retain 

Laguna Beach GW Treatment Project Retain 

Mesa Colored Water Project Retain 

Oceanside Desalter No. 2 Retain 

OCWD Undetermined Colored Water Projects Retain 

Corona/Temescal Basin Desalter Retain 

Otay/Sweetwater Desalter Retain 

Perris Basin Desalter Retain 

Rubidoux/Western Desalter Retain 

San Dieguito Basin Desalter Retain 

San Juan Basin Desalter No. 2 Retain 
San Pasqual Basin Desalter Windchester/Hemet Retain 
Desalter 

Santee/EI Monte Basin Desalter Retain 

Sweetwater Desalter No.2 Retain 

Tijuana River Valley Desalter Retain 

Torrance Elm Ave. Facility Retain 

West Basin Desalter No. 2 Retain 

West Basin Desalter No. 3 Retain 

Western/Bunker Basin Treatment Project Retain 

Winchester/Hemet Desalter Retain 
Seawater 

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at South Bay Power Plant Retain 

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Encina Power Plant Retain 
Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Alamitos Power Plant Retain 

Multiple-effect Distillation Process Retain 



Other Local Options 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program Retain 

SWP Interim South Delta Program Retain 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program Retain 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program Retain 

Drought Water Bank Retain 

Enlarge Shasta Lake Retain 



7-97 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



Water Conservation 

Urban. The urban water supply forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; 
consequently, only those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as 
options. Reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ET„ in new development would attain about 140 taf 
per year of depletion reductions, while extending this measure to include existing development 
would reduce depletions by about 500 taf per year. Reducing commercial, institutional, and 
industrial water use by 2 percent and 3 percent would attain 20 taf and 25 taf of depletion 
reductions per year, respectively. The residential indoor water use and distribution system 
options were deferred for the South Coast Region because the region has, on average, attained 
the values used in this Bulletin for these conservation options. 

Agricultural. As with the urban water management options, only those agricultural 
conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. Agricultural water 
conservation options are limited in the region because of the relatively high seasonal application 
efficiencies that currently exist, and the reliance on high cost, pressurized potable water or 
groundwater. Improving irrigation management to raise seasonal application efficiencies to 76, 
78 and 80 percent in the South Coast would only reduce depletions slightly, less than 1 taf 
Flexible water deliveries is deferred because most of the water applied for agriculture is 
delivered on-demand in the region. Canal lining and piping is deferred because of the absence of 
open canal systems for the transport and delivery of irrigation water in the region. The spill 
recovery and tail water systems option is deferred because of the relatively small acreage under 
furrow or border irrigation systems in the region. Evapotranspiration reduction is deferred 
because of the lack of traditional crop rotational schemes that might include more fallowing. 
Reoperation of Flood Control Reservoirs 

The USACE operates flood control reservoirs in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel river 
drainages of Los Angeles County. Water conservation benefits could be realized if pools were 
established behind these reservoirs to temporarily impound waters during storms for later release 
to downstream recharge facilities. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and 
USACE are evaluating the potential for reoperation of USACE flood control reservoirs. The 



7-98 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



preliminary studies to date have indicated that an additional 17,000 af of conservation storage is 
possible, and USAGE is currently performing a feasibility study expected to conclude in 1998. 

Prado Dam. As discussed in the water management issues section, construction of Seven 
Oaks Dam on the Santa Ana River and pending enlargement of the existing Prado Dam create an 
opportunity to reoperate Prado Dam to provide some limited water supply storage in Prado 
Reservoir. It is estimated that allowing additional storage at Prado by modifying its flood control 
operation would provide an additional 3,000 to 5,000 af of annual supply for groundwater 
recharge. 

Hansen and Lopez Dams. Hansen Dam on Tujunga Wash and Lopez Dam on Pacoima 
Wash are small USAGE flood control detention reservoirs (essentially debris basins) located on 
adjoining drainages in Los Angeles Gounty, in the San Gabriel Mountains above Pacoima. The 
combined storage capacity of the two reservoirs is about 25 taf. Los Angeles Gounty has 
cooperated with USAGE in completion of a reconnaissance study (1994) and preparation of an 
ongoing feasibility-level study to evaluate possible water supply benefits from reoperating the 
reservoirs to provide limited water supply storage. The feasibility study is scheduled to be 
completed in 1998. 

Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams. Santa Fe Dam (32 taf storage capacity) on the 
San Gabriel River and Whittier Narrows Dam (67 taf storage capacity) on Rio Hondo are 
USAGE dams in that impound flood control detention basins in Los Angeles Gounty. Los 
Angeles Gounty has cooperated with USAGE in completion of a reconnaissance study (1994) 
and preparation of an ongoing feasibility-level study to evaluate possible water supply benefits 
from reoperating the reservoirs to provide limited water supply storage. The feasibility study is 
scheduled to be completed in 1998. The feasibility study is examining allowing a permanent 
water conservation pool to be maintained at Santa Fe Dam, and expanding the existing conserva- 
tion storage pool at Whittier Narrows. 
New Reservoirs 

In an average year, about 200,000 af of storm runoff from the Los Angeles River flows 
to the ocean. The freshwater reservoir project would include an inflatable weir across the Los 
Angeles River near its mouth, to direct some of the storm flows into intakes constructed 



7-99 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regiorts 



alongside of the existing river levees. From the intakes, the storm flow would be pumped or 
flow by gravity via culverts or tunnels to an offshore reservoir. The reservoir site would be in 
the vicinity of the existing Long Beach Breakwater in San Pedro Bay. Reservoir dikes would be 
constructed in the bay with a diaphragm wall constructed through the dikes to prevent lezikage of 
freshwater through the walls of the dam. A bulb of freshwater would be maintained at the 
bottom of the reservoir to repel seawater. The reservoir could be sized to store 100 taf to 300 taf 
of storm water during the wet season. This captured storm water could subsequently be 
distributed for a number of uses, with the most likely use being groundwater recharge. 

The option analyzed consisted of a 100 taf reservoir sited within San Pedro Bay supply- 
ing the Montebello Forebay spreading grounds with 71 taf to 129 taf per year. The armual cost 
of the water would be about $1,700 /af at 71 taf of supply, decreasing to $1,000 per af at 129 taf 
of supply. Expansion of the project to capture all stormwater runoff would maximize the 
reservoir yield at 172,000 af per year, decreasing annual cost to $800 /af. A final draft of the 
feasibility study was issued in May 1997. 
Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

As a result of MWDSC's seasonal storage service pricing program, local agencies are 
storing imported water in groundwater basins to increase groundwater production during the 
summer season and dry years. It is estimated that an average of 100,000 af per year of ground- 
water supply is now produced as a result of MWDSC's discount pricing for winter season 
deliveries. The program provides imported water at an average discount of $125/af during the 
winter season. This discount is an inducement to local agencies to pump more groundwater 
during the summer season (reducing peaks on MWDSC's system) and during dry years when 
imported supplies are scarcer. 

As an option, MWDSC has identified the potential for 200,000 acre-feet of additional 
groundwater production during dry years. To accomplish this additional drought year produc- 
tion, about 600,000 af of dedicated storage capacity within the local basins may be required. The 
cost of the water would be about $350/af As part of MWDSC's plans to develop additional 
supplies from local banking, the district is working with Calleguas Municipal Water District, one 
of its member agencies. The Las Posas Basin aquifer storage and recovery project would 



7-100 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



develop up to 250.000 af of storage in the lower aquiler system of the Las Posas Basin. 
MWDSC and Calleguas are currently finalizing principles for a water management service 
agreement. 
Water Transfers 

Colorado River Region Transfers. As described in Chapter 9. there are a number of 
potential options for making water from the Colorado River Region available for transfer to the 
South Coast Region. (See Chapter 9 for a detailed discussion of Colorado River water allocation 
and fiature water management options.) However, these options must be implemented in concert 
with California's reducing its use of Colorado River water to its basic apportionment of 4.4 maf. 
Measures that would simply transfer existing uses from the Colorado River Region to the South 
Coast Region do not reduce use of Colorado River water. 

We assume in the water balance for the South Coast Region that the region's supply base 
from the Colorado River will be limited to MWDSC's fourth priority right of 550 taf contained 
within California's basic 4.4 maf apportionment. Water agencies in the South Coast Region will 
attempt to negotiate water transfers to keep the Colorado River Aqueduct flowing at its maxi- 
mum capacity of 1.3 maf. One such transfer is the existing MWDSC/IID conservation agree- 
ment, described in Chapter 3, forecasted to supply 106 taf to the South Coast in 2020. (Under 
certain conditions specified in the agreement, Coachella Valley Water District would receive 
50,000 af of this amount in some years. For the purposes of this Bulletin, the 106,000 af has 
been shown in the water budgets as a South Coast Region supply in 2020.) 

Construction of additional conveyance capacity from the Colorado River Region to the 
South Coast area has been a recent subject of discussion. Proposition 204 provides funding for a 
feasibility study of a new conveyance facility from the Colorado River to the South Coast. New 
conveyance facilities mentioned have included an aqueduct from the Imperial Valley area to San 
Diego, and a joint Tijuana/ San Diego aqueduct. These new conveyance facilities have been 
deferred from evaluation in Bulletin 160-98 because it does not appear that they would be 
constructed within the Bulletin's planning horizon, due to the concerns expressed by other 
Colorado River Basin states about a new California diversion facility on the river. 



7-101 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



SDCWA and IID 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, and subsequently developed proposed terms and 
conditions of a transfer. Terms and conditions for a proposed agreement with a 75-year term 
were distributed for review to the agencies' water users and interested parties in 1996. As 
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. SDCWA and IID are currently negotiating final terms 
for the transfer. In order to transfer the acquired water, SDCWA (a member agency of MWDSC) 
must negotiate a wheeling agreement with MWDSC for use of capacity in MWDSC's Colorado 
River Aqueduct. Discussions between SDCWA and MWDSC are ongoing. 

Colorado River Region options that could make water available for transfer to the South 
Coast Region include: 

• Lining the All American Canal. Public Law 100-675 authorized the Secretary of the 
Interior to line the canal or recover seepage from the canal using construction funds from 
PVID, IID, CVWD, or MWDSC. In March 1994, USBR completed an EIS/EIR that 
evaluated a parallel canal alternative, several in-place lining alternatives, and a well field 
alternative. The EIS/EIR concluded that the preferred alternative was the construction of 
a concrete-lined canal parallel to 23 miles of the existing canal. The parallel canal 
alternative has the potential to annually conserve an estimated 67,700 af of Colorado 
River. Environmental documentation has been completed and a Record of Decision has 
been signed. At the time the EIR/EIS was completed, the well field alternative (which 
was less costly than constructing a now lined canal) was not pursued due to international 
concerns about groundwater extraction adjacent to the Mexican border. The feasibility of 
such groundwater extraction is presently being reevaluated. 

• Lining the Remaining Section of the Coachella Canal. This project would involve lining 
the remaining 33.4 miles of the Coachella Canal, which loses about 32,350 af of water 
per year through seepage. Four alternatives that have been identified were conventional 
lining, underwater lining, parallel canal, and no action. It is esfimated that the preferred 
alternative, conventional lining, would conserve 25,680 af/yr. 



7-102 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



On-farm Water Conservation Options. Future on-farm water conservation programs in 
the Colorado River Region, such as improving seasonal application efficiencies, flexible 
water delivery, canal lining, tailwater recovery, and constructing spill interceptor canal, 
and distribution system reservoirs, could attain 190 taf in depletion reductions. Improv- 
ing seasonal application efficiency to 80 percent from the base of 73 percent would 
reduce depletions by 50 taf The remaining options combined would achieve 140 taf in 
depletion reductions. Urban water agencies in the South Coast Region could fund 
conservation projects in the Colorado River Region, in exchange for the conserved water. 
However, any conservation programs that reduced the inflow of fresh water to the Salton 
Sea would have to be evaluated in light of the need to prepare the sea's environmental 
resources. Sustaining fish and wildlife resources in the sea may constrain the amount of 
water that could be transferred in the future. 

Interstate Water Banking. Under an existing agreement between MWDSC and the Central 
Arizona Water Conservation District, MWDSC can store a limited amount of 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 300,000 af in central Arizona through the year 2000. To date, MWDSC has 
placed 89 taf 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 
a surplus on the Colorado River by the Secretary of the Interior. When MWDSC is able 
to draw on this source, it can divert up to a maximum of 1 5,000 af in any one month. 
The stored water would be made available 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. 
The Arizona legislature in its 1 996 session enacted HB 2494 which establishes the 
Arizona Water Banking Authority. The Authority may purchase unused Colorado River 
water and store it in groundwater basins for future needs. Conveyance to storage areas is 
provided by the Central Arizona Project. The legislation provided that the Authority may 



7-103 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



enter into agreements with California and Nevada agencies to bank water in Arizona 
basins, with the following limitations: 

(1) Regulations governing interstate banking would need to be promulgated by the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Arizona Department of Water Resources 

(2) ADWR finds that Interior's regulations adequately protect Arizona's rights to 
Colorado River water 

(3) The ability to bank interstate water would be subordinate to banking of water to 
supply Arizona needs 

(4) Interstate banking would be precluded in years when Arizona is using its full 
apportionment of 2.8 maf, unless surplus conditions were declared on the river system 
and 

(5) Interstate withdrawals from the bank are limited to 100 taf per year, although there is 
no statutory limitation on annual deposits. 

Under this legislation, future interstate banking in Arizona would have a maxi- 
mum drought year yield of 100,000 af, with 50,000 af being available to California 
(assuming 50,000 af would be available to Nevada). However, Arizona may effectively 
limit withdrawals in drought years by declining to decrease its diversions of surface water 
that would allow recovery of the banked water. 

Land Fallowing. Land fallowing programs such as the Palo Verde test land fallowing 
program could be implemented to provide water for transfer to urban areas in the South 
Coast Region during drought periods. In 1992, MWDSC conducted a two-year land 
fallowing test program with Palo Verde ID. 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 Lower Colorado River reservoirs for future use by MWDSC (although the water 
was later spilled when Colorado River flood control releases were made). MWDSC paid 
each farmer $1 ,240 per fallowed acre, making the costs of the water to MWDSC about 
$135/af. It is expected that similar programs could be implemented in the future by 
South Coast water agencies and water agencies in the Colorado River Region to provide 
about 100,000 af per year during drought years. Future land fallowing agreements would 



7-104 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



need to consider the availability of storage for the transferred water — whether in 
Colorado River reservoirs or in groundwater basins. 

Reoperating Colorado River System Reservoirs. Member agencies represented on the 
Colorado River Board of California have discussed establishing new reservoir operations 
criteria that would benefit California while protecting the apportionments of the other 
basin states and satisfying Mexican treaty obligations. Such criteria would also constitute 
part of the package of actions for California to transition its use of river water from 
current levels down to 4.4 maf per year. Operation studies have been performed to 
evaluate specific shortage and surplus criteria for the river system, including selection of 
desired surplus and shortage criteria and reservoir operating elevations. 
The Colorado River has a high ratio of storage capacity to average annual runoff. 
Projections of consumptive use for the upper basin states suggest that those states will not 
attain ftiU use of their Compact apportionments until 2060. USBR's surplus declarations 
to date have not adversely impacted the other states' use of their apportionments ~ flood 
control releases were made in 1997 and are expected for 1998. The more significant 
impediment to implementing reoperation would be concerns of the other basin states 
about impacts of an extended period of reoperation on the ability to avoid future short- 
ages. 

CRB member agencies have not yet established a position on criteria for reoperations. 
USBR and the other basin states would have to concur in a proposed reoperation of 
Colorado River reservoirs. River reoperation is deferred as a water management option, 
and no numerical evaluation is made in this update of the Bulletin, since there is presently 
no generally accepted proposal available for quantification. 

Weather Modification. One of the fundamental management issues associated with 
Colorado River water supplies is the apparent overstatement of the Compact apportion- 
ment (and hence ultimate basin use) relative to the river's historic hydrology. There have 
been a variety of proposals over the years to augment the river's base flow to help remedy 
this issue. For example, USBR had developed a proposed pilot program in 1993 to 
evaluate cloud seeding potential in the upper basin. The state of Colorado had not favored 



7-105 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



moving ahead with this program. Weather modification has recently been raised again as 
part of a possible menu of options to resolve California's use in excess of the 4.4 maf 
basic apportionment, although no specific proposals have been made. Large-scale 
weather modification projects are typically difficult to implement due to institutional and 
third-party concerns, and can be expected to require several years of study and testing 
prior to being placed in operational status. Weather modification on the Colorado River 
is additionally complicated by interstate management issues. This option has been 
deferred for these reasons. 

Table 7-31 is a summary of the options for the Colorado River Region that could make 
water available for transfer to help meet water demands in the South Coast Region. Assuming 
that enough water remains in the Colorado River Region to address their shortages, 252 taf and 
393 taf are potentially available for transfer to the South Coast Region in average and drought 
years, respectively. 



Table 7-31. Some Initial Elements of the Colorado River 4.4 Plan 



Option 



Potential Gain (taf/yr) 



Average 


Drought 


68 


68 


26 


26 


45 


45 


30 


30 


65 


65 


50 


50 




50 


— 


100 


284 


434 


(32) 


(41) 



Lining Portion of All American Canal 
Additional Lining the Coachella Canal 
On-farm Agricultural Water Conservation 

Lining canals 

Flexible water delivery 

Tailwater recovery 

Seasonal application efficiency 
improvements (to 80%) 

Arizona Water Banking 

Land Fallowing 

Total Potential Gain 

Remaining in Colorado River Region 

Available for Transfer to South Coast Region 



252 



393 



7-106 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Central Valley Water Transfers More than half of California's agricultural water use is 
in the Central Valley, much of it is delivered by SWP and CVP conveyance facilities. The 
California Aqueduct could facilitate voluntary transfer of some of this water to the South Coast. 
It is estimated that potential future water transfers from the Central Valley to the South Coast 
Region could be about 200 taf Voluntary water transfers would be developed through option 
agreements, storage programs, and purchases of water through the drought water bank or other 
similar spot markets. 

MWDSC is currently banking water with Semitropic Water Storage District under a 
long-term transfer agreement to store up to 350 taf. The agreement allows MWDSC to deliver 
available SWP water in wetter years to Semitropic WSD for in-lieu groundwater recharge. In 
drought years, Semitropic would release its SWP allocation to MWDSC, and if necessary pump 
groundwater back into the California Aqueduct, to meet its obligations. The drought year yield 
could be from 32 taf to 1 18 taf per year. 

Other water transfers proposed from the Central Valley include: 

• A long-term agreement between MWDSC and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District to 
store up to 350 taf of water for MWDSC in Arvin-Edison' s groundwater basin. Under 
the agreement, Arvin-Edison would construct a 4.3-mile pipeline connecting its system 
with the SWP's California Aqueduct to take a maximum of 200 taf of MWDSC's SWP 
supply. MWDSC would withdraw up to 75 taf in drought years. 

• As specified in the Monterey Agreement, agricultural contractors will make available up 
to 130 taf of annual SWP entitlement for permanent transfer to urban contractors, on a 
voluntary basis. Berrenda-Mesa Water District has already completed the transfer of 25 af 
of entitlement to Mojave Water Agency. Similar permanent transfers could be negotiated 
in the South Coast Region. One option being proposed is the transfer of 9 taf of entitle- 
ment from Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District to Castaic Lake Water 
Agency. 

Water Recycling 

Since the 1970s. Southern California has been a leader in developing water recycling 
projects. Reclaimed water is currently used for numerous applications including groundwater 



7-107 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



recharge, hydraulic barriers to seawater intrusion, landscape and agricultural irrigation, and direct 
use in industry. Currently, some 80 local recycling projects are producing about 210,000 af per 
year of new water supply. It is estimated that these existing projects will provide an additional 
120,000 af per year of water supply by year 2020. 

Approximately 50 new water recycling projects were evaluated as fiiture water supply 
augmentation options for the region. Water recycling could potentially increase by 640,000 af by 
2020, yielding 556,000 af of new water (3 plants, which could produce 13,000 af were deferred 
due to costs). The price of recycled water from these options ranges from $40/af to more than 
$6,000/af This large range is due to the individual characteristics of proposed projects ~ some 
entail major capital costs for construction of new treatment plants while others may involve only 
distribution systems from an existing plant. For example, projects designed for groundwater 
recharge are often strategically located near the treatment plant—reducing the costs for distribu- 
tion. As another example, projects that are designed for landscape irrigation or direct industrial 
uses will generally be higher in cost because of the extensive distribution system needed for 
delivery. 

In an effort to broaden the potential application of reclaimed water to include indirect 
potable use, the City of San Diego has conducted research into the advanced treatment and 
ultimate use of reclaimed water as a supplement to potable water supplies. This indirect potable 
reuse concept has been termed repurification by San Diego. The City of San Diego is currently 
working on a water repurification project (described in Chapter 5) that would produce about 
15,000 af per year of repurified water to augment local supplies. The repurified water would be 
stored in the San Vicente Reservoir and blended with local runoff and imported water. 



7-108 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program 

The San Diego County Water Authority and its member agencies are engaged in a 
long-term effort to reduce regional reliance on imported water supplies. Water reclamation is 
critical to the success of that effort. Two major programs underway are discussed below. 
The San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program is a system of interconnected 
reclamation facilities designed to serve southern and central San Diego County. When 
completed, the program will serve an area of more than 700 square miles and add more than 
60.000 af to the San Diego region's local water supply. Summarized below are the eight 
participating agencies and each agency's planned reuse. Facilities to be constructed include 
up to ten new or expanded water recycling plants, a state-of-the-art water repurification 
facility, and hundreds of miles of recycled water delivery pipeline. 

Annual Reuse in 
Agency Acre-Feet 

City of Escondido 3,200 

CityofPoway 2,300 

City of San Diego 26,900 

City of San Diego/San Diego County Water Authority 1 5,000 

Otay Water District 2,900 

Padre Dam Municipal Water District 1,850 

Sweetwater Authority 7,200 

Tia Juana Valley County Water District 2,200 

Total 61,550 



Padre Dam MWD has completed construction of its treatment facility, and expects to 
begin delivery of recycled water in late 1997. The City of San Diego's North City water 
recycling plant is complete and the distribution system is currently under construction. 

The North San Diego Count}' Area Water Recycling Project will provide more than 
15,000 af of recycled water to northern coastal and inland San Diego County. The project is a 
cooperative effort of the Carlsbad and Olivenhain MWDs, the Leucadia County Water District 
and the San Elijo JPA. When completed, the system of interconnected reclamation facilities 
would serve an area of more than 100 square miles, from the coastal communities of Carlsbad, 
Encinitas and Solana Beach inland to the San Dieguito River Valley. Facilities to be 
constructed include three new or expanded water recycling facilities, about 65 miles of 
reclaimed water deliver\' pipeline and associated pump stations and storage facilities, and new^ 
groundwater recharge and extraction facilities. 



To evaluate and compare recycling options with other water management options, the 
water recycling options are grouped by cost into three groups. Group 1 includes those options 
which cost under $500 /af; Group 11 includes those options which cost between $500 and $1,000 



7-109 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7. Coastal Regions 



/af; and Group III includes those options which cost more than $1,000 /af. The costs used to 
group these projects are based on the costs reported by local agencies in the 1995 WateReuse 
Association survey. These costs are likely to have all been calculated on the same basis by the 
local project sponsors. For the purposes of this Bulletin, the local agencies' costs were used to 
judge the order of magnitude of proposed projects' costs. 

Four projects in Group III were deferred because their costs were more than $2,000 per 
af. Some of the larger retained projects with their associated 2020 yield include the Orange 
County Regional Reclamation Project (100 taf), Phase II of the West Basin Recycling Project (95 
taf), and the LADWP's East Valley Water Recycling Project (40 taf). The majority of this new 
water will be used for landscape and groundwater recharge. 

The proposed Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project is being developed 
jointly by the Orange County Water District and County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. 
Wastewater currently discharged into the Pacific Ocean would be reclaimed to supplement the 
potable supplies of Orange County. The treated wastewater would be used to recharge an aquifer 
along the Santa Ana River, in lieu of using imported water provided by MWDSC. A plant to 
treat secondary effluent produced by an existing wastewater treatment plant would be con- 
structed, along with a distribution system that would convey the recycled water to existing 
spreading basins. Some recycled water would also be injected into a seawater intrusion barrier in 
Fountain Valley. Another benefit would be that recycling the wastewater would decrease the 
total discharge to the ocean, which would eliminate the need for a new or expanded ocean 
outfall. Phase I is planned to produce 50,000 af of reclaimed water per year by 2002. Phase II 
and III would produce an additional 50,000 af per year by 2020. This project would reduce 
Orange County's dependence on imported water. 
Desalination 

Groundwater Recovery. Recovery of contaminated groundwater supplies is an important 
resource strategy for Southern California. This resource option is usually expensive ~ because it 
involves sophisticated technologies and high energy costs. Some groundwater recovery projects 
serve the dual purpose of managing migration of contaminant plumes to prevent further 
contamination of usable aquifers. 



7-110 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Groundwater desalting plants currently operating include Arlington Desalter by Santa 
Ana Watershed Project Authority (6,700 af), Oceanside Desalter No. 1 by City of Oceanside 
(2,200 af), and West Basin Desalter No. 1 by West Basin MWD (1 ,700 at). Additional plants 
and plant expansions are being planned or constructed throughout the coastal areas of the Los 
Angeles Basin, with an estimated total installed capacity of 33,000 af per year by 2000. The 
estimated total net groundwater recovery potential in the South Coast is about 1 50,000 af. 

The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority was formed in 1972 to plan and operate 
facilities to protect water quality in the Santa Ana River's watershed. The Authority is a joint 
powers agency composed of the five larger water districts that share the watershed —Chino Basin 
Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District. Orange County Water District, San 
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and Western Municipal Water District. SAWPA 
operates a brine disposal line which facilitates disposal of waste brine from regional desalting 
plants, and operates the Arlington Desalter. 

Approximately 20 potential groundwater recovery projects were evaluated with a net 
yield of 94,000 af. Supply costs range from $300/af to $900/af. The groundwater recovery 
projects are grouped by cost into two groups, those projects less than $500/af and those more 
than $500/af. 



Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility 

The Port Hueneme Water Agency was formed to develop and operate a brackish water 
reclamation demonstration facility for its four member agencies, all of which are located along 
the southwestern coast of Ventura County. The BWRDF is the cornerstone of the program to 
improve water quality and reliability, reduce groundwater extractions and seawater intrusion 
in the Oxnard Plain. BWRDF will provide a full-scale demonstration of side-by-side 
operation of three brackish water desalination technologies (reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, 
and electrodialysis reversal). The feasibility of using desalination concentrate for wetlands 
enhancement is also being studied. Construction of the project has begun and is estimated to 
be complete by early 1998. The total capital costs were originally estimated at $13.8 million 
but are currently $2 million under budget. 



Ocean Water Desalination. Ocean desalting is sometimes described as the ultimate 
solution to Southern California's water supply shortfall. Although there is often public support 
for this resource, ocean desalination is currently limited by high costs, environmental impacts of 



7-1 II 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



brine disposal, and siting considerations. Based on current technology, the costs for desalination 
of ocean water for potable uses ranges from about $1,200 to $2,000 per af depending on the type 
of treatment and the distribution system that would be required to deliver the water. Although 
high costs may currently limit this resource, ocean desalination may prove to be an important 
strategy in the future. MWDSC, with joint funding from the U.S. Government and Israel Science 
and Technology Foundation, recently embarked on a demonstration project using a multiple- 
effect distillation process, as described in Chapter 5. 

In the past, SDCWA has evaluated the possibility of constructing two reverse osmosis 
desalting facilities in conjunction with the proposed repowering of the San Diego Gas and 
Electric South Bay Power Plant and the Encina Power Plant. The capacity of the two plants 
would total 20,000 af per year. The city of Long Beach and the Central Basin MWD are also 
collaborating on a study of a reverse osmosis plant with 5,600 af annual capacity to be located at 
Southern California Edison's Alamitos power plant. 
Statewide Options 

Active planning for statewide water supply options is being done currently for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and for SWP future supply. See Chapter 6 for discussion on 
statewide water supply augmentation options. [The following text on SWP supplies is a 
placeholder for potential outcomes of CALFED process. Text will be changed as CALFED 
results become available.] 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Improving conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
River Delta would provide improvement to SWP supply reliability. For illustrative purposes, 
assuming improved Delta conditions through the implementation of CALFED alternatives, 
additional SWP yield to the region could be 83.000 and 88,000 af in average and drought years, 
respectively. 

State Water Project Improvements. The Department has three programs underway to 
improve SWP yields to its contractors. Each program is discussed in Chapter 6. The ISDP would 
augment SWP supplies to the South Coast Region by 76,000 af and 54,000 af in average and 
drought years, respectively. The American Basin Conjunctive Use Program would provide 



7-112 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



30,000 af to the region in drought years, and the Supplemental Water Purchase Program could 
provide an additional 106,000 af in drought years. 

Drought Water Bank. Based on past experience with the Drought Water Bank, it is 
estimated that about 250,000 af of water would be purchased for allocation. Of this amount, past 
experience suggests that about 138,000 af would be made available to the South Coast Region. 

Enlarged Shasta Lake. Enlarging Shasta Lake to 13 maf of storage would increase 
drought year yield by about 1 .5 maf. If we assume one-third of this yield is allocated to the 
environment, and the remaining two-thirds is allocated among the State and federal projects, the 
region could potentially receive more than 300 taf per year. 

Water Resources Management Plan for South Coast Region 

The retained options were evaluated and scored (see Table 7A-4 in Appendix 7A) based 
on criteria discussed in Chapter 6. Table 7-32 shows the results of the options evaluation. In 
2020, water shortages for the region are estimated to be 0.7 maf in average years, and 1.3 maf in 
drought years. These shortages are primarily attributed to increased urban demands and reduced 
Colorado River supplies. 

To meet the water shortages, water agencies in the South Coast Region are planning to 
implement additional conservation programs, water recycling, and groundwater recovery, as well 
as water transfer and other water supply augmentation options. Demand management options 
such as urban conserv ation are currently an important program for all water agencies in the South 
Coast. 

Table 7-33 summarizes the options most likely to be implemented by 2020 to meet the 
forecasted year shortages in the South Coast Region. Options to be implemented would include 
the Colorado River 4.4 Plan and a combination of local and statewide options. 

Implementation of the BMPs will continue through 2020 and is reflected in the base 
demand levels for urban water use. Urban conservation options most likely to be implemented, 
based on costs and feasibility, would provide 90 taf in depletion reduction per year. 

The South Coast Region will increase its reliance on water transfers as Colorado River 
supplies are reduced. Firm options for the first phase of the Colorado River 4.4 Plan could make 
available up to 252 taf in average years and 393 taf in drought years for transfer to the South 



7-113 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Coast Region. Additional water banking and transfer agreements as well as permanent transfer of 
SWP entitlement water are likely options for the South Coast Region, amounting to 9 taf and 59 
taf in average and drought years respectively. 

Local groundwater conjunctive use programs will likely add 200 taf of production in 
drought years. Water recycling will continue to be a source of water supply for Southern 
California. New projects costing less than $500 per af could provide an additional 1 86 taf per 
year by 2020. Groundwater recovery projects under $500 per af could provide an additional 27 
taf per year. 

Statewide options for the region will include a CALFED Delta fix, SWP improvements, 
and State drought water bank, which could provide 159 taf and 310 taf in average and drought 
years respectively. 

[Place holder for CALFED solution and resulting SWP yield for the South Coast./ 



7 114 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-32. Options Ranking South Coast Region 







Cost 


Potential Gain 


Option 


Rank 


per af 

($) 


(taf) 






Avg 


Drt 


Conservation 










Urban 










Outdoor Water Use - New Development 


M 


750 


140 


140 


Outdoor Water Use -New and Existing Development 


L 


* 


500 


500 


Interior ClI Water Use (2%) 


M 


500 


20 


20 


Interior CII Water Use (3%) 


L 


700 


25 


25 


Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 










Reoperate Prado Dam 


H 


60 


5 


5 


Reoperate Hansen and Lopez Dams 


M 


♦ 


• 


* 


Reoperate Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams 


M 


* 


» 


* 


New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 










Freshwater Reservoir in Long Beach Harbor 


1 


800 


172 




Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 










Local Groundwater Banking/Conjunctive Use 


H 


350 


- 


200 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Colorado River Water Transfers/Interstate Banking (Colorado 
River 4.4 Plan) 

MWDSC / Arvin Edison WSD Groundwater Banking 

Castaic Lake Water Agencv 



252 



393 



M 




- 


/3 


H 




9 


9 


H 


500 


441 


441 


M 


1 .non 


89 


89 


M 


1.50(1 


26 


26 



Water Recycling 

Group 1 (Cost < $500/AF) 

Group 2 (Cost $500/AF - $1.000/AF) 

Group 3 (Cost >$1.000/AF) 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

Group 1 (Cost < $500/AF) 
Group 2 (Cost $500/AF - $1.000/AF) 
Seawater 

Reverse Osmosis Facilities at South Bay Power Plant 
Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Encina Power Plant 
Reverse Osmosis Facilities at Alamitos Power Plant 
Multiple-effect Distillation Process 



H 


500 


27 


27 


M 


1.000 


67 


67 


L 


920 


5.0 


5.0 


L 


1.220 


15.0 


15.0 


L 


1.700 


5.6 


5.6 


L 


<1000 


85.0 


85.0 



7-115 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 7 Coastal Regions 



Table 7-32. Continued 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program 

SWP Interim South Delta Program 

SWF American Basin Conjunctive Use Program 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program 

Drought Water Bank 

Enlarge Shasta Lake 



M 




83.0 


88.0 


M 


100 


76.0 


54.0 


H 


175 


- 


30.0 


L 


175 


- 


106.0 


H 


150 


- 


138.0 


M 




312.0 


374.0 



Table 7-33. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

South Coast Region 



Option 



Potential Gain 




(taf) 






Avg 


Drt 




728 




1,295 


90 




90 


5 




5 


- 




200 


9 




59 


186 




186 


27 




27 


159 




310 


252 




393 


728 




1,270 



Shortage 

Conservation 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Recycling 

Desalination 

Statewide Options 

Colorado River 4.4 Plan 

Total Potential Gain 



Remaining Shortage 



25 



7-116 



DRAFT 




mm 




Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Chapter 8. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in 
Interior Regions of California 

This chapter covers the interior regions of the State: the Sacramento River, San Joaquin 
River, and Tulare Lake hydrologic regions (Figure 8-1). These regions constitute the Central 
Valley, which makes up about 38 percent of the State's land area, but almost 80 percent of the 
State's irrigated acres. 

Sacramento River Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The Sacramento River Region contains the drainage area of the Sacramento River and its 
tributaries, and extends 300 miles from the Oregon border south to Collinsville in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Figure 8-2). The crest of the Sierra Nevada forms the eastern 
border of the Sacramento River Region, while the western side is defined by the crest of the 
Coast Range. The southern border includes the American River watershed and the northern 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Sacramento River Region includes all or large portions of 
Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Plumas, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, 
Sacramento, El Dorado, Yolo, Solano, Lake, and Napa counties. Small areas of Modoc, 
Siskiyou, Lassen, Amador, and Alpine counties are also within the Sacramento River Region. 
The State's largest river, the Sacramento, crosses the valley, and terminates in the Sacramento- 
San Joaquin Delta. The Delta consists of sloughs, rivers, and islands formed by an elaborate 
levee system. Delta waterways are critical to transporting Sacramento River flows to the Bay 
Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California and to sustaining fish and wildlife 
populations. The Sacramento Valley is comprised of eight planning subareas, all of which are 
hydrologically cormected by the Sacramento River. 



8-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in Interior Regions 



Figure 8-1. Interior Regions Hydrologic Area 



North 
Coast 



North 
Lahontar 



Sacramento 
River 



San Francisco 
Bay 



San Joaquin 
River 



South 
Lahontan 



South 
Coast 



8-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Interior Regions 



Figure 8-2. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region 

OREGON 




10 21 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



8-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Intenor Regions 

The region is defined by two distinct features: (1) the foothill and mountain areas of the 
Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and Coast ranges, and (2) the Sacramento Valley itself. Mountain 
elevations range from 5,000 feet along the coast to more than 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. 
The elevation of the valley floor gradually decreases from 500 feet in the Redding area of Shasta 
County to near sea level in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in southern Solano and 
Sacramento counties. 

Precipitation in the region varies substantially depending on location and elevation. In 
the foothill and higher mountain areas, precipitation ranges from 40 to 80 inches armually. The 
valley receives less rainfall, with annual rainfall for Redding and Sacramento being 35 inches 
and 18 inches, respectively. The mountain areas have cold, wet winters with major amounts of 
snow contributing runoff for summer water supply. The Sacramento Valley has mild winters and 
dry, hot summers. 

Base year (1995) and future (2020) forecasted population for the region is provided in 
Table 8-1 . Most of the region's population growth is expected to occur in the southern part of the 
region in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Sutter, Yolo, and Solano counties. The Sacramento 
metropolitan area and surrounding communities are expected to experience significant 
population growth, as is the Yuba City-Marysville area in Sutter and Yuba counties. 

There is extensive irrigated agriculture in the region. Rice, irrigated pasture, alfalfa, 
grain, fruits, nuts, and tomatoes account for about 80 percent of the irrigated crop acreage. 
Irrigated acreage in the region is expected to remain about the same between the 1 995 base year 
and 2020 (see Table 8-1). 

Table 8-1 . Population and Crop Acreage (thousands) 

~ 1995 2020 

Population 2,372,000 3,813,000 

Irrigated Crop Acres (thousand acres) 2, 139 2,1 50 



8.4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Water Demands and Supplies 

Water shortages are expected to occur under average and drought conditions within the 
region, as shown in Table 8-2. The 1995-level shortage shown in the table for average years 
includes groundwater overdraft. Most of the drought year water shortages are associated with 
agricultural water use, primarily in the valley floor area immediately north of Sacramento. 

Table 8-2. Sacramento River Region Water Demand and Supply (taf) 





1995 


2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 












Urban 


766 


830 


1,139 




1,236 


Agricultural 


8,065 


9,054 


7,939 




8,822 


Environmental 


5,825 


4,222 


5,951 




4,344 


Total Applied Water 


14,656 


14,105 


15,029 




14,402 


Supplies 












Surface Water 


11,873 


10,021 


12,188 




10,011 


Groundwater 


2,672 


3,218 


2,636 




3,281 


Recycled and/or Desalted 
















Total Supplies 


14,545 


13,238 


14,824 




13,292 


Shortages 


111 


867 


206 




1,109 



Excluding supplies dedicated to environmental purposes, surface water accounted for 
about 70 percent of the region's total average water supply in 1995. Groundwater provides the 
remaining supply. During drought years, additional groundwater is pumped to compensate for 
reduced surface water supplies. 

There are 43 major reservoirs in the region, wdth a combined storage capacity of almost 
16 maf About half of this combined storage capacity is contained in just two of the 43 
reservoirs — the CVP's Lake Shasta and the SWP's Lake Oroville. 

«■ Photo: Oroville Dam 
CVP Water Supply. 

Most of the water delivered by CVP facilities in the Sacramento River Region is for 
agricultural use. Cities that receive part of their water supply from CVP facilities include 
Sacramento and Redding. 

8-5 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

The Tehama-Colusa and Corning canals, which begin at Red BlutY Diversion Dam on the 
Sacramento River, deliver CVP water to agricultural users and to wildlife reftiges. The Tehama- 
Colusa Canal extends 110 miles south of RBDD, terminating in Yolo County south of Dunnigan. 
The Corning Canal extends 25 miles south of RBDD, terminating near Coming. Together, the 
canals serve about 160,000 acres of land in Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo counties. Project water and 
water rights settlement water users also make direct diversions from the Sacramento River. 

Some of the larger water agencies receiving supplies delivered by the CVP (either project 
water or water rights water) are listed below. The contractual entitlement shown includes, where 
applicable, both project water and water rights water. 

Agency Total Contractual Entitlement (taf) 

Anderson-Cottonwood ID 175.0 

Glenn-Colusa ID 825.0 

Natomas Central Mutual Water Company 123.0 

Princeton-Codora-Glenn ID 67.8 

Reclamation District 108 232.0 

Reclamation District 1 004 71 .4 

Sutter Mutual Water Company 268.0 

Releases from Folsom Reservoir on the American River serve Delta and CVP export 
needs, as well as providing supplies to agencies in the Sacramento metropolitan area. The City 
of Sacramento is the largest water rights contractor on the American River, with a contract for 
almost 300 taf Placer County Water Agency, one of the largest American River contractors for 
project water, also holds a water rights contract for 120 taf. EBMUD holds the largest contract 
for project water on the American River system (150 taf), which it had originally planned to take 
delivery of via an extension of the existing Folsom South Canal. (Use of EBMUD's American 
River supply is described in Chapter 7.) 

CVP facilities serving communities in the foothills east of Sacramento are Jenkinson 
Lake (Sly Park Dam) and Sugar Pine Reservoir. 
Supply from Other Federal Water Projects 

Monticello Dam in Napa County impounds Putah Creek to form Lake Berryessa, the 
water storage facility of the USBR's Solano Project. This project provides urban and agricultural 
water supply to Solano County (partly in the Sacramento River region and partly in the San 



8-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Francisco Bay region) and agricultural water supply to the University of California at Davis in 
Yolo County. Napa County only uses about 1 percent of the supply for developments around 
Lake Berryessa. 

SCWA is the regional water contractor for both the federal Solano Project and the SWP. 
Within the Sacramento River Region. SCWA member entities with contracts for Solano Project 
water include the City of Vacaville (which also receives SWP water and uses groundwater), 
Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, UCD, and the California Medical 
Facility /California State Prison-Solano. (The cities of Fairfield, Vallejo, and Suisun City in the 
San Francisco Bay Region also have SCWA contracts for Solano Project water, as discussed in 
Chapter 7.) SID contracts for 141,000 af of Solano Project water from SCWA and delivers it to 
agricultural users in Solano County. 

•s-Photo: Monticello Dam 
SWP Water Supply 

Lake Davis, Frenchman Lake, and Antelope Lake are located on Feather River tributaries 
in Plumas County and used primarily for recreation, provide water supply to Portola and to local 
agencies having water rights agreements with the Department. Lake Oroville and Thermalito 
Afterbay also provide supply within the region. Local agencies that receive water rights water 
delivered at Thermalito Afterbay include Western Canal Water District, Richvale Irrigation 
District, Biggs- West Gridley Water District, Butte Water District, and Sutter Extension Water 
District. Agencies in the region holding long-term contracts for SWP supply are Yuba City, 
Butte County, Solano County Water Agency, and Plumas County Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District. In 1995. the cumulative SWP deliveries to these agencies were 
209,528 af. SCWA is served by the SWP's North Bay Aqueduct, which diverts water from the 
Delta. 
Local Surface Water Supply 

Water stored and released ft-om Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir into Cache 
Creek is diverted by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for 
irrigation in Yolo County. Since 1950. the district has diverted an average of 130,000 af 
annually at the Capay Dam Diversion on lower Cache Creek. No water supply from these 
sources was available during the 1977 and 1990 drought years. 

8-7 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapters Interior Regions 

In Sutter County, and in the western portion of Placer County, agricultural water is 
supplied by South Sutter Water District from Camp Far West Reservoir on the lower Bear River. 
SSWD also purchases surface water from Nevada Irrigation District to supplement irrigators' 
groundwater supplies. NID's supplies come from its reservoirs on the Bear River system. Yuba 
River supplies have been developed by Yuba County Water Agency, which owns the 970 taf 
New BuUards Bar Reservior, the river's largest reservoir. 

The Sacramento metropolitan area, served by over 20 water purveyors, is the largest 
urban area in the Sacramento Region and is also the largest urban user of surface water. Within 
Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento relies primarily on surface water; water purveyors in 
unincorporated areas use both surface water and groundwater. The City of Sacramento diverts its 
CVP water rights water from the American River at H Street, and also diverts from the 
confluence of American and Sacramento Rivers. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the city's 
water supply comes from surface diversions, with the Fairbum WTP providing more than 50 
percent of the surface water supply (water quality in the American River is better than that in the 
Sacramento). The City of Folsom and Folsom Prison get surface water from Folsom Lake. 
Groundwater Supply 

Most groundwater used in the region comes from alluvial aquifers on the Sacramento 
Valley floor. The Sacramento Valley is a major groundwater basin, with an estimated 1 14 maf 
of water in storage (at depths of up to 600 feet). (Only a portion of this amount is available for 
extraction.) Well yields in alluvial areas vary significantly depending on location, and pumping 
yields range from 100 to 4,000 gpm. Foothill communities that use groundwater generally rely 
on fractured rock sources that have yields lower than those found in valley floor alluvium. 

Redding supplements its CVP surface water supply with self-supplied groundwater. 
Smaller communities in the northern and central Sacramento Valley, such as Anderson, Red 
Bluff, Marysville, Olivehurst, Wheatland, Willows, Corning, and Williams, rely almost entirely 
on groundwater and have adequate supplies to meet local demands for the^foreseeable fiiture. 
Woodland, Davis, and Dixon are completely dependent on groundwater. UCD urban demands 
and some agricultural demands are served from groundwater. Most residents in unincorporated 
areas rely entirely on groundwater. 



8-8 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapters Interior Regions 

In the Sacramento metropolitan area, groundwater is supplied by the cities of Sacramento 
and Gait, Sacramento County, and local water agencies. There are two areas of overdraft in 
Sacramento County aquifers, one near McClellan Air Force Base and the other in the Elk Grove 
area. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Sierra Nevada Foothills 

Urbanization of productive agricultural lands in the Central Valley is a land use issue 
currently attracting significant public attention. One alternative to urban development on valley 
floor agricultural lands is increasing development on non-arable lands in the adjoining Sierra 
Nevada foothills. However, the foothill areas also have land use and water supply concerns 
associated with development pressure, particularly for communities within commuting distance 
of the valley's major population centers. 

Historically, the rural foothill counties have had economies based on natural resource 
development (e.g., ranching and logging). Tourism is becoming increasingly important. 
Although individual foothill communities have experienced relatively high growth rates, the 
region's overall population is small, and future development is constrained by the high 
percentage of federal lands managed by the USPS and the National Park Service. 

Although there has been extensive development of large-scale water projects in the Sierra 
foothills, that development serves downstream urban and agricultural water users. The foothills' 
local water supply infrastructure is limited, with some water users still being served by open 
ditch and flume systems that date back to gold rush-era mining operations. The area's 
development pattern of small, geographically dispersed population centers and its lack of a 
financial base for major capital improvement projects constrains the ability to interconnect 
individual water systems and to develop centralized sources of water supplies, limiting options 
for water transfers. The area's small population translates into high per capita costs for water 
supply improvements. Many individual residences and subdivision developments rely on self- 
supplied groundwater, from wells tapping fractured rock aquifers. Groundwater resources fi-om 
fractured rock sources are highly variable in terms of water quantity and quality, and are an 
uncertain source for large-scale residential development. 



8-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Management of existing water supplies, especially in terms of increasingly stringent 
drinking water quality requirements, is a challenge for some foothill water systems. As with 
water supply, interconnections for water treatment purposes are challenged by the geographic 
and topographic constraints of the foothill areas. System consolidations are also complicated by 
the relatively large percentage of the foothill population living in unincorporated areas, and the 
correspondingly high number of small, independent water systems. Historically, one source of 
localized water quality problems has stemmed from isolated developments that rely on 
groundwater as a source of supply and also use septic tank systems for waste disposal. Some of 
these systems eventually experience groundwater contamination problems, leading to the need to 
provide a new water supply or to connect the development to a regional sewage system, if one 
exists. 

Through 2020, there are no anticipated water shortages in average water years in the 
Sierra foothill area above the Central Valley floor (an area including part of the Cascade Range 
tributary to the Sacramento River, and stretching from Modoc County on the north to Kern 
County on the south). Drought year shortages in 2020 are forecast to be 220,000 af, over 60 
percent of which is associated with agricultural water use. The area's limited payment capacity 
and its need for drought year supplies suggests that participation in regional water supply 
projects with larger water agencies would be a probable option. Although local agencies have 
evaluated a number of new reservoir projects in the past (see water management options section), 
these projects have not gone forward. 
Colusa Basin Drainage District 

In 1995, the Colusa Basin Drainage District finalized a study that identified projects to 
meet six objectives: (1) protect against fiood and drainage; (2) preserve and enhance agricultural 
production; (3) capture surface or storm water for conservation, conjunctive use, and increased 
water supplies; (4) facilitate groimdwater recharge to help reduce overdraft and land subsidence; 
(5) improve and enhance wetland and riparian habitats; and (6) improve water quality. Some 
projects subsequently selected by the district for feasibility and preliminary design studies have 
potential water supply benefits ~ two onstream reservoirs and one groundwater recharge project. 
These projects are described in the discussion of water management options. Much of the 
present supply for agricultural water users in the Colusa Basin comes from return flow contracts 

8-10 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

for CVP water. These irrigation return flows have become an increasingly unreliable supply for 
Colusa Basin Drain diverters as USBR requires stricter water conservation measures of its 
upstream water contractors. 
Groundwater Management Actions 

The Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District adopted an ordinance in 1980 to 
limit the amount of groundwater extraction in Sierra Valley. A subsequent legal challenge led to 
a repeal of the ordinance by the SVGMD. The district has now focused its efforts on monitoring 
the basin's groundwater levels and requesting voluntary reductions in extractions. The 

Tehama County Board of Supervisors in 1992 amended the Tehama County Code by enacting 
urgency ordinances to prohibit groundwater mining within the County and extraction of 
groimdwater for export without a permit granted by the Board. In 1996, the Tehama County 
Flood Control and Water Conservation District adopted a resolution of intent to develop a 
countywide AB 3030 plan and prepared a draft plan to serve as the basis for developing 
agreements with local pumpers. 

Butte County has enacted two ordinances to regulate groundwater extraction. The 
purpose of one ordinance is to "attempt to reduce potential well interference problems to existing 
wells and potential adverse impacts to the environment which could be caused by the 
construction of new wells or the repair or deepening of existing wells. . ." The ordinance sets 
pumping capacity limits of not greater than 50 gallons per minute per acre to reasonably serve 
the overlying land, including contiguous parcels of land under the same ownership. In addition, 
the ordinance establishes well spacing requirements based on the engineered pumping capacity 
of the well. Well spacing requirements range from 450 feet for a 1,000 gpm well to 2,600 feet 
for a 5,000 gpm well. The ordinance also increased the well sealing to 50 feet for all wells to 
minimize the risk of shallow water contamination into a deep aquifer. 

The Tehama County ordinance, approved by the voters in 1 996. regulates exportation of 
groundwater out of the county and substitution of groundwater for surface water when surface 
water is sold. The ordinance charges the Butte County Water Commission with issuing permits 
for export of groundwater, or for substitution of groundwater for surface water when surface 
water is sold. The ordinance requires the Butte Basin Water Users Association to analyze and 
report safe yield of each groundwater subbasin annually. 



8-11 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Merior Regions 

Glenn County enacted a groundwater ordinance in 1977. This ordinance requires a 
permit to export groundwater outside the county. A permit can only be issued if it is found that 
export will not result in overdraft, adverse impacts to water levels, and seawater intrusion. The 
Board of Supervisors may impose conditions for the public health, safety, and welfare of the 
people of the county. Glenn County is preparing a groundwater management plan (AB 3030) in 
collaboration with the local Resource Conservation District, Farm Bureau, and water agencies. 
The plan is expected to be complete in mid-1998. 
Sacramento Water Forum 

The Sacramento Water Forum was formed in 1993 to discuss ways to provide a water 
supply for the region's planned development while preserving the fishery, wildlife, recreational, 
and aesthetic values of the lower American River. SWF membership includes the cities of 
Sacramento, Gait, and Folsom; County of Sacramento; twenty-plus water agencies; several 
environmental groups; and representatives from the business community and other community 
groups. In 1995 the SWF began meeting jointly with water managers in Placer and EI Dorado 
counties. 

Working together as the Foothill-Forum Water Group, they developed proposed draft 
recommendations for lower American River actions, releasing a Draft Recommendations for a 
Water Forum Agreement in 1997. The proposed solution includes an integrated package of the 
following seven actions: 

• Increase surface water diversions 

• Alternative water supplies to meet customers' needs while reducing diversion impacts on 
the Lower American River in drier years 

• An improved pattern of fishery flow releases from Folsom Reservoir 

• Lower American River habitat mitigation 

• Water conservation 

• Groundwater management "^ 

• Water Forum successor effort 

Generally, foothill water interests would increase their diversions from the American 
River in average and wet years, and decrease those diversions in drier and driest years. Placer 
County Water Agency would be providing excess water from non-American River sources to 

8-12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

many of the participating water agencies during drier and driest years to help make up the 
decreased American River diversions in those years. PCWA's participation in many of these 
specific agreements is dependent upon SWRCB approval for changes to conditions of its existing 
water rights. The proposal calls for conjunctively managing surface and groundwater supplies, 
to help manage declining groundwater levels in parts of Sacramento County, and mandates water 
conservation measures. 

An example of the regional cooperation that the SWF hopes to foster is a joint pipeline 
project being carried out by two CVP contractors ~ San Juan Water District and Sacramento 
County Water Agency. SJWD has completed the first two phases of a joint pipeline project 
which will provide surface water to northern Sacramento County water purveyors. Phase III 
would extend the pipeline to the Rio Linda WD, McClellan AFB, and the westerly Citizens 
Utilities service areas. By providing surface water supplies, the wholesale purveyors along the 
pipeline route can reduce their dependence on groundwater, thereby allowing the groundwater 
basin to recharge. 

One element of the SWF's draft proposal is a recommended joint City of 
Sacramento/EBMUD diversion at the city's existing water treatment plant. Instead of taking its 
American River CVP supply by extending the existing Folsom South Canal, EBMUD would 
divert at the City's plant farther downstream and construct a pipeline to its service area. This 
proposal is intended to maintain high flows in the lower American River for fishery purposes. 
As described in Chapter 7, EBMUD is evaluating that alternative, as well as a Folsom South 
Canal extension, in a draft EIR/EIS released in November 1997. 
Foothill Area Water Supply from American River Basin 

El Dorado County water agencies have made several attempts to develop local supplies in 
the American River Basin, in anticipation of their service areas' future water needs. Originally, 
USBR's multipurpose Auburn Dam was to provide local supply. When Auburn Dam did not go 
forward. El Dorado Irrigation District and El Dorado County Water Agency proposed a joint 
water supply and hydropower project in the late 1970s. The South Fork American River project 
would have included a large dam at the Alder Creek site, a Texas Hill reservoir on Weber Creek, 
two diversion dams, and several powerplants. When the SOFAR project did not prove to be 
financially feasible, a small Alder Creek Reservoir project with a storage capacity of 31 taf was 



8-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

investigated. In 1993, EDCWA released a final EIR for water supply development in EID's 
service area. Alternatives included a 15,000 af/yr CVP water service contract for deliveries from 
Folsom Reservoir (authorized in PL 101-514), the El Dorado project, the Texas Hill reservior, 
small Alder reservoir, and White Rock project. The preferred alternative was identified as a 
combination of the water service contract, the El Dorado project, and the White Rock project. 

EDCWA subsequently executed the CVP water service contract and EID sought to 
implement the EI Dorado project, a proposal to acquire rights to consumptively use water that 
had been developed by PG&E for hydropower generation. In 1996, SWRCB's Decision 1635 
approved EID's water rights filing for 17 taf of consumptive use from PG&E's Caples, Aloha, 
and Silver Lakes on the Silver Fork of the American River and its tributaries, based in part on a 
PG&E agreement to sell facilities of the hydropower project to EID. Several other water right 
holders petitioned SWRCB to reconsider its decision. EID and PG&E subsequently went to 
litigation over sale of the facilities, and EID's EIR for the El Dorado project was found 
inadequate by a Superior Court judge. The project is currently on hold. 

EID's White Rock project is a diversion and conveyance project that would build about 
4.5 miles of pipeline to connect an EID treatment plant with an existing SMUD penstock. The 
project would not provide additional water supply. 

Alternatives to meet future water needs for Georgetown Divide PUD were identified in a 
1992 planning report that examined a potential reservoir project on Canyon Creek. The reservoir 
project was found not to be affordable for the service area. The most promising potential project 
was a diversion and conveyance of Rubicon River water to GDPUD's service area. This 
alternative would entail acquisition of water rights and negotiation of an agreement with the 
Sacramento Municipal Utility District to mitigate the project's impacts on SMUD's hydropower 
generation. 

In the 1 990s, USBR conducted its American River Water Resources Investigation to 
evaluate local area water supply options that would make up the water supply that was to have 
been provided by Auburn Dam. The AWRI study proposed two major alternatives for meeting 
municipal and agricultural water supply needs in portions of Sacramento, San Joaquin, El 
Dorado, Placer, and Sutter counties through 2030 -- a conjunctive use alternative and an Auburn 
Dam alternative. (The Auburn Dam alternative also entailed a conjunctive use component.) 



8-14 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapters Interior Regions 

Three alternative Auburn Reservoir sizes were studied: 430,000 af, 900,000 af, and 1 ,200,000 af. 
A prepublication draft of the tlnal EIR/EIS for this investigation was released in January 1997. 
However, study participants have now proposed a third alternative consisting of common 
elements of the two other alternatives. 



Sacramento River Flood Control Project 

After a series of major floods in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Sacramento Valley, 
congressional authority for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project was granted in 1917. The 
project was built with the help of local. State, and federal funding. The project includes levees, 
overflow weirs, bypass channels, and channel enlargements. Overflow weirs allow excess water in 
the main river channel to flow into bypasses in the Sutter Basin and Yolo Basin. This system is 
designed to carry 600,000 cfs of flood water past Sacramento -- 1 10,000 cfs in the Sacramento River 
itself through downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, and nearly 500,000 cfs in the Yolo 
Bypass. The system has worked exceedingly well over the years. However, many miles of levees 
sustained considerable erosion damage during the January 1997 flood. 

The capacity of the SRFCP was increased with the construction of Shasta Dam in 1945 and 
Folsom Dam in 1956. The Feather and Yuba River systems did not share in the SRFCP's flood 
control benefits; however, supplemental protection was provided by the construction of Oroville Dam 
on the Feather River in 1968 and New Bullards Bar Dam on the Yuba River in 1970. These are large 
multi-purpose reservoirs in which flood control functions share space with water supply functions. 



American River Flood Protection 

After the floods of February 1986, USAGE reanalyzed American River basin hydrology 
and concluded that Folsom Dam offered about a 65-year level of flood protection to the 
downstream Sacramento area, significantly less than the 250-year protection estimated in the late 
1940s when Folsom Dam was designed. Local, State, and federal agencies worked together to 
identify ways to mitigate the American River basin's flood problems. In December 1991, the 
American River Watershed Investigation Feasibility Report and EIR/EIS were completed and 
identified alternative measures. The report recommended a flood control detention dam near 
Auburn. In 1992, Congress directed USAGE to do specific follow-up flood control studies. 
Three main alternatives were evaluated. Two of the alternatives would increase the flood control 
reservation in Folsom, modify the spillway and outlet works, and improve downstream levees. 
The third alternative would construct a detention dam at Auburn, with downstream levee 
improvements. USAGE studies identified the detention dam as the plan that maximized the net 
national economic benefit. The State Reclamation Board endorsed the detention dam as the 
preferred alternative in 1995. In 1996, the USAGE recommended deferring a decision on long- 



8-15 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

term solutions and to proceed with the levee improvements common to the alternatives. 
Congress authorized $57 million in 1996 for construction of the levee improvements. 

The Central Valley's January 1997 flood disaster triggered another examination of 
American River hydrology. Based on that hydrologic review, the 1986 and 1997 floods are now 
considered to be about 65-year events. The 1997 flooding also triggered the payback provisions 
of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency's agreement with USBR, under which USER sets 
aside up to 270 taf of additional winter flood control space in Folsom. (This additional flood 
control space in the reservoir raises Sacramento's level of protection to about an 85-year event.) 
Because the January 1 997 flood event was followed by an unusually dry spring, the re-operation 
of Folsom Dam to provide additional flood control resulted in a loss of supply to USBR. 
SAFCA arranged for the purchase of 100 taf to offset the loss of supply ~ 50 taf from YCWA, 
35 taf from PCWA, and 15 taf from GCID (through groundwater substitution). SAFCA paid for 
25 percent of the costs; the federal government paid for the remainder. 

"s-Photo: American River high water at H Street Bridge 
Yuba River Flood Protection 

The Marysville - Yuba City area, located at the confluence of the Feather and Yuba 
rivers, has been threatened by flooding from levee breaks. New Bullards Bar Reservoir on the 
Yuba River, the only Yuba River basin reservoir with dedicated flood control storage, can 
regulate less than half the river's runoff. Peak flows in the Feather River are greatly reduced by 
Lake Oroville, and, if releases are timed. Feather River flows can be reduced to help pass flood 
peaks on the Yuba River. The middle and south forks of the Yuba River and Deer Creek have no 
dedicated flood storage. USACE and YCWA have studied flood control features to reduce 
flooding on the Yuba River and downstream on the Feather and Sacramento rivers. A large 
reservoir site (the old Marysville project, or similar dams near the Yuba River Narrows) was 
studied by USACE, YCWA, the Department, and others at various times in the 1950s through 
the 1980s. Smaller reservoir projects have been studied in this same general area, including a 
potential project by YCWA known as Parks Bar. As described in the water management options 
section, YCWA is also evaluating an offstream site known as Waldo Reservoir. Waldo 
Reservoir, which is being evaluated for water supply potential as well as for flood control, could 



8-16 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

provide conservation storage to replace a similar amount of conservation storage set aside at 
Oroville or New Bullards Bar for additional flood control needs. 
Sacramento River Mainstem Flood Protection and Water Supply 

Enlargement of Shasta Reservoir has been examined in the past by USBR and DWR as a 
statewide water supply option. Reservoir enlargement would also provide additional flood 
protection on the Sacramento River mainstem. When the project was last reviewed in the 1980s 
(at a very cursory appraisal level of detail), its costs were quite high, reflecting the project's 
magnitude (up to 10 maf of additional storage capacity). Railroad and highway relocations were 
a substantial cost item. In the wake of the January 1997 flooding, there is renewed interest in 
reexamining Shasta's enlargement, and in considering a range of potential reservoir sizes. 
Enlarging Shasta as a statewide water management option could provide the opportunity for local 
agencies in the region to participate in the project, especially smaller agencies that lack the 
resources to develop new local projects themselves. 
Reliability of Facilities in the Sierra Foothills 

Conveyance system reliability is a concern in foothill areas of the region where sources of 
surface supply are often limited. Conveyance facilities are vulnerable to localized flooding and 
earthquake or landslide damage. After the 1997 floods, a landslide destroyed a 30-foot section of 
Georgetown's canal which supplies water to 9,000 customers in six towns in rural El Dorado 
County. Nearby. EID also lost use of its flume from the forebay on the American River due to 
another landslide. The district is currently developing alternatives to repair or replace the flume. 
The communities of Cohasset and Forest Ranch in Butte County are considering building a 
pipeline to convey part of Butte County's SWP supply to urban users in this area east of Chico. 
During extended drought conditions, some of the wells now serving the area have gone dry. and 
water has had to be brought in by truck. 

Also in Butte County, the Department's Division of Safety of Dams recently reduced the 
allowable operating capacity of Paradise Irrigation District's Magalia Reservior because of 
seismic safety concerns. The 2,900 af capacity reservoir is impounded by a hydraulic fill dam 
built in 1918. Restoring the 1,500 af reduction in storage capacity is estimated to cost about $10 
million. 



8-17 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Rewew Draft Chapters Interior Regions 

Putah Creek Adjudication 

USBR stores and diverts water from Putah Creek through its Solano Project. Solano 
Project operations are subject to a condition which reserves water for users upstream of 
Monticello Dam in Lake Berryessa. In 1990, two project water users (SID and SCWA) 
commenced an action in Solano County Superior Court to determine all rights to the use of water 
from Putah Creek and its tributaries. Among other issues, the action required a determination of 
how rights can be exercised among USBR and upstream water users. An agreement was 
negotiated among SID, SCWA, USBR, and upstream water users. In 1996, the SWRCB adopted 
an order (WR 96-2) amending appropriative water rights in the upper Putah Creek watershed to 
be consistent with the negotiated agreement. 
Fish Passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam 

USBR completed Red Bluff Diversion Dam in 1964. The dam diverts Sacramento River 
water into the Tehama-Colusa and Corning canals to supply irrigation and refuge water needs. 
During the 1 970s and 1 980s, large fishery declines in the upper river were partly attributed to the 
dam and the canal intake screens. The dam delayed the upstream passage of migrating adult 
salmon and steelhead and disoriented downstream migrating juveniles, which made them 
vulnerable to predation by squawfish. The original fish screens also permitted passage of many 
juvenile fish into the canals. 

In 1986, USBR began raising the gates of the dam between December and March to 
allow fish passage. The gates-up period has been expanded in response to ESA requirements for 
winter-run chinook salmon; the current objective is for eight consecutive months (September 15 
to May 15) each year to allow unimpeded fish passage during the migration season. In 1991, 
new drum fish screens and bypasses were installed at the canal headworks and are now operating 
successfully. As discussed in Chapter 2. USBR and USFWS are operating a research pumping 
plant at the dam, and evaluating the effects of different pump types on fish. The plant supplies 
water to the canals during the eight months when the dam gates are raised. 

t^Photo: RBDD 
Gienn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen 

The 175,000 acre Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District has the largest diversion on the 
Sacramento River north of the Delta (maximum diversion capacity of 3,000 cfs), which it takes 



8-18 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

under a pre-1914 appropriative water right. GCID may divert up to 825,000 af from April 
through October for irrigation supply. (Rice is the dominant crop in GCOD.) GCID exercises its 
rights to divert via a USBR water rights settlement contract. GCID also supplies water to three 
national wildlife refuges ~ Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa. 

GCID's pumping plant is located on a river side channel, upstream of Hamilton City, 
near Chico. DFG constructed a 40-drum rotary screen fish barrier at the plant's intake in 1972, to 
prevent entrainment of juvenile fish. This screen system did not perform as designed, resulting 
in an unacceptably high rate of juvenile fish mortality. In 1991, ESA listing of the winter run 
Chinook salmon resulted in a court order to GCID to restrict its pumping and to install a new fish 
screen. CVPIA included remediation offish passage problems at the plant in the environmental 
restorafion actions that USBR and USFWS were to implement. In 1993, GCID completed an 
interim flat plate screen while a permanent solution was being developed. An environmental 
document identifying a preferred fish passage alternative ~ a new flat plate screen with a 
gradient control facility in the main channel of the Sacramento River — was released in 1997. 
Construction is scheduled to begin in 1998. 
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Activities in the Sacramento Valley 

There are many ongoing fishery restoration actions or projects in the Sacramento Valley. 
Some of the larger projects are described below, in order from north to south. 

Mill and Deer creeks support spring run chinook salmon, a candidate species under the 
California ESA. In 1 995 state legislation gave the creeks protection from future water 
development (similar to protection provided by the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act), by 
restricting construction of new dams, reservoirs, diversions or other water impoundments. The 
Mill and Deer Creek Watershed Conservancies were also formed in 1995. The conservancies 
have initiated a watershed planning and management process with the assistance of EPA grant 
funding. Members cooperate in gathering necessary data to preserve anadromous fisheries 
habitat while maintaining economically productive land uses. The Department has participated 
with Mill Creek landowners in an experimental project which constructs wells to supplement 
irrigation supplies during spring fish migration periods. A similar project is being negotiated 
with Deer Creek water users. 



8-19 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Big Chico Creek supports a remnant population of spring run salmon, as well as some fall 
run salmon. In 1 996, M&T Ranch and Llano Seco Ranch pumps were relocated from the creek to 
the Sacramento River to eliminate a fish hazard at the mouth of creek which had impeded 
passage of young out-migrating fish. Other fishery issues, such as modification of small 
temporary dams and a permanent fish ladder, revegetation of Lindo Channel, and development of 
a fishery management plan, are being investigated. 

cs-Photo: Western Canal fish restoration project 

Butte Creek, a Sacramento Valley tributary, is presently receiving intensive fishery 
restoration attention is Butte Creek. This creek has a large spring run salmon population and also 
supports a small fall salmon run. Recent fishery restoration efforts on Butte Creek began in 1995 
when M&T Chico Ranch and DFG agreed to install a new fish ladder at the Parrott Phelen Dam 
and new screened diversions. M&T Ranch also dedicated 40 cfs of instream flow for fishery 
needs on Butte Creek. Western Canal Water District and private landowners have agreed to 
remove the Point Four Diversion Dam on Butte Creek near Nelson. In 1997, WCWD began 
construction of a siphon under Butte Creek which will allow removal of its main dam and two 
smaller downstream dams. This siphon will separate the canal system from Butte Creek and 
eliminate fish losses caused by the diversion. This $8 million project is scheduled for 
completion in 1998. In 1997, work began on a new fish ladder and screen at the second largest 
downstream diversion dam. Adams Dam and Gorrill Dam are also scheduled for upgraded 
ladders and screens in 1998. When completed, four diversion dams will have been removed. 
Four others will be refurbished to improve fish passage. Other diversion dams in the nearby 
Butte Slough and Sutter Bypass areas are being evaluated by the Nature Conservancy and 
California Waterfowl Association for fish passage improvements. 

cs-Photo: Parrott Phelan Dam 

Other Sacramento River water users are moving forward on fish screen projects. The 
Pelger Mutual Water Company and Maxwell Irrigation District completed screens in 1995. 
Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District and Provident Irrigation District started construction 
on a new screened pumping plant on the Sacramento River which is expected to be operational in 
1998. Reclamation District 108 started building its new fish screen at its Wilkins Slough 
Diversion on the Sacramento River in 1997. The new screen is expected to be operational by the 

8-20 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Iritenor Regions 

1999 irrigation season. Reclamation District 1004 is completing final design and will begin 
construction on its new fish screen and pumping facility in 1998. Natomas Central Mutual Water 
Company will soon initiate feasibility studies for a large screening project on the lower 
Sacramento River. Glerm-Colusa Irrigation District is moving forward on the environmental 
review of a screening project. On the Yuba River. Browns Valley Irrigation District will install a 
fish screen in 1998. 

Clear Creek near Redding is another location in the Sacramento River Basin where 
fishery restoration work has been performed. Additional work would include a new fish passage 
around McCormick-Saeltzer Dam, gravel placement, and sediment control. Much of the riparian 
land along Clear Creek below Whiskeytown Reservoir has been acquired by BLM and by the 
Wildlife Conservation Board. 

Other Sacramento River Region streams with environmental restoration studies underway 
are Battle Creek and Lower Stoney Creek. Potential restoration work at Battle Creek includes 
studies of fish passage, instream flows, screened diversions, and hatchery modernization. Glenn 
County is in the process of seeking funding and planning for a Lower Stony Creek watershed 
restoration program. 
Water Needs for Rice Field Flooding 

Sacramento Valley rice fields provide overwintering area for about one-third of all 
migrating waterfowl in California. Historically, many farmers in the Sacramento Valley have 
flooded harvested rice fields to attract waterfowl for hunting. More recently, thousands of acres 
of additional rice lands are being flooded for rice straw decomposition due to burning restrictions 
imposed by the Rice Straw Burning Act of 1991 (as amended in 1997). Seasonal flooding in 
response to this act is creating more artificial wetlands for migrating and overwintering 
waterfowl. 

Flooding of harvested rice lands for rice straw decomposition influences the timing of 
surface water diversions, placing additional demands during fall and winter months. Most 
flooding begins in mid-October and continues into November. Flooded conditions are usually 
maintained through March. In 1994-95, the Department conducted a study in three Sacramento 
Valley planning subareas (Northwest Valley, Central Basin West, and Central Basin East) to 
evaluate fall and winter water use. The study area included approximately 123,000 acres of 

8-21 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 8 Interior Regions 

flooded rice land. The estimated applied water requirements for flooded rice lands was 260 taf; 
the estimated ETA W was 1 07 taf. 

Presently, flooding harvested rice fields for rice straw decomposition is the most common 
cultural practice used in lieu of burning. However, rice growers are investigating alternative 
methods for rice straw removal. For example, rice straw is being considered on an experimental 
basis for a variety of commercial and industrial uses such as plywood, press board and fruit 
packing boxes, erosion control, paper pulp, and fuel. If any of these methods are proven to be an 
economically viable alternative to rice straw disposal by decomposition, water demands could 
decrease. 

Water Management Options for the Sacramento River Region 

Water management options in the Sacramento River Region have been extensively 
investigated by federal. State and local governments over the last 60 years. Many of the federal 
and State options were explored for their potential to augment CVP or SWF water supplies. 
Some projects, once studied as statewide options, are now being considered for meeting fiiture 
local water supply and flood control needs in the Sacramento River Region. However, some 
large on and offstream reservoirs are beyond the development capacity of local water agencies, 
and are considered potential statewide options. These statewide projects are presented in 
Chapter 6. 

Table 8-3 shows an initial list of water management options for the region, and those 
options that were deferred, and the reasons for their deferral. Options were deferred from detailed 
evaluation because of lack of project data, undetermined or low yields, legal and institutional 
constraints, project economics, and environmental concerns. After initial evaluation. 16 local 
options were retained for ftirther evaluation (Appendix 8 A Table 8A-1 ). The results are shown 
in Table 8-4. 



8-22 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Interior Regions 



Table 8-3. Comprehensive List of Options 
Sacramento River Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 

or 
Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Wambo Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) Defer 

Mar>sville Dam Flood Control Project (Yuba Defer 
County) 

Blue Ridge Reservoir (Yolo County) Retain 

Thurston Lake Pump-Storage Project Retain 

Parks Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) Retain 

Waldo Reservoir (Yuba County) Retain 

Whiterock Defer 

Texas Hill Retain 

Small Aider Retain 

Canyon Creek Dam (GDPIJD) Defer 

GDPUD Diversion from Middle Fork of American Retain 
River 



I'ndetermined yields; primarily hydropower 
project. 

Undetermined yields; primarily flood contol 
project. 



Would not provide additional water supply. 



Excessive costs. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

New Wells (Redding. Butte, and Colusa basins) Retain 

USBR/Ducks Unlimited Conjunctive Use Retain 

Big Valley Conjunctive Use(Lake County) Retain 

Orland-Artois Groundwater Recharge Basin Defer 

Oro-Chico Conduit Defer 

Adobe Creek Detention Structure (Lake County) Defer 



Lack of project data, no yields determined. 
High capital cost, undetermined yields, basin 
recharge adequate at this time. 
Negative environmental impacts. 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrrigation District Defer 

Bella Vista Water District Defer 

GCID In-Basin Annual Water fransfer Program Defer 



Institutional and legal constraints. 
Institutional and legal constraints. 
Institutional and legal con.straints. 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET„ 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 
Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficienc) Improvements 
Flexible Water Deliver)' 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailwater Rcco\er\ 



Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depiction reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reser^'oirs/Operations 

Raise Camp Far West Reservoir Defer 

Lower Bear River Expansion Project Defer 

Reoperation of Caples. Aloha, and Silver reservoirs Retain 



Economics. 

Uncertainties w ith water rights issues. 



8-23 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Interior Regions 



Table 8-3. Comprehensive List of Options 
Sacramento River Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 

or 
Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Wilson Creels Reservoir (Glenn County) Defer 

Golden Gate Reservoir (Funks Creek, Colusa Defer 
County) 

Dp, Creek Reservoir (Lake County) Retain 

Bear Creek Reservoir (Colusa County) Retain 

Wilson Valle> Reservoir (Lake County) Retain 

Garden Bar Reservoir (Placer. Nevada counties) Defer 

Long Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) Defer 



Undetermined yields; primarily flood control 

project. 

Undetermined yields; primarily flood control 

project. 



Economics. 

Undetermined yields; primarily hydropower 



project. 



Water Recycling 



Defer By definition in this Bulletin, does not generate 

new water. 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 



Seawater 



Other Local Options 

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento 
River and Cache Creek by YCFC&WCD 
New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento 
River by cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and Vallejo 
(Vacaville) 



Retain 
Retain 



Statewide Options 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program Retain 

Auburn Dam Retain 

CVPIA Water Acquisition Program Retain 



Water Conservation 

Urban. Urban conservation options were deferred from detailed evaluation because there 
is little potential to create new water (reduce depletions) in the Sacramento River Region from 
these options. 

Agricultural. Agricultural conservation options were deferred for the same reason within 
this region. Water that is not consumed by evapotranspiration is recoverable either as surface or 
groundwater for reuse downstream. 



8-24 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 tntenor Regions 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Two reservoir enlargement options were deferred in initial screening. Enlargement of 
Camp Far West Reservoir was deferred based on economic criteria. The Lower Bear River 
Expansion Project would increase the storage of Lower Bear Reservoir by more than 26,000 af, 
with a yield of approximately 20,000 af. A number of uncertainties remain for the project 
including water rights issues, coordination with PG&E (the reservoir's owner), and more 
definitive estimates of the project's drought year supply. 

The Water Management Issues section described several projects for EID's service area. 
The El Dorado Project would offer a yield of 1 7,000 af for EID by modifying operations of 
existing facilities owned by PG&E. The project would allow the district to develop water from 
PG&E hydropower projects in the American River Basin, by making consumptive use of water 
now stored and managed for power purposes. No new diversion facilities would be required for 
the project. The White Rock Project, a conveyance project, would not provide additional yield, 
but would allow more efficient use of El Dorado Project water. Implementation of the El Dorado 
Project is currently on hold pending negotiations with project opponents. 
New Reservoirs 

Onstream Storage. An extensive re-evaluation of onstream and offstream Sacramento 
Valley reservoir sites is being conducted by the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Reservoir sites 
(such as the offstream Sites Reservoir) being evaluated as statewide water supply options are 
discussed in Chapter 6. 

The history of local efforts to develop American River Basin water supply for rapidly 
growing foothill communities was discussed previously. Most recently, EID and EDCWA had 
considered the Texas Hill and Small Alder reservoir sites, but EDCWA did not include them as 
preferred alternatives in its plan for EID's service area. The drought year supplies for these 
reservoirs have been estimated at 9,400 af (Texas Hill) and 1 1,250 af (Small Alder). If 
implementation of EDCWA's preferred alternative does not go forward, these options may still 
be considered viable. Nearby, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District has examined a 
reservoir project on Canyon Creek. The 1 7.000 acre-foot reservoir site, located between the 
Middle and South Forks of the American River, would have estimated drought yield of 6,000 
acre-feet. This project was not cost-competitive with other options available to GDPUD. 

8-25 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

In the past. El Dorado County interests also examined the Cosumnes River Project with 
Amador, San Joaquin, and Sacramento counties. The proposal included five new reservoirs, with 
hydroelectric power generation, flood control, and recreation, to provide supplemental water 
supply benefits. Average-year yield of the project was estimated at 170,000 acre-feet. (The 
hydropower portion of the project would be necessary to make the project affordable to the local 
agencies.) The Cosumnes River is one of the few remaining undeveloped Sierran rivers (as was 
demonstrated by the extensive flooding experienced in its watershed in 1 997.) Desires by 
environmental interests to preserve the river's free-flowing characteristics and the difficulties 
associated with obtaining a FERC license would likely make large-scale water development on 
the river infeasible. Project planning is inactive. 

The Colusa Basin Drainage District has investigated two small reservoirs as part of its 
integrated watershed management project ~ Wilson Creek Reservoir west of Orland in Glenn 
County, and Golden Gate Reservoir on Funks Creek near Maxwell in Colusa County. The 
proposed structure on Wilson Creek is an embankment dam that would create a 2,225 af 
reservoir. The estimated average annual runoff of the Wilson Creek Basin at the dam site is 
2,420 af The construction cost is estimated at $3.3 million, and the primary purpose of this 
project would be flood control. Golden Gate Reservoir on Funks Creek would be formed by a 
76-foot high earthfill dam that would create a 16,850 af reservoir. This dam site is also a 
component of the Sites/Colusa Offstream Storage Project, a north of the Delta statewide option 
presented in Chapter 6. The Golden Gate Reservoir, as proposed by the Colusa Basin Drainage 
District, would be operated primarily for flood control but would also offer limited water supply 
benefits. The estimated average annual runoff of the Funks Creek Basin at Golden Gate dam is 
8,550 af and the construction cost estimate for the Golden Gate Dam and Reservoir is $2.5 
million. Neither of these projects is included in this Bulletin's detailed options evaluation 
because operation studies have not been made, and potential yields are still undetermined. These 
reservoirs are too small to provide carry-over storage to significantly increase drought-year water 
supply reliability. 

The Dry Creek Project, in Lake County near Middletown, was investigated by the 
Department in 1965. The project was designed to irrigate 5,700 acres of agricultural lands in the 
Collayomi and Long Valleys in Lake County. The main project feature would be a 129 foot-high 

8-26 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

earthfill Dam on Dry Creek (a tributary to Putah Creek) forming a 6,600 af reservoir. Updated 
estimates of the cost of developed water range from $150-$250 per af assuming a maximum 
yield of 6,600 af/yr. The US ACE is conducting a reconnaissance study for a similar facility, 
scheduled for completion in 1998. 

In 1988, the YCFC&WCD studied alternative water supply projects in the Cache Creek 
watershed. The study identified two onstream storage projects located in Colusa County. They 
are Bear Creek and Wilson Valley reservoirs, with yields of 30,000 af each, and one storage 
project in Yolo County, Blue Ridge Reservoir, with a yield of 100,000 af (These reservoirs 
were originally investigated by the Department in the 1960s and 1970s as potential sites that 
could store surplus water transferred from the Eel River to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for 
the SWP.) None of these sites are under active consideration. 

Many potential Yuba River reservoir sites have been studied over the years. YCWA has 
been evaluating a Parks Bar reservoir site on the lower Yuba River below Englebright Dam. The 
potential multi-purpose reservoir would have a capacity of 640 taf, providing up to 160 taf of 
drought year yield. The South Sutter Water District has looked at a Garden Bar proposed 
irrigation water supply reservoir on the Bear River, upstream of Camp Far West Reservoir. This 
project is not economically feasible at this time. 

Offstream Storage. YCWA completed Phase 1 of a feasibility investigation of the Waldo 
Project in August 1997. (Phase 1 studies included estimates of yield, conceptual designs, 
environmental aspects and fatal flaw evaluation.) The Waldo Project would be an offstream 
reservoir with the principal supply diverted from the Yuba River. Waldo Dam would be located 
on Dry Creek, east of Beale Air Force Base in Yuba County, and would create 300 taf of storage. 
Water would be diverted by gravity through a tunnel from Englebright Reservoir. The average 
and drought year yields of the Waldo Project for YCWA's service area would be about 145 taf 
and 109 taf per year, respectively. The cost of water, if served in the area of origin, would be 
about $ 1 1 per acre-foot. 

A 1988 study by the YCFC&WCD investigated a potential offstream storage project 
using Thurston Lake, a natural lake in the Clear Lake watershed. The Thurston Lake pump- 
storage project was investigated to develop a new water supply and to reduce flooding at Clear 
Lake communities. The project would provide storage of up to 300,000 af and yield 60,000 af. 

8-27 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Water would be pumped from Clear Lake into Thurston Lake during periods of high runoff in 
order to reduce flood flows downstream of Clear Lake. Preliminary investigations indicate that 
there would be substantial leakage at the site and potential water quality problems from high 
boron levels in Thurston Lake. 

"s-Photo: Sites Reservoir site 
Groundwater 

The Colusa Basin Drainage District is investigating a groundwater recharge project in 
southern Glenn County called the Orland-Artois groundwater recharge project. It involves 
conversion of an abandoned gravel quarry into a groundwater recharge basin. During periods of 
high Sacramento River flows, water would be delivered to the site via the Tehama-Colusa Canal. 
A sluice gate at the Canal would be constructed to regulate flows into a 3,000 foot-long pipeline 
terminating at the recharge basin. Preliminary designs for this project estimate a groundwater 
recharge capacity of 1 ,500 af per season. Depending on the selected configuration of the 
recharge basin, the estimated cost of construction ranges from about $363,000 to $513,000. 
Operation and maintenance costs for the project are estimated to be $4,000 per year. Although 
the recharge capacity of this project has been estimated, project yields have not been determined. 
Evaluation of this option was deferred until operation studies are completed and project yields 
are determined. 

The Department completed a cursory investigation of the Oro-Chico Conduit in 1997. 
This project would convey Feather River water in a canal running from Thermalito Forebay to 
the south Chico area for groundwater recharge and fishery restoration. The canal would cross 
numerous small ephemeral streams where water from the forebay could be released for recharge. 
Turnouts would provide recharge water during the spring in average runoff years and 
occasionally in the fall of wet years. Although project yields have not been determined for this 
option, cursory estimates indicate that the cost of this water would probably be in the $200 to 
$400/af range. This option was deferred from ftirther evaluation because of (1) high capital 
cost; (2) undetermined project yields; (3) local water agency concerns regarding operating Butte 
groundwater basin beyond historic levels; and (4) existing recharge in the Butte groundwater 
basin is sufficient for present levels of use. 



8-28 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Conjunctive Use 

USBR, in cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, began to study a conjunctive use project 
within Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. The goals of the program were to provide a long-term, 
reliable groundwater supply to supplement available surface water for rice straw decomposition 
and waterfowl habitat. The plan evaluated storing wet year surplus surface water in the 
groundwater basin for use during drought years. Sacramento River water would be pumped into 
GCID's conveyance system for delivery to recharge areas. The study concluded that the project 
could provide around 35,000 af for winter flooding under drought year conditions. Assuming 
that surplus surface water from the Sacramento River would be available for the cost of pumping 
during periods of high flows, the estimated cost of the developed water would be around $50/af 

The Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is investigating a small 
conjunctive use project in Big Valley near Kelseyville. This project involves the modification of 
the primary spillway structure of Highland Creek Reservoir to increase storage. The additional 
conserved water would be released downstream during the spring and fall for groundwater 
recharge. Lake County is presently waiting for a reservoir yield study to determine the additional 
amount of water available. Current cursory estimates indicate that the project would yield 400 af 
at a cost of about $30/af Because the yield of the project would be less than 1,000 af, the project 
was not shown in the list of options most likely to be implemented for the region. 
Water Transfers 

Historically, intra- and inter-district water transfers have been common among CVP 
water rights settlement contractors on the Sacramento River. Beyond this historic practice, there 
are few specific proposals for future intra-regional transfers that would provide real water. One 
small land fallowing program has been considered. 

Bella Vista Water District, located northwest of Redding, has investigated several water 
transfer projects to augment its drought year supplies. The District has investigated two 
alternatives ~ an agreement with a landowner having an adjudicated pre-1914 water right to 
fallow lands during drought years and to transfer the conserved water for use within the District, 
and District purchase of land with an adjudicated pre-1914 water right, with the water being 
transferred during drought years for use within the District. In both cases, the lands involved are 
upstream of Shasta Dam in Eastern Shasta County and the water is tributary to Shasta Lake via 

8-29 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

the Pit River. Water transferred through Shasta Dam would require approval from the USER. 
The amount of water involved in these projects ranges from 1,000 to 4,000 af 
Water Recycling 

As with conservation, recycling is not a source of new supply in this region, from a 
statewide perspective. Recycling is a potentially important water source for local purposes, but 
does not create new water that would otherwise be lost to the hydrologic system. 

There are several small water recycling projects in the region that serve local water 
management needs for agricultural, environmental, and for landscape irrigation purposes. In the 
1995 base year, about 12,500 af of wastewater was recycled in the region, an amount expected to 
increase to 20,000 af by 2020. 
Other Local Options 

The YCFC&WCD has filed water right applications for supplemental water from the 
Sacramento River. This water is intended for beneficial use by the cities of Davis, Woodland and 
Winters, and for agriculture, aquaculture, and fishery use at UC Davis. YCFC&WCD also filed 
a similar application to divert water from Cache Creek for groundwater recharge and for 
replacing groundwater currently being used for irrigation near Woodland. A total of about 
95,000 af has been requested under the two applications. 

SCWA and its member agencies have been examining several surface water management 
projects to improve their water supply reliability. One potential project is an intertie to connect a 
Solano Irrigation District irrigation canal with the SWP's North Bay Aqueduct. Another 
potential SCWA project is permanent water transfers from agricultural water rights holders. The 
cities of Benicia, Fairfield and Vallejo (San Francisco Hydrologic Region) have filed water right 
applications for supplemental water from the Sacramento River, seeking a total of 31,000 af per 
year. Vacaville (Sacramento River Hydrologic Region) would receive 8,500 af per year from 
this source. 
Statewide Options 

SWP Supplies. As proposed, local water purveyors participating in the American Basin 
Conjunctive Use Program would receive 55 taf of SWP water in wet and above normal years 
which they will use in lieu of local surface or groundwater supplies. The project, discussed in 
Chapter 6, would develop 55 taf of water during drought periods to SWP contractors in other 



8-30 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

regions. The average gain for the Sacramento Region is estimated at 26 taf, assuming deliveries 
to the region occur almost 50 percent of the time. 

Auburn Dam. An Auburn Dam alternative has been extensively studied in the past for 
water supply as well as flood control purposes. In 1995 the Reclamation Board endorsed the 
detention dam as the preferred alternative for American River basin's flood problems. A number 
of local agencies had in the past expressed interest in participating to develop local water 
supplies. If constructed, an Auburn Dam with 850 taf of storage capacity could in addition to 
providing flood control, provide local yields of 70 taf and 50 taf in average and drought years, 
respectively. This supply is assumed to be split among water users in the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin river regions. 

CVPIA Water Acquisitions Program. As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternative 4 was 
selected from among the CVPIA PEIS alternatives as a placeholder for Bulletin 160-98 future 
CVPIA environmental water demands because it represents the most conservative estimate of 
ftiture water supply requirements. The PEIS estimates that 2 1 ,000 acres of irrigated agricultural 
land would be fallowed in the region to provide 87 taf per year of AFRP instream flow in the 
Yuba River and 33 taf per year for Level 4 wildlife refuge requirements. 



8-31 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-4. Options Evaluations 
Sacramento River Region 



Option 



Rank 



Cost per 
af{$) 



Potential Gain 
(taf) 



Avg 



Drt 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Reoperation of PG&E Reservoirs 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

New Weils (Redding, Butte, and Colusa Basins) 
USBR/Ducks Unlimited Conjunctive Use 
Big Valley Conjunctive Use 



30 
50 

30 



17 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Dry Creek Reservoir (Lake County) L 200 7 

Bear Creek Reservoir (Colusa County) M 290 30 

Wilson Valley Reservoir (Lake County) M 200 30 

Blue Ridge Reservoir (Yolo County) M 480 100 

Thurston Lake Pump-Storage Project L 390 60 

Parks Bar Reservoir (Yuba County) M * * 160 

Waldo Reservoir (Yuba County) H * 145 109 

Texas Hill Reservoir M * 9 

Small Alder Reservoir M * 11 

GDPUD Diversion from Middle Fork of American River L 330 5 



35 



Other Local Options 

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento River and M 

Cache Creek by YCFC&WCD 

New Surface Water Diversion from Sacramento River by M 

cities of Benicia, Fairfield, & Vallejo (Vacaville) 



*** *** 



Statewide Options 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program 

Auburn Dam 

CVPIA Water Acquisition Program 



55 



26 

35 25 

120 120 



* No data to quantify. 

** Application for 91 taf of supplemental water. 

*** Aplication for 31 taf of supplemental water; Vacaville's share is 8.5 taf 

^ Less than 1 taf 



8-32 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapters Interior Regions 



Water Resources Management Plan for Sacramento River Region 

As discussed earlier, water management planning in the Sacramento River Region has 
been done by federal. State, and local water agencies. In most cases, the recommendations 
contained in these investigations were reviewed and incorporated into the following water 
management plan. The Sacramento River Region is expected to experience water supply 
shortages during average and drought years. A portion of the shortages is due to CVPIA 
supplemental water needs. The majority of the remaining shortage is agricultural shortages. 
Table 8-5 summarizes the option categories that can most likely be implemented to meet 
forecasted shortages. 



Table 8-5. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

Sacramento Region 



Option 



Potential Gain (taf) 
Avg Drt 



Shortage* 206 1,109 

Conservation 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities ** 145 269 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use — 35 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Recycling 

Desalination 

Statewide Options 61 25 

Total Potential Gain *** 206 329 

Remaining Shortage 780 

* 120 taf of shortage is CVPIA supplemental water needs: the majority of the 
remaining shortage is agricultural shortages. 

** Average year yield of Parks Bar Reservoir has not been quantified. 

*** With construction of Parks Bar and Waldo reservoirs, average water year needs of 
region would be exceeded, although there is a substantial drought year shortage. In 
average water years, the surplus water could be available for use in other regions. 

Groundwater is expected to be the primary local option (within this Bulletin's planning 
horizon) for increasing water supplies for valley floor water users north of Sacramento. Where 
supplies are still plentiful and of adequate quality, groundwater has a cost advantage (especially 
for agricultural users) over options such as new reservoirs. Also, groundwater can be developed 



8-33 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

incrementally by individual farms and domestic users, or by water purveyors. However, data are 
not available to quantify the availability of additional groundwater development. 

There are two conjunctive use projects that would likely be implemented. The USBR and 
Ducks Unlimited conjunctive use project could provide around 35,000 af for winter flooding 
under drought year conditions. The SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program would 
provide 26 taf in average years. 

Costs of new reservoir projects tend to be prohibitive for the agricultural water users in 
the region, especially when the supplies are needed primarily to meet drought year shortages. 
However, Lower Yuba River onstream storage at the Parks Bar site, and offstream diversion 
from Englebright Reservoir to Waldo Reservoir, are promising projects. They could reduce the 
flood threat to the Yuba City-Marysville area and downstream levee systems on the Feather and 
Sacramento rivers. Additionally, these two potential reservoirs could provide drought year yields 
of 160 taf and 109 taf, respectively. Likewise, the Auburn Dam if constructed would provide the 
greater Sacramento area with added flood protection as well as augment drought year supplies by 
25 taf. If Parks Bar and Waldo reservoirs are constructed, average water year needs of the region 
would be exceeded, although a substantial drought year shortage would remain. 



8-34 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The San Joaquin River Region is bordered on the east by the Sierra Nevada foothills and 
on the west by the coastal mountains of the Diablo Range (Figure 8-3). It extends from the Delta 
and Cosumnes River watershed to the San Joaquin River watershed near Fresno. All or portions 
of counties within the study area include Alameda, Amador, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, 
Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. 

Summer temperatures are usually hot in the valley, and slightly cooler in the Delta and 
upland areas. In the winter, temperatures are usually moderate in the valley and cool in the Delta 
and upland areas. Annual precipitation on the valley floor ranges from about 1 7 inches in the 
north to 9 inches in the south. 

The principal population centers are the cities of Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Los Banos, 
Merced, and Madera. The northwest part of the area, including Tracy and surroimding 
communities, is experiencing rapid growth as workers in the San Francisco Bay area accept the 
longer commute to the valley in exchange for the affordable housing. Table 8-6 shows the 1995 
and 2020 population and crop acreage for the region. 

Irrigated crop acreage in the area is forecasted to decrease primarily due to urban 
development on agricultural lands. The primary crops are alfalfa, com, cotton, deciduous fruit 
and nuts, grain, grapes, and pasture. Major employers include agriculture, food processing, and 
service sector businesses. 

Table 8-6. Population and Crop Acreage (in thousands) 

1995 2020 

Population 1,592 3,025 

Irrigated Crop Acres 2,005 1,935 



8-35 



DRAFT 



160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Figure 8-3. San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region 




FRESNO 



SAN 
BEN) TO 






«7- 

/ V\ Fresao 



~^' "-^^ * IflLLERTOS ? LAKE I 



7' c^ LAKE^ ■ 




10 20 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



8-36 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Drafl 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



The area contains many wildlife refuges and wetland areas. The Grasslands area, in 
western Merced County, is the largest contiguous block of wetlands in the Central Valley and is 
a major wintering ground for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds on the Pacific Flyway. 
Wetlands and wildlife areas include managed wetlands on Delta islands. Grasslands Resource 
Conservation District, Los Banos Wildlife Area, Merced National Wildlife Refuge, North 
Grasslands Wildlife Area, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and Volta Wildlife Area. (In 
1996, Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge and San Luis National Wildlife Refiige merged, with 
the combined refuge keeping the San Luis name.) 

Water Demands and Supplies 

Table 8-7 summarizes the region's water demands and supplies. Significant water 
shortages already occur in both average and drought years. 

Table 8-7. San Joaquin River Water Demands and Supplies (taf) 





1995 


2020 




Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 










Urban 


574 


583 


954 


970 


Agricultural 


7,027 


7,244 


6,450 


6,719 


Environmental 


2,302 


1,420 


3,087 


2,205 


Total Applied Water 


9,902 


9,247 


10,491 


9,895 


Supplies 










Surface Water 


7,468 


5,559 


7,364 


5,502 


Groundwater 


2,195 


2,900 


2,323 


2,912 


Recycled and/or Desalted 














Total Supplies 


9,663 


8,459 


9,687 


8,414 


Shortages 


239 


788 


805 


1,481 



8-37 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Surface Water 

Much of the valley floor area receives its water supply from locally owned sierran 
reservoirs. Other reservoirs in the adjoining Sierra Nevada ~ such as San Francisco's system and 
EBMUD's system ~ export water across the region to serve Bay Area communities. Agricultural 
lands west of the San Joaquin Valley trough are served by the CVP. Agricultural lands in the 
northwest comer of this region receive their water supply by direct diversions from Delta 
waterways. In the foothill and mountain areas, water is either diverted directly from the area's 
streams and lakes or from local storage reservoirs and conveyance facilities. 

In north to south order, the major sierran rivers draining to the valley floor in this region 
are the: Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, 
and San Joaquin rivers. The San Joaquin River, which forms the southerly boundary of this 
region, flows westward out of the mountains, then turns north and flows in the valley trough to 
the Delta. 

The Cosumnes River, one of the smaller sierran rivers, is unique in that it has no 
significant reservoirs on its entire length, although it has local irrigation diversions. Riparian 
lands along the lower river are managed as a nature preserve. Flood protection needs on the 
Cosumnes were highlighted by the January 1 997 floods, when numerous breaks in private levees 
on the valley floor caused widespread local flooding. As discussed in the following section, 
proposals for a managed floodway for the river are now being considered. 
"s-Photo: Cosumnes River flooding 

The Mokelumne River system includes some hydrolelectric power development in the 
upper watershed, but the major reservoirs are EBMUD's Camanche and Pardee reservoirs, which 
develop water supply for urban communities in the East Bay. Woodbridge Diversion Dam, on 
the Mokelumne River near Lodi, diverts irrigation water from the river to Woodbridge Irrigation 
District. 

The 317,000 af New Hogan Reservoir, the only large reservoir on'^the Calaveras River, 
was constructed by the USACE to provide flood protection and water supply for the Stockton 
£irea. New Hogan maintains a flood control reservation of up to 165 taf To the south of New 
Hogan, Farmington Reservoir on Littlejohns Creek is a flood control detention basin also 
constructed by USACE to provide flood protection for the Stockton eirea. Stockton East Water 

8-38 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

District, which holds a CVP contract for interim water supply from New Melones Reservoir, has 
been working with San Joaquin County to evaluate the possibility of modifying Farmington to 
provide for conservation storage in the reservoir. (SEWD already provides the city of Stockton 
with supply from New Hogan.) As part of its New Melones water conveyance project. SEWD 
constructed facilities linking Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River to Littlejohns Creek, and 
Littlejohns Creek to Farmington Reservoir. 

The CVP's 2.4 maf New Melones Reservoir is the largest reservoir on the Stanislaus 
River. Up to 450 taf of New Melones's capacity is reserved for flood control storage. Upstream 
from New Melones are Beardsley Reservoir (77.6 taf) and Donnells Reservoir (57 taf). both 
owned by Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and both of 
which generate hydropower. Downstream from New Melones are Tulloch Reservoir (997 taf) 
and Goodwin Reservoir (68.4 taO, also owned by OID and SSJID. SSJID additionally owns the 
nearby 35 taf Woodward Reservoir on Simmons Creek. OID and SSJID have, by virtue of water 
rights agreements with USBR. the ability to carry over 200 taf of storage in New Melones 
Reservoir. USBR has entered into contracts with SEWD and Central San Joaquin Water 
Conservation District for New Melones water supply. SEWD holds a contract for 75 taf per year 
of interim supply from New Melones, although it has taken delivery of very little water under 
that contract. CSJWCD has CVP contracts for 80 taf per year, 31 taf of which is interim supply. 
(Interim supply in this context means supplies that are available until ftiture in-basin demands 
require use of the water.) USBR must also use New Melones to meet an SWRCB salinity 
standard of 500 ppm on the San Joaquin River at Vemalis. As discussed in the following 
section, enactment of CVPIA and management of project water dedicated for environmental 
purposes has created conflicts in meeting the multiple needs that New Melones was intended to 
serve. 

The Tuolumne River (the largest of the San Joaquin River tributaries) has been developed 
by three local agencies, including the City and County of San Francisco, which constructed 
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir (360 taf). Lake Lloyd Reservoir (274 taf) on Cherry Creek, and Lake 
Eleanor (27.8 maf) on Eleanor Creek. San Francisco also participated with the early water right 
holders on the river -- Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts -- in the construction of New Don 
Pedro Reservoir. (The reservoir is owned by the irrigation districts, but San Francisco is able to 

8-39 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Store the water that it must provide to the prior water rights holders in New Don Pedro.) This 2 
maf reservoir impounds suppHes which are diverted into MID's and TID's canal systems at La 
Grange Dam downstream. Each of the irrigation districts has a large regulatory and offstream 
storage reservoir on its mainline canal downstream from La Grange ~ the 29 taf Modesto 
Reservoir and the 45.6 taf Turlock Lake. MID serves lands north of the Tuolumne River, and 
TID serves lands to the south of the river. 

"s-Photo: Hetch Hetchy 

New Exchequer Dam impounds MID's 1 maf Lake McClure, the only large water supply 
reservoir on the Merced River. MID has two small dams downstream to regulate flow into the 
District's canal system. In 1997, a small local water supply project entailing a diversion from the 
Merced River was completed by Mariposa Public Utility District. Mariposa PUD's project 
included constructing an 8-mile, 12-inch pipeline to take Merced River water to the town of 
Mariposa and surrounding areas. 

cs-Photo: New Exchequer Dam 

The Chowchilla and Fresno rivers are small in comparison to their northern neighbors. 
Each river has only one significant water supply reservoir. Buchanan Dam on the Chowchilla 
River impounds the 150 taf Eastman Lake, and Hidden Dam on the Fresno River impounds the 
90 taf Hensley Lake on the Fresno River. Both dams were constructed by the USAGE, but their 
operations have been integrated with USBR's CVP. Chowchilla Water District holds a water 
supply contract for Eastman Lake supply, while Hensley Lake supply is contracted to Madera 
Irrigation District. 

USBR's Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River impounds the 521 taf Millerton Lake on 
the San Joaquin River, which is located in the foothills just above the valley floor. (There are 
several hydropower reservoirs in the river's upper watershed above Friant. but there is no 
consumptive use of water associated with them, other than reservoir evaporation.) CVP water 
released from Friant is diverted into the Madera Canal to the north and the Friant-Kem Canal to 
the south. Chowchilla and Madera Irrigation Districts are the largest CVP water contractors on 
the Madera Canal. Central California Irrigation District's Mendota Dam, located on the San 
Joaquin River at its confluence with Fresno Slough/North Fork Kings River, forms the Mendota 
Pool, from which more than 20 agricultural water agencies divert their supplies. As mentioned 



8-40 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

in Chapter 3, the CVP's exchange contractors divert Deha-Mendota water from the pool to make 
up for the impacts of Friant Dam construction on their prior rights to San Joaquin River water. 
CVP water delivered to the Mendota pool is also the source of supply for nearby USFWS 
national wildlife refuges. 

"s-Photo: Mendota Dam 

Surface water supplies to the part of this region west of the San Joaquin Valley trough are 
provided largely by the CVP. through the Delta-Mendota Canal and San Luis Canals. CVP 
contractors receiving DMC supplies in the northern part of the region are small agricultural water 
agencies; the city of Tracy with an M&I contract of 10,000 af is the only urban CVP water user 
in the northern end. Although the California Aqueduct follows the Coast Range foothills along 
the west edge of the valley floor, there is only one SWP contractor located within this region — 
Oak Flat Water District, which has a maximum contract entitlement of 5700 af The California 
Aqueduct and Delta-Mendota Canal carry water diverted at the Delta into San Luis Reservoir for 
storage and later delivery. San Luis Reservoir is the beginning of the State-federal joint use 
reach of the two water projects. Lands adjacent to the San Luis Canal downstream from the 
reservoir are part of the CVP's service area, and receive their water supply through contracts with 
USER. San Luis Water District is one of the larger CVP contractors in this area, receiving its 
supplies through both the DMC and the SLC. 

Bs-Photo: DMC 

Part of the southern and eastern Delta area is included in the northwest corner of this 
region, including such small communities as Byron, Brentwood, and Thornton. Most of this area 
receives its water supply from direct diversion of surface water from the Delta's many 
waterways. South Delta Water Agency, an agricultural water supplier, is the largest local water 
agency in the area. Other local agencies include East Contra Costa Irrigation District and Byron- 
Bethany Irrigation District. 
Groundwater 

Groundwater is an important source of supply for the region. Some urban areas, such as 
the cities of Tracy and Fresno, rely on groundwater for much of their supply. Groundwater 
overdraft occurs in the Eastern Valley Floor, Valley East Side, and the southern end of the Valley 



8-41 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

West Side planning subareas. Groundwater overdraft issues in eastern San Joaquin County are 
discussed in the following section. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Cosumnes River Flood Management 

As noted earlier, the Cosumnes River is unique among sierran rivers for its lack of dams 
and related water development features. There are ongoing efforts to preserve and restore a 
riparian corridor along the river's path on the valley floor; the relationship of those efforts to 
recently emphasized floodplain management needs is being evaluated. 

The Cosumnes River Preserve was dedicated in 1987 to protect existing stands of valley 
oak riparian forest and to restore native habitat in flood-prone agricultural fields. The Preserve, 
located on the eastern edge of the Central Valley between Sacramento and Stockton, is a 
cooperative project of nonprofit and government organizations, including the Nature 
Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, US Bureau of Land Management, Department of Water 
Resources, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Conservation Board, and Sacramento 
County. 

The Cosumnes River floods on a regular basis. The lack of upstream flood control and 
the consequent periodic flooding have limited urban development in the lower watershed. Much 
of the agricultural lands in the river's lower watershed are protected by private levees ~ which 
experienced numerous breaks during the January 1997 floods, and caused flooding of the region's 
main transportation corridors. The Cosumnes River Preserve is investigating nonstructural 
alternatives for flood control. One alternative is the breaching of levees and establishing levee 
setbacks in selected areas to provide more area for the flood waters to spread. Private lands have 
been identified that could be acquired, depending on the willingness of sellers and on the 
availability of funds. 

Bs-Photo: Preserve's riparian oak forest 
Integrity of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Levees 

There are more than 1,000 miles of levees in the Bay-Delta. Failure of Delta levees could 
occur as the result of catastrophic events such as earthquakes or floods, gradual deterioration of 
levees, and/or improper levee maintenance. Subsidence of Delta island peat soils and settling of 
levee foundations increase the risk of levee failure. Delta islands commonly lie 10 to 15 feet 



8-42 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

below sea level and many are composed largely of peat soils vulnerable to seepage as well as 
subsidence. Levee failure could result in loss of land use on Delta islands, loss of infrastructure 
(EBMUD's and San Francisco's aqueducts), damage to aquatic and terrestrial habitats, reduced 
water supply reliability for the SWP and CVP, and impaired water quality in the Delta. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has identified the Delta levee system as an important 
resource. The Program's strategy for achieving its levee system integrity objective would be 
through implementation of a comprehensive Delta Levee Protection Plan. The Plan would 
address long-term levee maintenance, stabilization, subsidence reduction, an emergency levee 
management plan, beneficial reuse of dredged material, and establishment of habitat corridors as 
mitigation for impacts from maintenance and stabilization. 

Existing programs to help maintain levee integrity in the Delta include the Department's 
Delta levee subventions program, which provides financial assistance to the approximately 65 
percent of the Delta levees that are not part of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River 
Flood Control Projects. These locally owned levees are eligible for financial assistance for 
maintenance and rehabilitation. 
Interim South Delta Program and Temporary Barriers Project 

In 1990, the Department, USBR and the South Delta Water Agency agreed to a draft 
settlement of a 1982 lawsuit by SDWA against the Department and USBR. The draft agreement, 
which focuses on short-term and long-term actions to resolve agricultural water supply problems 
in the south Delta, includes provisions to test and construct barrier facilities in certain south 
Delta channels. The testing program, referred to as the South Delta temporary barriers project, 
was initiated in 1991 . Its objectives are the short-term improvement of water conditions for the 
south Delta and the development of data for the design of permanent barriers. Long-term actions 
are proposed through the Interim South Delta Program, as described in Chapter 6. The dual 
purpose of ISDP is to improve water levels and circulation in south Delta channels for local 
agricultural diversions and to enhance the existing water delivery capability of the SWP through 
improved south Delta hydraulics. ISDP's preferred alternative would cost an estimated $54 
million to construct and includes five project components: (1) construction of a new intake 
structure at Clifton Court Forebay, (2) dredging a 4.9-mile reach of Old River from the new 
intake to Highway 4, (3) construction of three flow control structures at Old River, Middle River, 

8-43 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

and Grant Line Canal, (4) construction of an operable fish barrier at the head of Old River to 
benefit salmon migrations in the San Joaquin River, and (5) increased diversions into Clifton 
Court Forebay to maximize pumping at Banks Pumping Plant. 

A draft EIR/EIS for the ISDP was released in August 1996 and the public review period 
ended on January 31,1 997. The final EIR/EIS is scheduled to be completed in July 1 998. In 
the meantime, installation and removal of temporary barriers in the south Delta will continue. As 
in previous years, the actual number of barriers installed and the installation schedule will vary 
with hydrologic conditions and endangered species concerns. 

'srPhoto: one of the temporary barriers 
San Joaquin County Groundwater Overdraft 

Eastern San Joaquin County has a long history of declining groundwater levels. Since the 
late 1940s and early 1950s, increased groundwater extraction to meet burgeoning agricultural and 
urban demands caused the development of two pronounced pumping depressions. The largest of 
these is between the Mokelumne River on the north, and the Stanislaus River on the south, and 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on the west. The center of this depression is east of Stockton, 
where groundwater levels can be more than 70 feet below sea level following the irrigation 
season. This pumping depression has mobilized poorer water quality from the Delta and caused 
it to migrate towards the city of Stockton. Several municipal wells in the western portion of 
Stockton have been abandoned because of the decline in groundwater quality. A second 
groundwater depression exists between the Cosumnes River on the north and the Mokelumne 
River on the south. Groundwater levels in this depression are more than 30 feet below sea level. 
This depression extends north into Sacramento County. 

Over the years there have been attempts to quantify estimates of overdraft in eastern San 
Joaquin County. Recently, the Department completed studies of the area as part of the 
Stanislaus-Calaveras Conjunctive Use project. Data developed for this study suggested that the 
aimual overdraft in the eastern San Joaquin County was about 70,000 af. at a 1 990 level of 
development. A later study completed by the USBR as part of its American River Water 
Resources Investigation estimated overdraft at 129,900 af at a 2030 level of development. This 
study also concluded that 77,000 af of additional supply would be needed above the level to 
control overdraft to prevent the migration of poor quality water into the Stockton area. 



8-44 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Several possible ways for managing the overdraft are being considered, all of which 
entail substituting surface water supplies for groundwater use. USBR's American River Water 
Resources Investigation (described in the Sacramento River Region) covered parts of both the 
Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions ~ portions of Sacramento, San 
Joaquin, El Dorado, Placer, and Sutter counties. USBR's report proposed two major alternatives 
for helping meet study area ftiture water supply ~ a conjunctive use alternative or a multi- 
purpose Auburn Dam. A third altemative, consisting of the common elements of these two 
alternatives, is being proposed. 

San Joaquin County filed a water rights application for 322 taf during wet years from the 
American River through the Folsom South Canal. The existing canal would be extended, and 
would be used to provide supplemental supplies to reduce groundwater extraction. San Joaquin 
County is also interested in participating in a conjunctive use project with EBMUD, in which 
EBMUD's CVP contract water from the American River would be stored in San Joaquin County 
groundwater basins prior to being diverted into EBMUD's Mokelumne River Aqueduct in 
northeast San Joaquin County. This approach was one of those under consideration in EBMUD's 
1995 Water Supply Action Plan described in the San Francisco Bay Region (Chapter 7). Other 
approaches would entail EBMUD diverting its CVP contract supply at the American 
River/Sacramento River confluence, rather than at the Folsom South Canal intake. 
Penn Mine Remediation 

Perm Mine is an abandoned copper/zinc mine first worked in the 1860s, with major 
activity at the site occurring in the early 1900s and during World War II. Stormwater runoff and 
acid mine drainage enters the Mokelumne River near Campo Seco, above EBMUD's Camanche 
Reservoir, and historically caused fish kills in the river from the 1930s through the 1970s. In 
1978, EBMUD working in conjunction with DFG and the Central Valley RWQCB, made surface 
drainage improvements on the mine property and constructed Mine Run Dam on EBMUD 
property to provide storage and control of part of the mine runoff. In 1993, EBMUD and the 
RWQCB began onsite neutralization and treatment of AMD, to remove heavy metals. Litigation 
against EBMUD and the State of California by environmental organizations led to negotiation of 
an agreement among those organizations, EBMUD, California, and the U.S. EPA for selection of 
a long-term altemative for site remediation. An EIR/EIS completed in 1 997 calls for excavation 

8-45 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. interior Regions 

and removal of mine waste materials at the site, removal of Mine Run Dam, and fiirther 
regrading and revegetation of the site. 
Conservation Storage in Farmington Reservoir 

USAGE is completing a reconnaissance study of flood control needs in the Stockton 
metropolitan area, in cooperation with the city of Stockton, San Joaquin County, and Stockton 
East Water District. One aspect of the study of special interest to the local sponsors is evaluation 
of modifying the existing Farmington Reservoir, a flood control detention basin on Littlejohns 
Creek, for carry-over storage. 

A USACE study prepared in the 1 980s suggested that the reservoir could be enlarged by 
as much as 1 60 taf to provide for conservation storage, pending geotechnical and other 
evaluation. USACE and the local sponsors expect to begin flood control feasibility level studies 
in 1997. 
New Melones Reservoir Water Supply and Operations 

In 1991, SEWD and CSJWCD initiated construction of facilities to convey their 155,000 
af of interim CVP contract supply from New Melones Reservoir to their service areas. The two 
districts financed and constructed the first phase of facilities ~ 21 miles of conveyance facilities - 
- to divert the supply into Farmington Reservoir. Much of the imported water was to be used to 
mitigate local groundwater overdraft problems through conjunctive use. However, very little of 
the interim CVP water has been delivered to the two districts because of changes in the operation 
of New Melones Reservoir. 

Subsequent to project initiation. Congress passed the CVPIA and the SWRCB issued its 
May 1995 WQCP, substantially increasing enviroimiental water requirements on New Melones 
and on the Stanislaus River. In 1993, the first year of implementing CVPIA's dedicated water 
provision. New Melones was required to release 200,000 af for fishery purposes, effectively 
eliminating any water which could have been allocated to SEWD and CSJWCD. Table 8-8 
below shows how CVPIA dedicated water and supplemental water purchase;d for fishery 
protection were allocated at New Melones for subsequent years. 

The 1995 WQCP increases demands on New Melones to meet pulse flow and salinity 
standards at Vemalis. Additionally, USBR/USFWS have proposed to conduct a temperature 
control study for the reservoir, to identify structural or nonstructural alternatives to control water 



8-46 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Interior Regions 



temperatures in the river downstream from the dam. Work on this appraisal-level study has not 
yet begun. 



Table 8-8. Actual New Melones Releases (taf) 



Year 



Dedicated 
Vol 



Supplemental Water 
Vol 



Total 



Mar '93- Feb '94 


140.9 


Mar '94- Feb '95 


22.7 


Mar '95 - Feb '96 


146.3 


Mar '96 - Feb '97 


113.4 



0.00 


140.9 


46.4 


69.1 


4.2 


150.5 


0.00 


113.4 



Urban Growth Pressures from San Francisco Bay Area 

San Joaquin Valley communities within commuting distance of the San Francisco Bay 
area are experiencing rapid growth as persons who work in the Bay Area are attracted by the 
lower housing costs in the Valley. The Highway 4 and Altamont Pass transportation corridors 
provide ready access to jobs in the Bay Area. In the Tracy area, for example, urbanization has 
been occurring on prime agricultural lands, prompting local planners to encourage future urban 
development in areas and at densities that have less impact on high-value farmlands. During the 
real estate boom period of the late 1980s to early 1990s, there was considerable local discussion 
and concern over water supply availability for proposed ^ew towns^^^n the western edge of the 
valley. (The city of Tracy relies on groundwater and CVP contract supply to meet its water 
needs. Future development of groundwater in the area is constrained by poor groundwater 
quality.) At one point, as many as nine new communities had been proposed in southwestern 
San Joaquin County. Few of these communities were ultimately approved by local land use 
planning authorities. One proposed community. New Jerusalem, was initially approved, but an 
amendment to the county's general plan is now being processed to remove the community from 
the plan. Mountain House is one of the few ^ew towns^eing developed. 
East Contra Costa County Water Supply Management Study 

The East County Water Management Association, an organization of eleven local 
agencies in eastern Contra Costa County, conducted a water supply management study to 
identify and evaluate potential water management strategies for meeting the area's future water 



8-47 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

needs, in response to urban growth pressures in communities sucli as Antioch, Oakley, and 
Brentwood. ECWMA's member agencies are: 

City of Antioch Contra Costa Water District 

City of Brentwood Diablo Water District 

City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District 

Byron-Bethany Irrigation District Contra Costa County Sanitation District 

East Contra Costa Irrigation District No. 19 

Contra Costa County Water Agency Ironhouse Sanitary District 

The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I, completed in 1994, provided a 
preliminary analysis of future demand, water supplies, existing infrastructure, and general issues 
related to cooperative water resources management. Phase II focused on developing, evaluating, 
and recommending alternatives for providing water supplies through the year 2040. 

The study identified a variety of potential supplies to meet the water demands of the 
ECWMA's study area: 

In-county surface water Reclaimed water 

In-county groundwater Outside-county water transfers 

Conjunctive use development Water conservation 

Because the ECWMA has access to significant surface water supplies through CVP 
contracts and local diversions, study results indicated that in-county surface water supplies could 
meet study area future water demands in a normal hydrologic year. However, in a drought year, 
deficits would occur after the year 2010. 

Current groundwater use in the study area amounts to 14,500 af per year. Some areas 
(such as Brentwood, Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, and Hotchkiss Tract) depend entirely on 
groundwater. Other areas (such as Pittsburg, Antioch, and DWD) use groundwater to 
supplement surface water supplies. Existing groundwater quality problems in ECWMA may 
limit future groundwater development. 

Three water supply scenarios were evaluated for the ECWMA area. 
• Scenario 1 —Maximized local pooling of surface water supplies. This concept would 

require negotiation of new agreements for the long-term transfer of surplus water supplies 

from two agricultural districts (ECCID and BBID) to the agencies serving ECWMA 

urban areas, and changes to the place of use/purpose of use in existing water rights. 

848 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

• Scenario 2~Continued groundwater pumping with maximized local pooling of surface 
water supplies. 

• Scenario 3~Continued groundwater pumping with existing levels of local pooling of 
surface water supplies. 

Scenario 2 ranked the highest among the three scenarios. Spot water transfers and short- 
term demand management would provide drought year supply for this scenario. 
Some specific recommendations made in the study included: 

• ECWMA should commission a comprehensive groundwater study of the east county area. 
The study should focus on groundwater quantity and quality, and interactions between 
surface water and groundwater supplies. An in-county conjunctive-use program to 
manage dry year shortages should be evaluated. 

• An aquifer storage and recovery program should be investigated in the Randall-Bold 
water treatment plant area, in the event that ECWMA member agencies are required to 
limit their Delta diversions at some times of the year. 

• ECWMA members should construct dual water distribution systems to facilitate future 
use of reclaimed water in all water service areas within the east county. 

• Interties between water treatment plant service areas increase reliability and flexibility 
during emergencies. The cities of Pittsburg and Antioch, CCWD. and DWD should 
discuss potential intertie benefits associated with CCWD's seismic and reliability 
improvement project. 

Los Bancs Grandes Reservoir Studies 

One approach for providing water supply reliability and operational flexibility to the 
SWP is to ^anlcz^water south of the Delta. Water banking diverts water into storage during high 
flow periods for later release during dry periods. The Department has conducted a number of 
studies to evaluate potential water banking sites, as described in Chapter 6. These studies led to 
a December 1990 Los Banos Grandes Facilities Feasibility Report, which recommended 
construction of a 1.7 maf reservoir and associated facilities on Los Banos Creek in western 
Merced County. 

Currently the Department has placed this project on hold, and will reassess the feasibility 
of constructing Los Banos Grandes facilities or alternative south-of-the-Delta water banking 

8-49 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Intenor Regions 

facilities once CALFED lias identified a preferred Delta solution. The proposed location and 
size of the facilities would be reevaluated, taking into consideration fiiture Delta water export 
restrictions, changes in environmental regulations and permit processes, and the needs and 
financial capabilities of the SWP contractors. 
Merced Area Conjunctive Use Study 

In 1993, the city of Merced and Merced Irrigation District began a two-year water supply 
planning process for eastern Merced County through 2030. The goals of the study were to: 
manage groundwater; provide a high quality, reliable water supply for cities; protect and 
enhance the economic base of the region; protect MID's water rights for the benefit of the entire 
region; and maintain consensus for the plan. The advisory committee selected a groundwater 
recharge option as the preferred alternative. The groundwater basin would be operated in 
combination with a surface water storage and conveyance system. Studies to determine 
groundwater recharge quantities and locations are currently being performed. 
Managing Agricultural Drainage Discharges to the San Joaquin River 

There have been significant efforts to manage saline drainage water in the region. The 
San Luis Drain, on which USBR began construction in 1 968, was to be used to transport tile 
drain water from the region to Suisun Bay. The segment of the drain initially constructed by 
USBR was closed in 1986 as a result of the discovery of selenium problems at USBR's Kesterson 
Reservoir. This has made it essential for agricultural districts to manage irrigation applications 
as efficiently as possible onsite until a regional solution for drainage management and disposal is 
developed. 

Some agricultural water districts in the region discharge drainage water and associated 
salts to the San Joaquin River. Much of the salt and selenium loads in the San Joaquin River 
originate from Grassland's water supply canals and from two sloughs tributary to the river -- 
Mud and Salt sloughs. Prior to the construction of upstream water storage facilities, the San 
Joaquin River Region flooded frequently, leaching salts from the floodplain and discharging 
them into the Delta. With irrigation supplies bringing in salts from the Delta, salts now 
accumulate more rapidly and are leached less frequenUy. Exacerbating the salt accumulation 
problem is the fact that much of the San Joaquin River's flow is in effect recirculated by the 
CVP/SWP pumping plants in the south Delta. 



8-50 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Grassland Bypass Channel Project. Agricultural drainage from the Grasslands basin was 
historically discharged to natural channels that meandered through Grasslands Water District and 
eventually to the San Joaquin River through Mud and Salt sloughs. In an attempt to manage 
selenium loads entering the San Joaquin River, USBR designed, and is presently evaluating, the 
Grasslands Bypass project. To undertake this five year demonstration project, a new channel 
approximately two miles in length was constructed to intercept drainage water that would 
otherwise flow towards Grasslands Water District. The new channel feeds into the existing San 
Luis Drain and allows the drainage water to discharge directly to the San Joaquin River through 
Mud Slough. 

To discharge drainage water into the San Luis Drain, a use agreement was signed by 
USBR and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, whereby a drainage incentive fee 
system was established to provide monetary incentives for reduction of selenium loads 
discharged to the San Luis Drain. The project, which became operational in October 1996, has 
significantly reduced salt and selenium loads entering Grasslands Water District and Salt Slough. 
The fee system identifies a tiered system of financial liability associated with exceedance of 
monthly and aimual selenium concentration (Table 8-9). These concentrations (load values) are 
in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board waste discharge requirements for 
the discharge of agricultural drain water. Tables 8-10 and 8-1 1 show the monthly and annual 
exceedance fees developed by USBR. If load targets are exceeded by more than 20 percent in 
any given year, the project may be terminated at the discretion of the USBR. An interim review 
of project performance will be conducted after two years of operation. 



8-51 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-9. Selenium Load Values 



Month 


2-Year Load 

Values 

(Se lbs) 

10/95-9/97 


3-Year Load 

Values 

(Se lbs) 

10/97-9/98 


4-Year Load 

Values 

(Se lbs) 

10/98-9/99 


5-Year Load 

Values 

(Se lbs) 

10/99-9/00 


October 


348 


348 


348 


348 


November 


348 


348 


348 


348 


December 


389 


389 


389 


389 


January 


533 


506 


479 


453 


February 


866 


823 


779 


736 


March 


1,066 


1,013 


959 


906 


April 


799 


759 


719 


679 


May 


666 


633 


599 


566 


June 


599 


569 


539 


509 


July 


599 


569 


539 


509 


August 


533 


506 


480 


453 


September 


350 


350 


350 


350 


12-month total 


7,096 


6,813 


6,528 


6,246 


Annual Load Values 


6,660 


6,327 


5,994 


5,661 



Table 8-10. Monthly Exceedance Fees 
(Dollars) 



Year 



0.1-10% 



10.1-15% 



15.1-20% 20.1-25% 



25+% 



1 


700 


1,400 


2,100 


2,800 


2,800 


2 


1,200 


2,200 


3,200 


4,200 


4,200 


3 


5,200 


7,600 


10,100 


12,500 


12,500 


4 


6,800 


10,100 


13,400 


16,700 


16,700 


5 


8,300 


12,500 


16,700 


20,800 


20,800 




Table 8-11. Ann 


ual Exceedance Fees 








(Dollars) 






Year 


0.1-5% 


5.1-10% 


10.1-15% 


15.1-20% 


20+% 


1 


25,000 


50,000 


75,000 


100,000 


100,000 


2 


44,000 


79,000 


115,000 


150,000 


150,000 


3 


63,000 


92,000 


121,000 


150,000 


150,000 


4 


81,000 


121,000 


160,000 


200,000 


200,000 


5 


100,000 


150,000 


200,000 


250,000 


250,000 



8-52 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

San Joaquin River Real Time Drainage Monitoring Program^ Participants in the San 
Joaquin River Management Program set up a network of telemetered flow and salinity 
monitoring stations on the San Joaquin River. Data from the stations are linked to a flow model 
of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (the San Joaquin River Input-Output Model, adapted 
to a daily time-step, SJRIODAY). Information from the model is distributed to water managers 
by E-mail. A demonstration of the real-time monitoring effort was carried out in February 1996. 
Grasslands Water District managers were informed that SJRIODAY forecasted a major increase 
in flow in the river. The district discharged a significant amount of high salinity water from its 
waterfowl ponds by partially draining them with the high flow event. This timed discharge 
enabled better quality water to be maintained in the San Joaquin River later that spring. A 
significant portion of the salt load from Grasslands had already passed through the system by the 
time agricultural diversions began. 
Enlargement of Friant Dam 

Potential enlargement of Friant Dam has been mentioned in the past in terms of possible 
water supply augmentation. More recently, needs for fishery flows and improved management 
of winter/spring floodwaters have been emphasized. Millerton Lake has a relatively small 
storage capacity relative to the river's average annual flow. USER had performed an evaluation 
in the 1980s of potential yield increases associated with enlarging the existing 521 taf reservoir 
by increasing the height of the dam about 140 feet. The Department's 1995 SJRM Plan included 
a recommendation that enlarging Friant for multipurpose use be studied. As has been commonly 
acknowledged, the San Joaquin River is already oversubscribed with respect to the water 
supplies desired from it. Potential benefits mentioned from raising Friant Dam have include 
water supplies that could be made available for CVP water users, for downstream riparian 
diverters, for helping meet SWRCB salinity and fishery flow requirements at Vemalis, and for 
dilution of agricultural drainage flows discharged to the river. These supplies could be achieved 
through storing winter floodwaters, which would provide flood control benefits for lands in the 
lower watershed. An issue that will need to be addressed is instream flows in the river 
immediately downstream from the dam, as described below. 



8-53 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Instream Flow Requirements Below Friant Dam 

In December 1988, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a suit in U. S. District 
Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to prevent the USBR from renewing long- 
term CVP water supply contracts without preparing environmental documentation and to require 
more releases for instream uses from Friant Dam, based on Fish and Game Code Section 5937 
and the public trust doctrine. 

The legal issues are: 

(1) Does federal law require the USBR to renew the water contracts subject to NEPA and 
ESA review? 

(2) Does Fish and Game Code Section 5937 apply to federal projects? 

(3) Has the CVPIA preempted Fish and Game Code Section 5937? 

The District Court found that CVPIA passage had not caused NRDC's NEPA and ESA 
claims to be moot. Also, the CVPIA had not preempted plaintiffs claim under Fish and Game 
Code Section 5937. In January 1997, the federal court ruled that the USBR failed to comply 
with Section 7 of the ESA when it renewed contracts without consulting with appropriate federal 
wildlife regulatory agencies. The court declared all contracts renewed before the passage of the 
CVPIA invalid. The case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Apart from the litigation, USBR has also proposed to study the possibility of reoperating 
privately owned hydropower reservoirs upstream of Millerton Reservoir, to see if their 
operations could be coordinated with irrigation releases from Millerton to provide instream flows 
below Friant Dam. Under CVPIA's anadromous fish restoration program, USBR and USFWS 
have authority and funding to acquire, from willing sellers, supplemental fishery water supplies. 
USFWS has also indicated that FERC's relicensing process for hydropower plants is a tool 
available to provide instream flows recommended in the AFRP. 
Environmental Restoration Activities in San Joaquin River and Tributaries 

Numerous restoration projects have been implemented in the recent past by local, State and 
federal agencies on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries in an effort to enhance fish and 
wildlife. Other actions are ongoing, and others are being planned. The adoption of the SJRM 
Plan, enactment of the C VPI Act, the 1 994 Bay-Delta Accord and the Four-Pumps Agreement 



8-54 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapters Interior Regions 

between the Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources have all contributed to the 
planning, funding, and implementation of these restoration activities. 
Examples of completed restoration actions include: 

(1) A Stanislaus River spawning gravel restoration project on the lower Stanislaus River was 
completed in September 1996. This project consisted of constructing riffles and placing 
gravel for salmon spawning habitat at three sites. River Miles 47.4, 50.4, and 50.9. 

(2) A Merced River Spawning Gravel Restoration Project below Crocker-Huffman Dam on 
the Merced River was completed in 1990 and repaired in September 1996. An earlier 
spawning gravel restoration project had also been completed in the Merced River in 1991. 

(3) The Magneson Pond Isolation Project (Merced River) was completed in 1996 and 
consisted of isolating a gravel pit from the river and replacing spawning gravel. 

(4) Phases I and II of habitat restoration project development studies have been completed 
for the Ratzlaff Reach and the lower W. Stone predator removal and spawoiing habitat 
restoration projects on the Merced River, scheduled for construction in 1998 and 1999, 
respectively. These projects will consist of isolating gravel pits from the river flow and 
placing spawning gravel in the river. 

(5) The M. J. Ruddy spawning gravel project was completed in 1993 on the Tuolurruie River. 
Another project was completed in September 1996, consisting of constructing 
equalization channels along the levees of the river above the M. J. Ruddy project, 
designed to equalize river flows to protect the spawning habitat from washout. 

(6) The La Grange spawning riffle project, completed in 1994, consisted of constructing 
riffles and placing spawning gravel at three sites along the Tuolumne River. 

(7) Funds from the Four-Pumps Agreement have been used since 1 994 to support one DFG 
warden assigned to enforce fishing regulations (reduce poaching of anadromous fish) in 
the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. 

(8) Construction of temporary physical fish barriers at Hills Ferry on the San Joaquin River 
(downstream of the mouth of Merced River) and at the head of Old River in the Delta. 
These fish barriers are constructed and removed on a seasonal basis every year. 



8-55 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

(9) Implementation of the CVPIA dedicated water provision and the Bay-Deha Accord has 
increased instream flows in the San Joaquin River. Spring pulse flows have also been 
provided. 

(10) The Tuolumne River Settlement Agreement among city and county of San Francisco, 
Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, and FERC will result in increased 
fish releases from New Don Pedro Reservoir that will reduce fish stranding losses and 
increase instream flows. 

Several programs are underway to provide fishery benefits in the region, including the 
CVPIA' s anadromous fish restoration program plan, Four-Pumps Agreement projects, and the 
Bay-Delta Accord's Category III program. Examples of ongoing fish restoration projects 
include: 

(1) The Category III program has contributed fiinding for a feasibility study to construct a 
fish screen at Banta-Carbona Irrigation District's Main Lift Canal intake channel on the 
San Joaquin River. The CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program may cost-share in 
construction of the facility. 

(2) Plans for the construction of Tuolumne Fish Hatchery are underway, although several 
environmental hurdles still need to be addressed before a final decision is made to 
actually build the fish hatchery. Land for the hatchery was acquired in 1996 by the Four- 
Pumps program. 

(3) USBR is preparing plans to replace CCID's Mendota Dam. Replacement of the dam will 
benefit fish and wildlife by allowing fish passage, avoiding release of accumulated 
sediments downstream, and providing increased water supply to Mendota NWR. 

(4) Spawning gravel habitat restoration and predator isolation and habitat removal projects 
have been approved for construction on the San Joaquin, Tuolumne, Merced and 
Stanislaus Rivers through the Four-Pumps Agreement. The CVPIA spawning gravel 
program will fund spawning gravel placement in the Stanislaus River below Goodwin 
Dam and will prepare a long-term spawning habitat restoration plan for the Stanislaus 
River. 



8-56 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Intenor Regions 

(5) Plans are underway to restore the channel of a six-mile stretch of the Tuolumne River by 
DFG and USFWS, as an AFRP project. The project will consist of isolating or filling 
gravel pits along the river, and restoration of spawning gravel habitat. 
WetlandsAVildlife Refuge Water Supply Issues 

Within the San Joaquin Region, total current wetland water use is estimated at 4.42 
af/acre, wdth an optimum water use of 6.55 af/acre (a deficit of 2.13 af/acre). Of the total 
wetlands in the San Joaquin Region, approximately 40,700 acres are privately owned. On the 
private parcels, additional water required to meet wetland needs amounts to 86,700 af Publicly 
managed freshwater wetlands in the San Joaquin Region include: North Grasslands WA, 
Kesterson NWR, Arena Plains NWR, San Luis NWR, Merced NWR, Volta WA and Los Banos 
NWR. 
January 1997 San Joaquin River Region Flood Event 

The New Year's Day Flood of 1997 was notable for the sustained intensity of the 
associated rainfall, the volume of floodwater, and the areal extent of the storm pattern ~ from the 
Oregon border down to the southern end of the Sierra. Over a three day period, warm moist 
winds from the southwest blew over the Sierra Nevada and poured more than 30 inches of rain 
on watersheds already saturated by one of the wettest Decembers on record. Sheer volume of 
runoff exceeded the flood control capacity of New Don Pedro Reservoir on the Tuolumne River 
and Millerton Lake on the upper San Joaquin River. While the peak flood release from New Don 
Pedro Dam was less than half the peak Tuolumne River inflow of 120,000 cfs. it was more than 
six times the downstream channel design capacity of 9,000 cfs. In all, thirty-six levee failures 
occurred along the San Joaquin River system, along with extensive damage related to high flows 
and inundation. Most of the damage occurred downstream of the Tuolumne River confluence. 

The primary flood control issue facing the San Joaquin River Region is the lack of flood 
channel capacity. Channel levees are generally designed for 50-year flood protection. Lack of 
channel capacity is especially problematic in the lower San Joaquin River below the Merced 
River. At the lower end of the system, sediment deposition continues to raise the river bed and 
lower flood protection. Sediment deposition reduces chaiuiel cross sectional flow area and 
promotes vegetation growth, thereby increasing channel roughness and further impeding flows. 

8-57 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

As urban development occurs on lands formerly used for agriculture, the need for higher level of 
flood protection becomes more pressing. 

The 1997 Governor's Flood Emergency Action Team 1997 Final Report detailed several 
recommendations and possible actions for the San Joaquin River watershed, such as: 

► A USAGE reconnaissance study for the Tuolumne River which would include evaluation 
of constructing a flood control impoundment on Dry Creek, developing off-stream flood 
storage to be integrated with water supply storage, and restricting development in the 
flood plain. 

► Acquisition of flood-prone lands (largely agricultural lands) in Stanislaus County which 
could be added to USFWS's San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge. The lands would be 
managed to allow periodic flooding, and would provide temporary storage of flood peaks. 
Likewise, a similar approach could be taken at the West Bear Creek Unit of the San Luis 
National Wildlife Refuge, where floodflows could, with the provision of the necessary 
control facilities, be temporarily stored on existing refuge lands. 

►■ Increasing the capacity of the lower San Joaquin River by measures such as channel 

dredging, setback levees, and improving bridge crossings. 
Water Management Options for the San Joaquin River Region 

Table 8-12 shows a comprehensive list of options for the region, and the results of an 
initial screening. The option evaluation scoring is shown in Table 8A-2 in Appendix 8A. 
Water Conservation 

Urban. Urban water conservation options were deferred from evaluation because there is 
little potential to create new water (reduce depletions) from them in the San Joaquin River 
region. 

Agricultural. As with the urban water management options, only those agricultural 
conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. Changes in irrigation 
management practices to attain seasonal application efficiencies of 76 to 80 percent would yield 
less than 1 taf depletion reduction. Flexible water delivery, canal lining and piping, and tailwater 
recovery, could each yield 2 taf per year depletion reduction. 



8-58 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-12. Comprehensive List of Options 
San Joaquin River Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 

or 
Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 




Urban 




Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET„ 


Defer 


Residential Indoor Water Use 


Defer 


Interior CII Water Use 


Defer 


Distribution System Losses 


Defer 


Agricultural 




Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements 


Defer 


Flexible Water Delivery 


Retain 


Canal Lining and Piping 


Retain 


Tailwater Recovery 


Retain 



No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 
No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 
No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 
No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Reoperate/Enlarge Farmington Reservoir 



Retain 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage 

Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage 

Irish Hill Reservoir 

Volcano Reservoir 

Middle Bar Reservoir 

Devil's Nose Reservoir 

Cape Cod Reservoir (Cosumnes River) 

Bakers Ford Reservoir (Cosumnes River) 

Mid- Valley Canal 



Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Defer 
Defer 
Defer 



Major storage unlikely on Cosumnes River. 
Major storage unlikely on Cosumnes River. 
Questionable water supply availability. No 
longer viable as local option. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

EMBUD/San Joaquin County Conjunctive Use 


Defer 


Yields undefined. 


Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 


Water Recycling 


Defer 


By definition in this Bulletin, does not generate 
new water. 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

Agricultural Drainage 

Seawater 



High costs and lack of a clearly defined brine 
disposal alternative. 



Other Local Options 



Statewide Options 

Auburn Dam 

Enlarge Friant Dam 

CVPIA Water Acquisition Program 



Retain 
Retain 
Retain 



8-59 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Modify Existing Reservoirs 

Various agencies have looked at raising or modifying existing water suppfy and/or multi- 
purpose reservoirs. The USAGE is updating 1980s information on increasing Farmington 
Reservoir's storage capacity. Local runoff, plus New Melones spills or American River imports, 
could be used to fill the enlarged reservoir. The estimated cost for modifying this reservoirs is up 
to $700/af 

Central California Irrigation District is working with USBR to use CVPIA funding to 
replace the existing Mendota Dam. The replacement is necessary for a variety of reasons 
including dam safety considerations, wildlife enhancement, and regulation of wildlife refuge 
water levels. Replacement of the dam is estimated at $1 .2 million. The replacement would not 
provide new water supply, but would allow better regulation of existing supplies. 
New Reservoirs 

Over the years local agencies, as well as regional. State, federal, and private water 
purveyors, have studied various reservoir sites in the area. The studies have focused on water 
supply, power generation, flood control, recreation, and other benefits. Some of the studies 
envisioned multi-purpose development and multi-agency participation. 

Amador County Water Agency had developed preliminary proposals for the Irish Hill and 
Volcano reservoir projects. Irish Hill Reservoir, on Dry Creek, would serve areas near lone with 
up to 23,700 af of drought year supply. Volcano Reservoir, on Sutter Creek, would serve the 
communities of Sutter Creek and Amador City, in addition to providing flood control benefits for 
Sutter Creek. The estimated drought year supply would be 14,700 af The county had also 
participated in studies of the larger Middle Bar and Devil's Nose reservoir projects. Alternatives 
for Middle Bar include a low dam, with a drought year supply of 12,000 af and a high dam, with 
a drought year supply of 159,000 af The larger Middle Bar Dam could potentially be constructed 
by EBMUD primarily for their supply, but could provide some local supply to Amador, 
Calaveras, and possibly San Joaquin counties. A number of obstacles such as water rights, a 
FERC license, and financing would need to be addressed. Devil's Nose is a 145,000 acre-foot 
reservoir proposal on the North Fork and main stem of the Mokelumne River. Again, the size of 
the project would probably require participation by other agencies. Both projects are currently 
inactive. 



-60 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

The Cosumnes River Project, originally envisioned to be a four-county multi-purpose 
project, would include up to six reservoirs with various appurtenant power generation, tunnel and 
pipeline, transmission, and related facilities. The larger potential reservoirs, located on the main 
and middle forks of the Cosumnes River, include the 300 taf Cape Cod and 185 taf Bakers Ford 
reservoirs. Portions of the Cosumnes River Project could be developed by local or regional 
water agencies. Two additional offstream projects include the Montgomery Reservoir Offstream 
Storage and the Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage Project are discussed in detail below. 

Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage Project. The Montgomery offstream reservoir 
would be constructed on Dry Creek, north of the confluence of Merced River and Dry Creek near 
the community of Snelling. The reservoir would store spills from Lake McClure for municipal 
and agricultural uses. Alternatively, reservoir operation for the primary purpose of providing 
environmental benefits has also been considered. Water would be conveyed by a two-way 
facility from Merced Falls Diversion Dam to Montgomery Reservoir. Releases from New 
Exchequer Dam would improve instream flows and maintain a lower water temperature to 
benefit fall run chinook salmon in the Merced River. The reservoir would also provide 
additional flood protection in the San Joaquin River. The reservoir would have a capacity of 
240,000 af About $3 million will be required to complete the feasibility study. The project 
including the dam reservoir, conveyances, pumping and appurtenant facilities, has been 
estimated to cost about $135 million. Three years would be required to complete the feasibility 
investigations and environmental compliance work. The yield is estimated to be 35 taf during 
drought years. The drought year cost of this option is estimated to be $300/af 

Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage Project. In 1989 Madera Irrigation District 
requested the USER to investigate a pump/storage project on Fine Gold Creek. The project, a 
350,000 af offstream storage reservoir and powerhouse, would be constructed on Fine Gold 
Creek, a San Joaquin River tributary. During periods of flooding, water would be pumped firom 
Millerton Lake into the reservoir for future water supply and power generation. Potential 
benefits include fishery enhancements and flood control and protection. The average year yield 
is estimated to be 42 taf According to MID's 1991 preliminary cost estimate, the project would 
cost in excess of $500 million. Project evaluation and investigation was estimated at $3 million, 
and at least 3 years would be required to complete feasibility and environmental investigations. 

8-61 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

The Fine Gold Creek project, although not originally formulated as such, is essentially an 
alternative to enlarging Friant Dam. 
New Conveyance Facilities 

Since the 1970s several studies have been conducted on the feasibility of importing 
additional Delta supplies to reduce groundwater overdraft in the San Joaquin Valley. In USBR's 
1981 v4 Report on the Mid-Valley Canal Feasibility Investigation, the possibility of constructing 
a canal that would supply portions of Madera, Merced, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties 
with additional imported water was investigated. 

The report suggested that water from the Delta could be conveyed to O'Neill Forebay 
using available capacity in the California Aqueduct. From O'Neill, a portion of the water would 
be delivered to the Mendota Pool by an enlarged Delta-Mendota Canal, while the remainder 
would be conveyed to Kern County by using extra capacity in the California Aqueduct. To 
provide water to rest of the service area, the proposal called for the construction of two branches 
of a new facility called the Mid-Valley Canal. The Main Branch would lift water from the 
Mendota Pool and carry it southeast to Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties. Madera and Merced 
Counties would receive their supply via a North Branch, also diverting from the Pool. The 
introduction of this additional water supply to the San Joaquin River Region would provide the 
primary benefits of reducing of groundwater overdraft. Other benefits from the project could 
include reduction of land subsidence due to groundwater extraction, enhancement of wetlands, 
wildlife habitat, and recreational facilities. 

Initially the USBR identified a firm annual water supply in the Delta of approximately 
500,000 af as available for export to the proposed service area. It was determined that this 
supply was unavailable due to increased Delta outflow requirements and curtailment of proposed 
expansion of CVP facilities that could have provided increased yield. Enactment of CVPIA 
further limited available CVP water supply. Nevertheless, if a supply could be found for the 
project, a Mid-Valley Canal facility could provide a variety of benefits to the San Joaquin 
Valley. 
Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

In the San Joaquin River Region, urban and agricultural water users have relied on both 
surface and groundwater supplies to meet their water demands. Groundwater usage within the 



8-62 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

region varies depending upon the availability of surface water. Many local water purveyors 
within the region utilize surface water allocations, purchased water, and excess flood water for 
groundwater recharge. Within the region, natural waterways, local agency canals, and State and 
federal conveyance facilities create opportunities for groundwater recharge, storage and 
conjunctive use programs. 

EBMUD continues negotiations with San Joaquin County interests for a joint 
groundwater storage/conjunctive use project. This option is part of the EBMUD's Water Supply 
Action Plan and the yield is undefined at this time. 
Water Recycling 

In the San Joaquin River Region most municipal and industrial water use occurs on the 
east side of the San Joaquin Valley. The wastewater produced is generally spread for 
groundwater recharge. Wastewater that is directly or indirectly discharged to the San Joaquin 
River becomes available for downstream uses, including Delta outflow requirements. Because of 
the extensive reuse or basin outflow, there are no water recycling options within the basin which 
qualify as new sources of supply. 

There are several small water recycling projects that serve local water management or 
wastewater disposal needs. At several of the larger cities and towns in the Eastern Valley Floor 
planning subarea. wastewater is currently collected, treated, and utilized for golf course or 
pasture irrigation. The City of Stockton proposes to utilize treated wastewater for additional 
agricultural irrigation, groundwater storage, or transfer to possible fiiture storage reservoirs or 
Farmington Reservoir. Another alternative for Stockton would be to discharge treated 
wastewater to the Delta, in exchange for direct diversion of river surface water. 
Groundwater Desalination 

In the San Joaquin River Region there are an estimated 150.000 acres of land where the 
depth to groundwater is 20 feet or less. The 1991 Interagency Drainage Program report projected 
that this area of shallow groundwater could grow to 250,000 acres by 2040, if no drainage 
management actions were taken. Studies have indicated that groundwater recovery by desalting 
could cost up to $l,000/af, if a brine disposal option were available. This option is deferred due 
to high cost and lack of a clearly defined brine disposal alternative. 



8-63 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Statewide Options 

Enlarge Friant Dam. Recent interest has been expressed in enlarging Friant Dam (an 
option studied by USBR in the past). Raising Friant Dam would potential have flood control, 
water supply, and water quality benefits. Enlarging Friant Dam could provide 25 taf of drought 
year supply to the region. 

Auburn Dam. As discussed in the Sacramento River Region, the Auburn Dam alternative 
has been extensively studied in the past for water supply as well as flood control purposes. If 
constructed an Auburn Dam with 850 taf of storage capacity could in addition to providing flood 
control, provide local yields of 70 taf and 50 taf in average and drought years respectively. This 
supply is assumed to be split among water users in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river 
regions. 

CVPIA Water Acquisitions Program. As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternative 4 was 
selected from among the CVPIA PEIS alternatives as a placeholder for Bulletin 1 60-98 future 
CVPIA environmental water demands because it represents the most conservative estimate of 
future water supply requirements. The PEIS estimates that 1 18,000 acres of irrigated agricultural 
land would be fallowed in the region to provide 674 taf per year of AFRP instream flow (in the 
Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus. Calaveras and Mokelumne rivers) and 68 taf per year for Level 4 
wildlife refuge requirements. 

Water Resources Management Plan for the San Joaquin River Region 

The forecasted shortage for the region in 2020 is 0.8 maf and 1 .5 maf in average and 
drought years respectively. The majority of the average year shortages are due to CVPIA 
supplemental water needs, the remaining average year shortages are due to groundwater 
overdraft. Table 8-13 summarizes the results and ranking of options by option category, 
including cost/af estimates and potential gain. Table 8-14 summarizes the option categories most 
likely to be implemented to relieve the forecasted shortages. 

Nearly all identified options likely to be implemented involve modifying existing or 
constructing new reservoirs. Reoperating or enlarging Farmington Reservoir for carryover 
storage would augment drought year supplies by 25 taf Constructing Montgomery Reservoir 
could augment local drought year supplies by about 35 taf As statewide options, enlarging Friant 



8-64 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Intenor Regions 



Dam and constructing Auburn Dam for flood control purposes could provide 50 taf of additional 
drought year supply for the region. Even with these, there remains a large shortage in the region. 



Table 8-13. Options Evaluation 
San Joaquin River Region 



Option 



Rank 



Conservation 
Agricultural 

Flexible Water Delivery 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailvvater Recoverv 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Reoperate Enlarge Farmington Reservoir M 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 



Potential Gain 
Cost per (fgf. 

af($) 



M 


1,000 


M 


1,200 


11 


150 



700 



Montgomery Reservoir Offstream Storage 


H 


300 


Fine Gold Creek Offstream Storage 


M 




Irish Hill Reservoir 


M 


430 


Volcano Reservoir 


M 


350 


Middle Bar Reservoir 


L 




Devil's Nose Reservoir 


L 




Statewide Options 






Auburn Dam 


M 




Enlarge Friant Dam 


M 




CVPIA Water Acquisition Program ** 


M 





Avg 



42 



35 



742 



Drt 



25 



24 
15 
159 
25 



25 
25 

742 



* Data not available. 

** If implemented, there would be a corresponding reduction in agricultural demands within this region. 



8-65 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-14. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 
San Joaquin River Region 



Option 


Potential Gain (taf) 


Average 


Drought 


Shortage * 


805 


1,481 


Conservation 


2 


2 


Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 


-- 


25 


New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 


-- 


35 


Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 


- 


- 


Water Transfers/Banlcing/Exciiange 


- 


- 


Recycling 


- 


- 


Desalination 


-- 


- 


Statewide Options 


35 


50 


Total Potential Gain 


37 


112 


Remaining Shortage 


768 


1,369 


* 742 taf of shortage is CVPIA supplemental 


water needs. 





DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 

Description of Area 

The Tulare Lake Region (Figure 8-4) includes the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley 
and the watershed ranges that surround it. It begins in the north below the San Joaquin River 
watershed and extends south to the Tehachapi Mountains. The region is bounded to the east by 
the Sierra Nevada Crest and by the Temblor Range in the west. The climate for the valley varies 
from fog shrouded winters to long, hot summers. Typically, the valley receives about 6 to 1 1 
inches of rainfall annually, while the average precipitation in the mountains range from 12 to 36 
inches, mostly in the form of snow. Most of the region's population is located on the east side of 
the valley where agricultural communities have developed. The area includes several rapidly 
growing cities, the largest of which are Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia. Other population 
centers include Hanford, Coalinga, Clovis, Taft, Wasco, Shafter, and Delano. Table 8-15 shows 
1 995 and 2020 populations and crop acreages. 

There are several managed wetlands areas in the region, including Pixley National 
Wildlife Refuge, Kern National Wildlife Reftige, and Mendota Wildlife Management Area. 

Table 8-15. Population and Crop Acreage (in thousands) 

1995 2020 

Population 1,738 3,296 

Irrigated Crop Acres 3,127 2,985 

Most major employment sectors in Tulare Lake Region revolve around agriculture, 
although the petroleum industry is important in parts of the valley's west side and in Kern 
County. (In the relatively sparsely populated areas on the west side of the valley, industrial water 
demands for petroleum recovery and production exceed municipal water demands.) Most of the 
land area in the valley not devoted to urban and industrial purposes is used for agriculture. The 
predominant crop is cotton, followed by permanent orchards and vineyards. (Major orchard cops 
are almonds and pistachios.) Other major crops alfalfa and pasture, grain, corn, and field and 
truck crops. 



8-67 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-14. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 
San Joaquin River Region 



Option 


Potential Gain (taf) 


Average 


Drought 


Shortage * 


805 


1,481 


Conservation 


2 


2 


Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 


-- 


25 


New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 


-- 


35 


Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 


- 


- 


Water Transfers/Bani<ing/Exchange 


- 


- 


Recycling 


- 


- 


Desalination 


- 


- 


Statewide Options 


35 


50 


Total Potential Gain 


37 


112 


Remaining Shortage 


768 


1,369 


* 742 taf of shortage is CVPIA supplemental 


water needs. 





8-66 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 

Description of Area 

The Tulare Lake Region (Figure 8-4) includes the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley 
and the watershed ranges that surround it. It begins in the north below the San Joaquin River 
watershed and extends south to the Tehachapi Mountains. The region is bounded to the east by 
the Sierra Nevada Crest and by the Temblor Range in the west. The climate for the valley varies 
from fog shrouded winters to long, hot summers. Typically, the valley receives about 6 to 11 
inches of rainfall annually, while the average precipitation in the mountains range from 12 to 36 
inches, mostly in the form of snow. Most of the region's population is located on the east side of 
the valley where agricultural communities have developed. The area includes several rapidly 
growing cities, the largest of which are Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia. Other population 
centers include Hanford, Coalinga, Clovis, Taft, Wasco, Shafter, and Delano. Table 8-15 shows 
1 995 and 2020 populations and crop acreages. 

There are several managed wetlands areas in the region, including Pixley National 
Wildlife Refiage, Kern National Wildlife Refuge, and Mendota Wildlife Management Area. 

Table 8-15. Population and Crop Acreage (in thousands) 

1995 2020 

Population 1,738 3,296 

Irrigated Crop Acres 3,127 2,985 

Most major employment sectors in Tulare Lake Region revolve around agriculture, 
although the petroleum industry is important in parts of the valley's west side and in Kern 
County. (In the relatively sparsely populated areas on the west side of the valley, industrial water 
demands for petroleum recovery and production exceed municipal water demands.) Most of the 
land area in the valley not devoted to urban and industrial purposes is used for agriculture. The 
predominant crop is cotton, followed by permanent orchards and vineyards. (Major orchard cops 
are almonds and pistachios.) Other major crops alfalfa and pasture, grain, corn, and field and 
truck crops. 



8-67 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Figure 8-4. Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region 




g 10 20 30 



SOILE IN MILES 



8-68 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

•a-Photo: Friant-Kern Canal 

This region receives runoff from four main river basins, the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and the 
Kern. The main flood control and regulatory reservoirs for these rivers are Pine Flat Lake, Lake 
Kaweah, Lake Success, and Lake Isabella. Major water conveyance facilities for the area include 
the joint State-federal San Luis Canal, the CVP's Friant-Kern Canal, and the Cross Valley Canal. 
The SWP provides water to several west-side contractors and to Kern County Water Agency. 
Water districts within the region have developed an extensive network of canals and pipelines to 
deliver these main water sources to the end users. The region has no natural outlet to the ocean. 
Flood waters from the Kings, Kaweah and Tule rivers drain into the Tulare Lake Bed. During 
severe flooding, waters reaching Fresno Slough can overflow a drainage divide and reach the San 
Joaquin River. Flood waters from the Kern River that are not diverted to the area's extensive 
recharge facilities or to the SWP's Kern River Intertie reach Buena Vista Lake Bed. Both Tulare 
Lake and Buena Vista lakebeds, formerly the region's drainage sinks, have been converted to 
agricultural use and now receive floodwaters only in wet years. 

Bs-Photo: Buena Vista Lake (aerial photo) with aqueduct in view 
Water Demands and Supplies 

Table 8-16 shows regional water demands and supplies. Significant water shortages 
occur now in average years, and large shortages occur in drought years. (Shortages at a 1995 
level of development in average water year conditions represent the region's 820 taf of 
groundwater overdraft and 50 taf of shortages in Westlands Water District's service area.) 



8-69 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft ^^ , -,. . „ 

Chapter 8. Intenor Regions 



Table 8-16. Tulare Lake Region Water Demands and Supplies (taf) 





1995 


2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Dr 


ought 


Applied Water 






Urban 


690 


690 


1,099 




1,099 


Agricultural 


10,736 


10,026 


10,123 




9,532 


Environmental 


1,752 


827 


1,771 




846 


Total Applied Water 


13,178 


11,543 


12,992 




11,476 


Supplies 












Surface Water 


7,968 


3,711 


7,871 




3,611 


Groundwater 


4.340 


5,970 


4,386 




5,999 


Recycled and/or Desalted 
















Total Supplies 


12,308 


9,681 


12,257 




9,610 


Shortages 


870 


1,862 


735 




1,866 



«3=Photo: Kern River Canyon 

Under 1995 average hydrologic conditions, local surface supply from the Kings, Kaweah, 
Tule and Kern river systems are the most significant source of surface water to the region. The 
next largest surface water source is USSR's Central Valley Project, which delivers water through 
the joint State-federal San Luis Canal, Coalinga Canal, Friant-Kem Canal and Cross Valley 
Canal facilities. The only other major source of surface water is the State Water Project. 

Of the Tulare Lake Region's SWP supply, the majority is contracted to Kern County 
Water Agency. KCWA's SWP supply is in turn distributed to its sixteen member agencies. The 
largest entitlements go to Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District, Berrenda Mesa Water 
District, Belridge Water Storage District, and Lost Hills Water District. Since these four districts 
have limited (or no) groundwater supply, each relies almost entirely on SWP supplies to meet its 
water demands. Most other KCWA member agencies have Kern River, Friant-Kem Canal, 
Cross Valley Canal or groundwater supplies available. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 
and Dudley Ridge Water District are the next largest SWP contractors in the region. (Under 
provisions of the 1995 Monterey Agreement and Amendments, Kern County Water Agency and 
Dudley Ridge Water District, are permanently retiring 45,000 af of their annual SWP 
entitlements.) 



8-70 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapters Interior Regiorrs 

The SWP's California Aqueduct assists in managing Kern River floodwaters at the 
Aqueduct's Kern River Intertie. constructed to allow Kern River flood waters to enter the 
California Aqueduct. The latest use of this structure to relieve flooding in Kern County was 
during the storms of January 1997. The Intertie may also be operated in reverse, to protect the 
Aqueduct from overtopping due to flood waters that enter the Aqueduct upstream of the Arroyo 
Pasajaro, Salt and Cantua Creeks. In 1995, for example, 15,000 af were allowed to discharge 
into the Kern River channel from the Aqueduct. 

•s^Photo: aerial photo of Tulare Lake (dry) 

The Friant-Kern Canal conveys CVP supply to 24 long-term contractors in the region. 
Among the largest contractors of Friant-Kern Canal supply are Arvin-Edison Water Storage 
District, Lower Tule River Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District. The San 
Luis Canal also distributes CVP supply, most of which goes to Westlands Water District. With 
an allocation of 1,150,000 af, Westlands Water District is the largest CVP contractor. Westlands 
primarily delivers to agricultural users; however about 5,500 af is supplied to M&l users such as 
Lemoore Navel Air Station. (Even with a full CVP supply, Westlands must purchase about 
200,000 af from other sources to meet normal crop needs.) 

In 1 974, Arvin-Edison Water Storage District and Kern County Water Agency entered 
into agreements for participation in the Cross Valley Canal. Arvin-Edison also entered into water 
exchange agreements with ten agencies in the Friant-Kern Canal service area. Delivery of the 
exchange water is made through the California Aqueduct and the Cross Valley Canal to Arvin- 
Edison's facilities. Arvin-Edison receives 128,300 af annually of exchange water and makes 
available to exchange entities the first 174,300 af of its Class I and Class II CVP entitlements 
from the Friant-Kern Canal. 

•s'Photo: Kern River Intertie 

Average groundwater extraction (including extraction representing overdraft) is estimated 
to be about 5.2 maf in 2020 for the region. Since groundwater provides a buffer for fluctuating 
year-to-year surface supplies, its availability to the region is of great importance. Groundwater 
overdraft for the 1995 level supplies is estimated to be about 820,000 af, expected to decrease to 
670,000 af by 2020 due to declining agricultural demands. 



8-71 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Groundwater Overdraft 

Groundwater levels in Tulare Lake Region normally rise each winter due to recharge 
from streams, sloughs, ponds, and irrigation of farmland. Urban use of groundwater is relatively 
constant year-round, but in the summer farmers and agricultural industries extract large amounts 
of groundwater to supplement their surface supplies, so groundwater levels decline. The extent 
of annual fluctuations in water levels is dependent on the availability of surface water. The 
Department's review of groundwater conditions in the region showed approximately 820,000 af 
of overdraft for the Tulare Lake at a region 1995 level of development for an average water year. 
About 70 percent of the region's overdraft occurs in the Kings-Kaweah-Tule Rivers planning 
subarea. Urban water demands in the subarea are met almost exclusively by pumping 
groundwater. Agricultural development in the subarea includes a large acreage of permanent 
crops (645,000 acres in 1995). In order to protect their investments, farmers with permanent 
crops will use groundwater to supplement local surface water supplies in drought years. 
Overdraft in the region is mitigated to a certain extent by planned recharge programs, over- 
irrigating crops in wet years, and allowing seepage from unlined canal systems. Although, CVP 
and SWP were intended to reduce groundwater overdraft in the region by providing a source of 
surface water to be used instead of groundwater, recent reductions in export supplies from the 
Delta, coupled with the recent drought have caused increased groundwater extraction in the 
region. 

Land subsidence due to declining water levels is a concern in the Tulare Lake Region. 
Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals has occurred in varying degrees over parts of 
the western portion of the region. Since the cessation of a real subsidence monitoring programs 
in the 1970s, there has been little regional data collection on amounts and impacts of subsidence, 
although some facility specific monitoring has been performed (e.g., along the California 
Aqueduct). Many water districts and local farmers have noticed the lowering of bridges, canal 
embankments, and other structures that may be the results of increased groundwater extraction 
during recent drought years. 



8-72 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 tntenor Regions 

Groundwater Banking Programs 

Semitropic Water Storage District is currently participating in an in-lieu groundwater 
banking project with MWDSC, SCVWD, and ACWD. This project involves expanding the 
Semitropic's conveyance system, so that areas normally relying on groundwater will have 
surface water available in above average water years. In these wet years Semitropic water users 
will receive excess surface water from re-regulating its banking partners' SWP supply. In drier 
years, Semitropic would release its SWP allocation to its partners and if necessary pump 
groundwater back into the California Aqueduct to meet its obligations. The maximum storage 
capacity of Semitropic's groundwater basin is 1 maf Commitments have been made among 
MWDSC, SCVWD, and ACWD for 75 percent of the project. The remaining 25 percent or 
250,000 af of storage is available to other potential banking partners. 

MWDSC and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District are completing negotiations on a 
350,000 af water banking/transfer program. Water banked in this program would be provided by 
both AEWSD and MWDSC. AEWSD would provide up to 150,000 af of its supplies to 
MWDSC, depending on the quantity of new water yield developed by the program. MWDSC 
will provide the remaining portion of the water supplies from its own sources. AEWSD will 
construct 500-600 acres of new infiltration basins, 15 new extraction wells, and a 4.5 mile 
pipeline intertie with the California Aqueduct. 
Groundwater Quality 

Though groundwater quality is important for all uses, it plays a pivotal role in meeting 
residential and industrial requirements. Most of the region's urban population relies on 
groundwater to meet its water demands. In the Fresno/Clovis area, dibromochloropropane 
(DBCP), a pesticide, and trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent, have been the predominant 
contaminants found. The City of Fresno has recently approved the construction of a surface 
water treatment plant to supplement its groundwater supply. The plant will treat part of the 
City's San Joaquin and Kings rivers entitlements. The City of Mendota has had a long-standing 
salinity problem since the mid-1980's. Mendota' s municipal water wells contain high TDS, 
chloride and sulfate levels. The City of Kerman has had a continuing uranium problem. The 
City of Rosedale (in Kern County), was forced to shut down 8 wells where nitrates, pesticides, 
and uranium contamination were found in the groundwater. Uranium has also been found in 



8-73 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

wells southwest of the City of Bakersfield. Elevated levels of nitrates have been found in wells 
in the cities of Orange Cove, Shafter and Lindsay. The City of Hanford has found high levels of 
arsenic and sulfates in its water supply wells. A long-standing nitrate contamination problem in 
the McFarland area in Kern County is described in Chapter 5. 

It is expected that SDWA source water protection requirements will increasingly drive 
efforts to prevent future groundwater contamination and to implement wellhead protection 
programs. The treatment technologies discussed in Chapter 5 will increasingly be needed to 
meet future urban demands in the region. 
Agricultural Drainage 

Large areas of the Tulare Lake Region's agriculturally rich west-side must contend with 
high groundwater tables. Typically, applied irrigation water builds up above semi-impervious 
clay layers and creates a shallow unconfmed aquifer of generally poor to unusable quality. As 
the water tables rise and reach crop root zones, this water must be removed by subsurface drains 
or crop production will suffer. Until it was discovered in the 1980s that selenium and other 
constituents were causing waterfowl mortalities at Kesterson Reservoir, the predominant method 
of drainage disposal was in evaporation ponds. More farmers now rely on source control 
measures. The RWQCB has been involved in a lengthy regulatory process to establish the 
conditions under which evaporation ponds may still be used. 
Arroyo Pasajero and Other Westside Cross-drainages 

The Department, USBR, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are completing a 4-year 
feasibility study to identify a long-term solution to flooding and sedimentation problems 
threatening the California Aqueduct at its juncture with Arroyo Pasajero, an ephemeral stream. 
The Aqueduct was constructed across the Arroyo's alluvial fan and formed a barrier to the 
arroyo's flows, which carry a high sediment loading. As designed, Arroyo flows were to be 
impounded upslope of the Aqueduct in a 16,500 acre-foot ponding basin that included a culvert 
to route floodwaters east of the Aqueduct and inlet gates to discharge runoff into the Aqueduct. 
The original runoff estimates, based on the limited hydrologic and sediment loading data of the 
time, have proven to be about one-fourth of today's estimates. Long-term solutions currently 
under consideration involve a substantial increase in ponding capacity and significant efforts 
aimed at sediment management. The Department is also investigating a similar problem 20 



8-74 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

miles north of the Arroyo Pasajero at the Cantua Creek Stream Group. This stream group, with a 
drainage area of approximately one-half the size of the Arroyo's creates similar flooding and 
water quality problems at the Aqueduct. 

•s-Photo: Arroyo Pasajaro flooding 
Kings River Fisliery Restoration Actions 

Kings River Conservation District is cooperating v^dth the USACE in a feasibility study 
of Kings River fishery habitat improvements associated with USACE's Pine Flat Dam. The 
study is to evaluate impacts of original project construction, riparian habitat restoration 
opportunities downstream of the dam, potential operating strategies to minimize lake level 
fluctuations during fish spawning periods, and temperature control methods for trout populations. 
One component of the study includes planning a new multi-level intake structure for the 
reservoir, to better manage downstream river temperatures. USACE is also performing a related 
project to install a turbine bypass pipe at the dam's powerplant, to allow releases through the 
existing penstocks when the turbines are not in operation, also to provide temperature control for 
the downstream trout fishery. 

Water Management Options for the Tulare Lake Region 

Table 8-17 shows a comprehensive list of options for the region. After initial screening, 
10 local options were retained for further evaluation. Most of the retained local options involve 
conjunctive use or water transfers. The evaluation and scoring of retained options is shovra in 
Table 8A-3 in Appendix 8A. The results are shown in Table 8-18. 



8-75 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8 Interior Regions 



Table 8-17. Comprehensive List of Options 
Tulare Lake Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 

or 
Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to 0.8 ET„ 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 
Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements 
Flexible Water Delivery 

Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailwater Recovery 



Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Retain 

Defer Already highly developed; no substantial 

depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No additional depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No additional depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Enlarge Pine Flat Dam 

Enlarge Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) 

Enlarge Success Lake 



Retain 
Retain 
Defer 



Flood control project; minimal water supply. 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 
Rodgers Crossing Project 



Mill Creek Reservoir 
Mid- Valley Canal 



Defer 



Defer 
Defer 



Segment of Kings River designated as a Special 
Management Area, under Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act. 

Cost per acre-foot of water developed too high. 
Questionable water supply availability. No 
longer viable as local option. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

City of Clovis Expansion of Recharge Facilities Retain 

Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement Recharge Defer 

Kern Water Bank as Component of SWP Defer 

Kern Water Bank Authority Recharge Facilities Retain 

Kern Delta Water District Recharge Facility Retain 

Buena Vista Water Storage District Water Banking Retain 

Project 

Cawelo Water District Water Banking Project Retain 



Minimal yield. 

Questionable water supply availability. No 

longer viable. 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 






SCVWD/Delta Mendota Authority 


Retain 




Westlands Water District 


Defer 


Sellers not yet identified. 


Water Recycling 






— 


— 


By definition in this Bulletin, does not generate 
new water. 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 

Agricultural Drainage 

Seawater 



High costs and lack of a clearly defined brine 
disposal alternative. 



8-76 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-17. Comprehensive List of Options 
Tulare Lake Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 

or 
Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Other Local Options 



Statewide Options 

Westside Land Retirement 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program 
SWP Interim South Delta Program 
SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program 
Drought Water Bank 
Enlarge Shasta Lake 
CVPIA Water Acquisition Program 



Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Retain 



Water Conservation 

Urban. Urban conservation options were deferred from evaluation because there is little 
potential to create new water (reduce depletions) from them in the Tulare Lake Region. 

Agricultural. Improving irrigation scheduling would increase seasonal application 
efficiency to 76 percent, reducing depletions by less than 1 taf per year. System improvements 
including pressure regulation and filtration, along with better irrigation scheduling, would 
increase SAE to 78 percent and reduce depletions by 5 taf per year. To reach 80 percent SAE, 
conversion to more efficient irrigation systems would be needed, reducing depletions by 1 taf 
per year. Flexible water delivery is deferred because existing delivery system in the region are 
highly developed, and further improvements would add little depletion reductions at a high cost. 
Canal lining is deferred because areas in the region where lining and piping could reduce water 
depletions (the westside of the valley) have already had such improvements. Other areas in the 
region rely on unlined canals for in-lieu groundwater recharge. Tailwater recovery is deferred 
because of the extensive use of tail water recovery already occurring in the region. 



Westlands Water District Distribution System 

Westlands Water District is the CVP's single largest agricultural water contractor. 
Among central valley agricultural water districts, Westlands is unique both for its size (almost 
1,000 square miles) and for its irrigation distribution system ^ which is based entirely on 
pipelines, rather than open canals. Altogether the distribution system has over 1,000 miles of 
buried pipe, varying in diameter from 10 to 96 inches. The basic design flow rate for each 
farm delivery system is one cfs per 80 acres. 



8-77 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Modifying Existing Reservoirs and New Reservoirs 

Additional Storage in Kings River Basin. Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River, completed 
in 1954, is a USAGE flood control project that also provides supplemental water supply to Kings 
River Basin water users. In 1974, the Kings River Conservation District commissioned 
preparation of a master plan to evaluate local solutions to continuing flood control and water 
supply problems. This study identified three potential projects to improve storage and regulate 
Kings River flows. These three projects ranked according to cost preference were: 

( 1 ) Enlargement of Pine Flat Dam 

(2) Rodgers Crossing project 

(3) Mill Creek project 

In 1989, a USAGE reconnaissance study investigated flood control and water related 
resource opportunities in the Kings River Basin. After an initial screening of several alternatives, 
including the three mentioned above, enlargement of Pine Flat Dam was retained for further 
study. An alternative for a 15 foot increase of gross pool height appeared to have the best 
benefit-to-cost ratio. This alternative would increase the reservoir's storage capacity about 
92,800 af and provide an average of 12,700 af of additional yield per year. The major benefit 
would be reducing flood damages an estimated $2.7 million. Nevertheless, with a B/C ratio of 
0.92 to 1, this alternative is not economically feasible at the time. The Rodgers Crossing project, 
entailing a proposed reservoir that would be located upstream of Pine Flat Dam, was rendered 
infeasible when the damsite was included in a river segment subsequently designated as wild and 
scenic. 

Mill Creek is a small, uncontrolled, intermittent stream tributary to the Kings River 
below Pine Flat Dam. The Creek's small watershed (approximately 120 square miles), normally 
produces minor stream flows. However, heavy local rainstorm events occasionally result in 
flows in excess of 10,000 cubic feet per second, high enough to cause damage to the Kings River 
channel for many miles downstream. (The average annual discharge of the creek is 
approximately 30,000 af.) In the 1970s, the USACE studied the feasibility of constructing a 
dam on Mill Creek, just upstream of its confluence with the Kings River. The benefits of such a 
project would include additional flood protection, water conservation, power generation, and 
recreation. The proposed reservoir would have a capacity in excess of 600,000 af and would be 

878 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

directly linked with Pine Flat Reservoir by a tunnel, allowing the reservoirs to be operated 
conjunctively. In wet years. Kings River water that would normally flood Tulare Lakebed could 
be diverted and stored in Mill Creek Reservoir. USACE's studies indicated that the cost per 
acre-foot of water developed would have been too high to justify the project. 

Additional Storage in Kaweah River Basin. Lake Kaweah is located on the Kaweah 
River about 20 miles east of Visalia. Terminus Dam was completed in 1962 by the USAGE to 
provide flood protection and irrigation water supply to downstream users. The Corps 
subsequently produced a draft feasibility report to investigate continuing flood control problems 
and water resource needs on the Kaweah River. The study identified three possible alternatives: 
increase storage of Lake Kaweah through the enlargement of Terminus Dam, construct a flood 
detention dam on Dry Creek above Lake Kaweah, or construct a reservoir on Dry Creek with a 
connecting tunnel to Lake Kaweah. Upon further study, only the enlargement of Terminus Dam 
was considered due to the extensive environmental and cultural impacts that would develop from 
construction of facilities on Dry Creek. Enlarging Terminus Dam would involve raising and 
enlarging the spillway, increasing average annual water supply storage in Lake Kaweah by 8,400 
af through better regulation of flood flows. Congress authorized enlargement of Terminus Dam 
in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin 
in 2000 and to be completed in 2002. The Terminus Dam enlargement is projected to have a 
capital cost of about $37 million, most of which has been allocated to flood control. 

c^Photo: existing Terminus Dam 

Additional Storage in Tule River Basin. Tulare County and the Tule River Association 
requested that USACE consider providing additional storage in the basin by enlarging Success 
Lake, in response to flood protection problems experienced in a number of large storms (most 
recently, the January 1997 flood event in the Central Valley). It is estimated that Success Lake 
provides about a 55-year level of protection for the City of Porterville. A 1992 reconnaissance 
study found that a 1 foot increase in gross pool height with a corresponding increased storage 
capacity of 28,000 af was the preferred alternative. The 28.000 af enlargement would provide 
additional storage for irrigation water of 2,800 af USACE entered into a feasibility cost-sharing 
agreement with the Lower Tule River ID for updating the 1992 study and for preparing an 
EIR/EIS. The draft feasibility study and EIR/EIS are scheduled to be released for public review 



8-79 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

in 1998. The 1992 reconnaissance report estimated the capital cost to be about $23 million. 
Since the reservoir enlargement's primary purpose is flood control and only minimal water 
supply benefits are provided, the project is not considered further in this chapter as a future water 
supply option. 
New Conveyance Facilities 

This potential conveyance project, and the constraints on its implementation, were 
discussed in the San Joaquin River section. Due to significant reductions in the amount of water 
that can be expected from the Delta since the project's initial formulation, the project is not 
feasible at this time as a local option. 
Groundwater and Conjunctive Use 

Many local water districts and cities in the region, already utilize excess surface water 
allocations, purchased water, and floodwaters. when available, for groundwater recharge 
purposes. Local distribution systems, and CVP and SWP conveyance facilities create many 
opportunities for water supply agencies to exchange and purchase surface supplies for 
groundwater banking. Some parts of the region, such as the west side of the valley, however, are 
underlain by poor quality groundwater. Opportunities for groundwater banking or conjunctive 
use projects are limited in these areas. Possible groundwater recharge and conjunctive use 
options available to the Tulare Lake Region are discussed below. 

The City of Clovis has an existing agreement with Fresno Irrigation District that entitles 
the city to an average of 13,805 af of Kings River water and 1,100 af of Class II water from 
Millerton Lake. Currently the city's surface water supply is exclusively used for groundwater 
recharge. Existing facilities can recharge approximately 7.800 af As the city expands and 
acquires additional water rights, average annual surface supplies are expected to increase to 
30,100 af by 201 5. With this increase in supply, the city is actively pursuing new groundwater 
recharge sites to recharge an additional 10, 500 af per year. 

Visalia plans to develop new groundwater wells as the community and water demands 
grow, estimating that 1 5 additional wells will be necessary to meet average year water demands 
in 2020. Visalia is also working with the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and Tulare 
County on a Kaweah River Delta corridor study to investigate sites for multiple use for 
groundwater recharge, floodwater management, and habitat restoration. The study is currently 

880 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Irttenor Regions 

in the feasibility stage, and has identified several potential sites. The project would include 
groundwater recharge basins with a storage capacity of about 750 af A demonstration project 
has been proposed to model and further refme the integration of groundwater recharge, flood 
protection and habitat restoration. 

In 1985 the Department, in cooperation with Kern County Water Agency and local water 
districts, began developing the Kern Water Bank conjunctive use program as a component of the 
SWP. The program would have allowed the Department to store water in above-average water 
years and withdraw it during dryer years. The Department purchased 20.000 acres of property 
overlying the Kern River alluvial fan for a direct recharge project known as the Kern Fan 
Element. However, subsequent regulatory actions affecting Delta exports made the Kern Water 
Bank less valuable as a source of SWP supply. 

Bs-Photo: Kern Water Bank 

Pursuant to Monterey Agreement contract amendments. Fan Element property is being 
transferred from the Department to the Kern Water Bank Authority, a JPA. The KWBA had 
been operating about 3,000 acres of recharge basins under an emergency CEQA exemption and 
an interim ESA Section 7 consultation. These temporan,' environmental permits has been issued 
to the Authority to allow it to recharge winter tloodwaters. Since May 1995 the Authority has 
recharged about 450,000 af on behalf of its member agencies. The Kern Water Bank Authority 
prepared a 75-year habitat conservation plan/natural community conservation plan covering the 
use of the approximately 20,000-acre property. The HCP sets aside about 10,000 acres for 
habitat purposes. ESA listed species found in the project area include the kit fox, kangaroo rat, 
and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The Authority plans to expand the recharge facility to as much as 
6,400 acres. The cost for this expansion, including additional conveyance structures is estimated 
to be close to $30,000,000. 

ra-Photo: kit fox 

An option for the Kern Delta Water District is to construct a groundwater recharge 
facility that would work in conjunction with the Kern Water Bank Authority's project. The 
proposal would involve constructing a ditch to convey Kern River water to a 320 acre parcel 
owned by the district. 



8-81 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

Buena Vista Water Storage District is currently preparing a plan to construct as much as 
200 acres of additional facilities to bank excess Kern River water. Buena Vista has an existing 
long-term exchange agreement with West Kern Water District. West Kern Water District 
exchanges its SWP water for BVWSD groundwater. This groundwater is the primary supply for 
the City of Taft. Much of the SWP exchange water is recharged in a 50 acre facility located 
several miles north-east of the city. The new facilities are estimated to cost about $250,000. 

The Texaco Oil Company has recently entered into partnership with Cawelo Water 
District, located north of Bakersfield, to supply water that is released during its oil recovery 
process. A significant amount of water can be found trapped in oil bearing zones. The quality of 
much of this water is good, once it has been separated from the oil. The oil industry has 
historically used this water to recover additional oil by injecting steam or water into the oil 
bearing zones. The agreement struck by Texaco and CWD made possible the construction of an 
8 mile pipeline to carry as much as 13,000 af/year of this water to the district. In addition to this 
new source of water, in 1996 the district purchased almost 90 acres of land straddling Poso 
Creek. To enhance groundwater recharge, the district will allow the land to be flooded during 
high flows. Work will begin shortly on a feasibility study that will address the district's long- 
term plans for more extensive recharge facilities. 
Water Transfers 

As described in Chapter 6, the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority has agreed 
with SCVWD and USBR to an internal reallocation of existing CVP supplies. Under this option, 
participating member agencies of SLDMWA can receive some of SCVWD's federal water 
allocation in normal and above-normal water years in exchange for the commitment to a share of 
their federal allocation during drought years. SCVWD would provide 100,000 af for reallocation 
within a 10-year period. 

Westlands Water District has initiated a short-term i^uy-back^rogram for water users 
who may be interested in selling any of their unused water allocation or other supply to the 
District. Even though the District is water short in most years, and purchases supplemental water 
from other sources, individual farmers in the District may have more water available than needed 
for their planned crop production. This program would occur only if the District had not finalized 
transfers from other sources to meet its total supplemental water needs. Transfers under this 

8-82 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8 Interior Regions 

program would be intra-regional transfers. WWD is currently preparing a draft programmatic 
EIR on purchasing and transferring up to 200,000 af of water to its service area. We have not 
included this program in our water management options evaluation because specific details for 
the proposed transfers are not yet available. 



Water Marketing - WaterLink Program 

In March 1996 the first electronic water marketing system went on-line in Westlands Water 
District. The WaterLink system was designed as a joint effort by the University of California 
Berkeley and Davis campuses, the Natural Heritage Institute, and farmers and water district staff. The 
project was funded by a grant from the Bureau of Reclamation. WaterLink allows district growers to 
use their home computers to post and read bids, access information on average prices and trading 
volumes, and negotiate transactions. WaterLink can also be used to schedule water deliveries and 
eventually to obtain water account balances, a feature that will enable water users to manage their 
water supplies more effectively. WaterLink is an intra-net system, available only to District growers, 
to allow them to make internal trades of in-District supplies. 



Water Recycling 

In the Tulare Lake Region, most municipal and industrial water use occurs on the east 
side of the San Joaquin Valley. The wastewater produced from urban and industrial use is 
generally recharged to groundwater basins. The magnitude of the region's groundwater overdraft, 
and the region's high level of groundwater use, make recharge of wastewater treatment effluent a 
logical water management action for the region. There are, however, no identified water 
recycling projects in the region that would qualify as new sources of supply. 
Desalination 

There have been many studies exploring the possibilities of reclaiming the saline 
groundwater on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Department has been involved in 
three such studies: a wastewater treatment evaluation facility in Firebaugh, the Los Banos 
demonstration desalting facility, and the Adams Avenue agricultural drainage research center. 
There are many problems to overcome in developing a working system to collect the drainage 
water, treat it, distribute the fresh water, and dispose of the waste. These problems boil down to 
two main concerns ~ the cost of producing fresh water and of disposal of the concentrated brine. 
The production cost for this water, about $1,000 per acre-foot, is too high for agriculturally based 
water districts. Furthermore, finding an acceptable location to dispose of the waste from such a 
facility is difficult. Until an affordable technology to desah drainage water is developed, and a 

8-83 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

solution to the disposal problem is found, desalting brackish groundwater in this region is 

unlikely. 

Statewide Options 

Active planning for statewide water supply options is being done currently for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and for SWP fiiture supply. See Chapter 6 for discussion on 
statewide demand reduction and water supply augmentation options. [The following text on SWP 
supplies is a placeholder for potential outcomes of CALFED process. Text will be changed as 
CALFED results become available.] 

Land Retirement. Two land retirement options were evaluated as described in Chapter 6. 
Option 1, retiring 30,000 acres of agricultural lands with the worst drainage problems, would 
save about 65 taf of water per year. If Option 2 were implemented, up to 85,000 acres would be 
retired resulting in 185 taf per year of water savings. 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Improving conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
River Delta would provide improvement to SWP and CVP supply reliability to the region. For 
illustrative purposes, assuming improved Delta conditions through the implementation of 
CALFED alternatives, additional SWP yield to the region could be 45,000 and 53,000 af in 
average and drought years, respectively. Additional CVP supply to the region could be 140,000 
af and 165,000 for average and drought years. 

State Water Project Lmprovements. DWR has two programs underway which would 
improve SWP yields to its contractors in the Tulare Lake region. The programs are discussed in 
Chapter 6. The ISDP would augment SWP supplies to the region by 35,000 af and 28,000 af in 
average and drought years, respectively. The Supplemental Water Purchase Program could 
provide an additional 64,000 af in drought years. 

Drought Water Bank. Based on past experience with the Drought Water Bank, it is 
estimated that about 250,000 af of water would be available for allocation. Of this amount, past 
experience suggests that 54,000 af would be made available to the Tulare Lake Region. 

Enlarged Shasta Lake. Enlarging Shasta Lake to 13 maf of storage would increase 
drought year yield by about 1 .5 maf. If we assume one-third of this yield is allocated to the 
environment, and the remaining two-thirds is allocated among the State and federal projects, the 
region could potentially receive 445 taf and 525 taf in average and drought years, respectively. 

8-84 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



CVPIA Water Acquisition Program. As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternative 4 was 

selected from among the CVPIA 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 that 3,000 acres of irrigated agricultural 

land would be fallowed in the region to provide 15 taf per year for Level 4 wildlife refuge 

requirements. 

Table 8-18. Options Evaluation 
Tulare Lake Region 



Cost 



Potential Gain 



Option 



Rank 



peraf (*^^ 

($) Avg 



Drt 



Conservation 

Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (78%) 
Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (80%) 



Groundwater/Conjunctlve Use 

City of Clovis Expansion of Recharge Facilities 

Kern Water Bank Authority Recharge Facilities 

Kern Delta Water District Recharge Facility 

Buena Vista Water Storage District Water Banking 
Project 

Cawelo Water District Water Banking Project 



250 
450 



85 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 










Enlarge Pine Flat Dam 


H 


500 


13 


13 


Enlarge Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) 


H 


* 


8 


8 



H 


440 


11 


H 


95 


339 ]/ 


H 


85 


47 


H 


100 


29 



13 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

SCVWD/Delta Mendota Authority 



Statewide Options 

Westside Land Retirement (30,000 acres) 

Westside Land Retirement (85,000 acres) 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

SWP Interim South Delta Program 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program 

Drought Water Bank 

Enlarge Shasta Lake 

CVPIA Water Acquisition Program 



M 


55 


65 


65 


M 


63 


185 


185 


M 




185 


218 


M 


100 


35 


28 


L 


150 


-- 


64 


H 


175 


-- 


54 


M 




445 


525 


M 




15 


15 



No data available. 



8-85 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 8. Interior Regions 

Water Resources Management Plan for Tulare Lake Region 

Water supplies are not available to meet all of the region's 2020 water demands in 
average or drought years. Shortages are forecasted to be 0.7 maf and 1 .9 maf in average and 
drought years respectively. Table 8-19 summarizes options that can most likely be implemented 
by 2020 to relieve some of the shortages. 

Improvements in agricultural irrigation demand management will likely occur over the 
entire region, although much of the region is already quite efficient in its agricultural water 
management. Areas where this will have the most effect will be where agricultural lands overlie 
shallow groundwater of poor quality. The west side of the valley will receive the most benefits 
from water conservation practices that improve irrigation management. These practices could 
reduce depletion by 10,000 af if system upgrades are employed to increase seasonal application 
efficiencies to 80 percent. 

The region's 2020 water shortage due to groundwater overdraft is estimated to be 
670,000 af There are several plans to expand existing recharge facilities or to construct new 
ones. Groundwater banking will constitute the majority of the projects used to reduce water 
supply shortages. Sources for water banking and conjunctive use include water transfers, 
exchanges and direct purchases with outside agencies. 

The region's local surface supplies have already been extensively developed and fiirther 
development opportunities are limited. The modification of existing facilities through the 
enlargement of Lake Kaweah and Pine Flat Lake could produce about 21,100 af of additional 
yield for irrigation supply to local farmers. 

Due primarily to environmental restrictions placed on Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
water diversions, the region has seen a decrease in its imported state and federal water supplies. 
This has forced the area to rely more on local surface water, groundwater, and water transfers. 
Long-term solutions to management of Delta waters and in regulatory requirements brought 
about by programs such as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program may increase supplies for Tulare 
Lake and statewide water users. Statewide options for the region will include a Delta fix, SWP 
improvements, and State drought water bank, which could provide 220 taf and 300 taf in average 
and drought years respectively. Demand reduction by retiring 30,000 acres of the worst drainage 
areas on the westside of the valley would save 65 taf per year. Even with these options, 
substantial storages remain in the region in average and drought years. 

8-86 DRAFT 



Bulletin160-98 Public Review Draft n>„„,„ o , , 

Chapter 8. Interior Regions 



Table 8-19. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

Tulare Lake Region 



Option 


Potential Gain (taf) 


Average 


Drought 


Shortage 


735 


1,866 


Conservation 


10 


10 


Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 


21 


21 


New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 


- 




Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 


- 


039)'' 


Water Transfers Banking/Exchange 


10 


.. 


Recycling 


- 


.. 


Desalination 


— 


.. 


Statewide Options 


285 


365 


Total Potential Gain 


326 


835 


Remaining Shortage 


409 


1,031 



887 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Siena and Colorado River 



Chapter 9. Options for Meeting Future Water Needs in 
Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Regions of California 

This chapter covers the hydrologic regions in the eastern sierra, North Lahontan and 
South Lahontan, and the Colorado River hydrologic region (Figure 9-1). These regions 
constitute 33 percent of the State's land area and are generally the least populated, with 
population totaling about 1.3 million in 1995. 

North Lahontan Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The North Lahontan Hydrologic region has two planning subareas (Figure 9-2), Lassen 
and Alpine. The Lassen Group Planning Subarea encompasses the northern North Lahontan 
Region within Lassen and Modoc counties. Lassen PSA is an arid, high desert with relatively 
flat valley areas adjacent to or interspersed with mountains. Valley elevations are about 4,000 
and 4,500 feet for Honey Lake and Surprise valleys, respectively. The Warner Mountains, which 
form the western boundary of Surprise Valley, range in elevation from about 7,000 to more than 
9,000 feet. Annual precipitation ranges from as little as 4 inches in Surprise Valley in Modoc 
County, to over 50 inches in the mountains of the Susan River watershed in Lassen County. 

The Alpine Group Planning Subarea encompasses the southern part of the North 
Lahontan region within Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, and Mono counties. The 
subarea includes Lake Tahoe as well as the Truckee. Carson, and Walker river drainages. The 
rivers originate at high elevations on the eastern slopes of the Sierras and flow to terminal lakes 
or desert sinks in Nevada. Annual precipitation ranges from 8 inches in the valleys to more than 
70 inches in the Sierras (much of this amount is snow). 

The Lassen Group PSA is rural and sparsely populated. The City of Susanville is the 
largest population center in the subarea. In the Alpine PSA, more than 90 percent of the 
population lives in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins. The City of South Lake Tahoe and 
Town of Truckee are the largest communities in the subarea. The Tahoe-Truckee region has 
many part-time residents and visitors during the summer and winter recreational seasons, 
reflecting the importance of tourism to the area. Tourism and related recreational opportunities 
are a vital force in the region's economy and for much of the region's service-sector 
employment. 

9-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Options for ti/leeting Future Water Needs in 
Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Region 



Figure 9-1. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River Hydrologic Regions 



North 
Coast 



North 
Lahontan 



Sacramento 
River 



San Francisco 
Bay 



San Joaquin 
River 



Central 
Coast 



South 
Lahontan 



South 
Coast 



Colorado 
River 



9-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Figure 9-2. North Lahontan Hydrologic Region 




10 20 30 



SCM.E IN MILES 




Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Cattle ranching is the main land use in the Lassen PSA. Irrigated land acreage is small 
(less than 4 percent of the region's land area). Commercial crop production is limited because of 
the short growing season. Pasture and alfalfa are the dominant irrigated crops. About 75 percent 
of the irrigated land is in Modoc and Lassen counties, and most of the remainder is in the Carson 
and Walker river valleys in Alpine and Mono counties. The irrigated land in the Carson and 
Walker river valleys is almost exclusively pasture at elevations above 5,000 feet. Most of the 
uplands areas are federally owned and largely managed as national forest land. Table 9-1 shows 
the population and crop acreage for the region. 



Table 9-1. 


Population and Crop Acreage 
(in thousands) 




1995 


2020 


Population 
Irrigated Crop Acres 


84 
161 


125 
165 



Water Demands and Supplies 

The water budget for the North Lahontan region is shown in Table 9-2. Agricultural 
water demands are generally met with local surface water supplies, when available. Throughout 
the northern portions of the region, runoff is typically scant and stream flow decreases rapidly 
during the irrigation season after the snowpack melts in the higher elevations. The amount of 
acreage irrigated for pasture and alfalfa is constrained by available water supplies. 

No major changes in North Lahontan Region water use are anticipated during the 
Bulletin's planning horizon. Irrigated agriculture is already constrained by climate and by 
economically available water supplies. A small amount of agricultural expansion is expected, 
but only in areas that can support minor additional groundwater development. Likewise, the 
modest need for additional municipal supplies can be met by expanding present surface systems 
or increasing groundwater use. Drought year shortages are caused by a reduction in surface water 
supplies for agriculture and an increase in unit crop irrigation requirements for pasture and 
alfalfa. To calculate shortages, the water budget assumes that crop acreages under drought 



9-4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Easterr) Sierra and Colorado River 



conditions remain the same as under average conditions. Except for possible shortages in small 
mountain communities, no urban water shortages are forecast. 

The majority of the water supply for the city of Susanville comes from groundwater and 
from Cady and Bagwell springs. The city has not experienced any water supply shortages nor 
does it expect any shortages for the next 20 years. 



Table 9-2. North Lahontan Region Water Demands and Supplies 
(taf) 





1995 




2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 


Urban 

Agricultural 

Environmental 


39 
530 
635 


40 
584 
341 


50 
536 
635 


51 
594 
341 


Total Applied Water 


1,203 


965 


1,221 


986 



Supplies 

Surface Water 1,038 642 1,020 642 

Groundwater 157 187 183 208 

Recycled and/or Desalted 8 8 8 8 

Total Supplies 1,203 837 1,211 858 

Shortages 128 10 128 



The Honey Lake Valley Groundwater Basin is an interstate groundwater basin; the 
California portion of the basin is about 45 miles long and 10 to 15 miles wide. Groundwater 
extracted from the basin is used mainly for agriculture with a smaller portion used for municipal 
supply and refuse water supply at Honey Lake Wildlife Area. Groundwater use in the basin 
appears to be near the basin's perennial yield. A 1987 agreement among the Department, the 
State of Nevada, and USGS resulted in a study of the groundwater flow system in eastern Honey 
Lake Valley. Upon conclusion of the study in 1990, the Nevada State Engineer ruled that only 
about 13,000 acre-feet could be safely transferred from Nevada's portion of the basin for 
proposed new water development for Washoe County in Nevada. The Nevada out-of-basin 
transfer project has not gone forward. 

9-5 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



The 7,840 acre Honey Lake Wildlife Area is on the north edge of Honey Lake about 20 
miles southeast of Susanville. The HLWA is comprised primarily of intensively managed 
wetlands, crop lands, and native uplands adjacent to the 60,000 acre Honey Lake. It provides 
important habitat for migratory waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and other wetland species along the 
Pacific Fly way. During the irrigation season, most of the appropriated water for HLWA comes 
from the watershed of Willow Creek and its tributaries. HLWA has adjudicated water rights, 
administered by the Department, as determined in the 1940 Susan River Decree. Groundwater at 
the HLWA is used to irrigate crops, to flood and maintain wetlands as well as for domestic 
purposes. 

The Truckee River originates above Lake Tahoe, and its flow is controlled by a small 
dam on the lake's outlet. The river flows through northeastern California and northwestern 
Nevada, and ultimately terminates in Pyramid Lake, which is located entirely within the Pyramid 
Lake Indian Reservation in Nevada. In addition to Lake Tahoe, water is stored in Martis Creek, 
Prosser Creek, Boca, and Stampede reservoirs, and in Independence Lake and Donner Lake. 
Table 9-3 shows the statistics for these reservoirs. 



9-6 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sienra and Colorado River 



Table 9-3. Statistics for IVIajor Reservoirs 
on the Truckee River in California 



Reservoir 
Name 



Dam Owner 



Dam Operator 



Usable 

Storage 

Capacity 

(af) 



Dam 

Construction 

Date' 



Dam 
Height 
(Feet) 



Drainage 
Area 

(Square 
Miles) 



Lake Tahoe 


Sierra Pacific 
Power Company' 


Truckee-Carson 
Irrigation District 


744,600 


1913 


18 


506 


Conner Lake 


Sierra Pacific 
Power Company/ 
Truckee-Carson 
Irrigation Dist. 


Sierra Pacitlc 
Power Company 


9.500 


1930s 


14 


14 


Martis Creek 


USAGE 


USAGE 


20,400' 


1971 


113 


40 


Prosser Creek 


USBR 


USBR 


29,800 


1962 


163 


50 


Independence 
Lake 


Sierra Pacific 
Power Company 


Sierra Pacific 
Power Company 


17,500 


1939 


31 


8 


Stampede 
Reservoir 


USBR 


USBR 


226,500 


1970 


239 


136 


Boca 
Reservoir 


USBR 


Washoe County 
Water 
Conservation Dist. 


41,100 


1937 


116 


172 



' Date existing dam was completed. 

• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation controls the dam under easement from Sierra Pacific Power Company. 

' Flood control storage only. 



Most of the water supply developed by these Truckee River Basin reservoirs is used in 
Nevada to meet urban demands in the Reno/Sparks area; hydropower and irrigation demands; 
and fish and wildlife requirements relating to the lower Truckee River in Nevada and in Pyramid 
Lake. On average, about one-third of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the 
Truckee Canal in Nevada to irrigate land in the Carson Division of USBR' s Newlands Project, 
near Fallon, Nevada. 

Truckee River operations have evolved in response to litigation, negotiation, court 
decrees, agreements, and legislation. The Truckee River General Electric Decree of 1915 and the 
Truckee River Agreement of 1935 form the basis of current river operations. The Orr Ditch 
Decree of 1 944 established individual water rights in Nevada and, by incorporating the Truckee 
River Agreement, provided the guidelines for operating the federal reservoirs to serve those 
rights. 

Modification of Truckee River operations occurred when two Pyramid Lake fishes, the 
cui-ui and lahontan cutthroat trout, were listed under the ESA. Stampede Reservoir was 



9-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



constructed in 1970 by USER to serve irrigation and municipal uses; as a result of litigation, a 
1982 federal court decision required all storage in Stampede Reservoir to be used to provide 
water for the listed Pyramid Lake fish. Proposed changes in Truckee River operations are 
described in the following water management issues section. 

In the Truckee basin within California, most of the urban demand occurs in and around 
the area's recently incorporated city (named the Town of Truckee) and is supplied from 
groundwater. The Martis Valley groundwater basin is the principal source for the nearly all 
water supplies. The areas of Northstar, Squaw Valley, and denshire utilize groundwater from 
smaller groundwater basins or from fractured rock sources. The developed area around Dormer 
Lake is served by surface water. Truckee receives most of its water from Truckee Donner PUD. 
TDPUD is the largest purveyor in the basin, accounting for about half of the water delivered to 
commercial and residential customers. 

Future water demands in the Truckee Basin are not expected to exceed the interstate 
allocations contained in PL 101-618 (discussed in the following section) that would, when they 
become effective, limit the basin's annual use to 32 taf. 

i^Photo: Lake Tahoe Dam 

On the California side of the Lake Tahoe basin. South Tahoe PUD, Tahoe City PUD, and 
North Tahoe PUD account for most of the water delivered to urban users. Water is supplied 
from the lake and from groundwater sources. The interstate allocation for California's Tahoe 
Basin in PL 101-618 would limit future water use in the basin to 23 taf of gross diversions. 
Estimated future water needs at full development were used as the basis for negotiating the 
interstate allocation. Future development in the Tahoe Basin is strictly limited by the bi-state 
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to protect the basin's environmental quality. In both the 
Truckee and Tahoe basins, water use for snowmaking at the area's ski resorts has been 
considered within the interstate allocations. 

Urban development in the Carson and Walker river basins is minimal and is clustered 
around the towns of Markleeville in Alpine County and Bridgeport in Mono County. More than 
90 percent of the watershed on the California side is federally owned, primarily under the 
management of the Toiyabe National Forest. Groundwater is the source of supply for individual 

9-8 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



users and small community systems located in valley areas. In the upper watershed however, 
communities may lack suitable sites to locate wells and therefore must depend on surface water 
sources. The Town of Markleeville depends on surface water and experienced a water shortage 
in 1989 when the stream that supplies the community went dr>'. Water had to be piped 4 miles 
from another creek to the town's treatment plant. 

In the upper Carson River watershed, water is stored in several very small alpine 
reservoirs originally constructed to serve water for irrigating pasture and other agricultural 
purposes. Much of this water is used downstream in Nevada. The largest of the alpine reservoirs 
is Heenan Lake on Monitor Creek, tributary to the East Fork Carson River, with a capacity of 
nearly 3,000 af Although the reservoirs still serve primarily agricultural uses, the Carson River 
supports a popular recreational trout fishery in the upper watershed. DFG has used Heenan Lake 
for raising Lahontan cutthroat trout to stock at other locations throughout the Sierras. DFG 
currently manages state-owned lands adjacent to Heenan Lake and has arranged to purchase 
water on an annual basis to maintain a minimum reservoir pool for fish rearing. 

Two special-purpose reservoirs were constructed in the upper Carson watershed to 
receive treated effluent exported from South Tahoe PUD in the Lake Tahoe Basin. (Disposal of 
treated wastewater within the Lake Tahoe Basin has been banned to help protect the lake's 
clarity.) The export began in the 1960s, when the water was delivered to Indian Creek Reservoir. 
The water was then delivered from the reservoir to agricultural users for a supplemental 
irrigation supply. Harvey Place Reservoir, also constructed by South Tahoe PUD, became 
operational in 1989. Effluent exports of about 5,000 af now go to Harvey Place Reservoir, and 
Indian Creek Reservoir is used for freshwater recreation. 

The Walker River watershed has several very small reservoirs in the upper watershed in 
addition to two large reservoirs —Topaz Reservoir, an offstream storage facility on the West 
Walker, and Bridgeport Reservoir on the East Walker. Both of the large reservoirs were built by 
Walker River Irrigation District to sustain summer irrigation flows to the service areas 
downstream in Nevada. WRID holds California water rights to store 57,580 af of West Walker 
water, plus 200 af of local inflow, in Topaz Reservoir. In Bridgeport Reservoir. WRID can store 
up to 39,700 af SWRCB has established instream flow and minimum reservoir pool 

9-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



requirements at Bridgeport, as in response to fish kills that occurred during the last drought. 
Both reservoirs are popular local recreational destinations; because of their proximity to 
Highway 395. 

Part of the East Fork Carson River ~ approximately 10 miles from the town of 
Markleeville to the California/Nevada state line ~ has been added to the California wild and 
scenic river system. On the West Walker River, the California wild and scenic river system 
includes approximately 37 river miles from Tower Lake, at the headwaters, downstream to the 
confluence with Rock Creek, as well as about 1 mile of Leavitt Creek. 

As occurred with the Truckee River Basin, water right disputes in the Carson and Walker 
river basins were settled with federal court decrees. The 1980 Alpine Decree on the Carson 
River and the 1936 Decree C-125 on the Walker River are the chief regulatory control of river 
operations today. The decrees established the surface water rights, including reservoir storage 
rights, of parties in both California and Nevada in each of the lawsuits. However, the decrees 
only quantify individual water rights of parties to the litigation and did not address rights 
perfected under state law for persons who are not successors in interest to parties holding decreed 
rights. Not all existing water users are necessarily covered in the decrees. In the Carson River 
Basin, however, PL 101-618 would, when its provisions take effect, establish an interstate 
allocation. The California allocation corresponds to existing basin water uses. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Truckee River Operating Agreement. 

Negotiation of a proposed Truckee River Operating Agreement, and preparation of its 
draft Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report have been the major water 
management activity in the region. A draft EIS/EIR has been in preparation for several years, 
and expected to be released in 1998. A new operating agreement for the Truckee River is 
required under the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (PL 101-618) 
enacted by Congress in 1990. The Act settled years of disputes over the water in the Truckee and 
Carson rivers by making an interstate water allocation between California and Nevada. It also 
settled certain Native American water right claims, and provided for water supplies for specified 
environmental purposes in Nevada. The Act allocates 23 taf annually in the Lake Tahoe Basin; 

9 10 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



32 taf annually in the Truckee River Basin below Lake Tahoe; and water corresponding to 
existing water uses in the Carson River Basin, to California, with the rest of the Truckee-Carson 
River supply going to Nevada. 

«^hoto: Donner Lake 

The proposed TROA would establish procedures for river operations to meet water rights 
on the Truckee River while enhancing spawning flows in the lower Truckee River for cui-ui and 
Lahontan cutthroat trout. TROA would provide for management of water within the Truckee 
Basin in California, including instream flows and reservoir storage for fish and recreation uses. 
The agreement would include procedures for coordinating scheduled releases and exchanges of 
water among Truckee watershed reservoirs. TROA would become the exclusive federal 
regulation governing releases of water stored in Lake Tahoe, Martis Creek, Prosser Creek, 
Stampede, and Boca reservoirs. The agreement would address California's allocation of water 
in the Truckee Basin by providing an accounting procedure for surface and groundwater 
diversions, including allocations for snow-making; and would establish criteria to minimize short 
term reductions in river flow potentially caused by wells that might be constructed near the river 
in the future. In 1993, an agreement was signed among the Sierra Pacific Power Company, 
Washoe County Water Conservation District, and the Sierra Valley Water Company which 
settled a dispute about when the water company was required to stop diverting water from the 
Little Truckee River. This agreement, which resolves disputes that often occur during droughts, 
is being incorporated into the TROA. 
Walker River 

Recent activities on the Walker River have focused on the declining levels of Walker 
Lake in Nevada and the resulting impact on the lake's fishery. Over the years, upstream 
agricultural diversions have caused a decline in lake levels and increased its salinity. If the trend 
continues, the Lahontan cutthroat trout and the tui chub (an important food source for the trout) 
may no longer be able to survive in the lake. A solution to Walker Lake problems could have 
impacts to water users and water rights in California and Nevada. There are also potential tribal 
water rights claims in the Nevada side of the basin that could impact existing water rights. 

es-Photo: Walker Lake 

9-11 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sien-a and Colorado River 



Lake Tahoe 

Lake Tahoe's clarity has been declining, as increasing development around the shoreline 
increases the sediment load and nutrients reaching the lake. Nutrients such as nitrogen and 
phosphorous used in lawn or golf course fertilizers may enter the lake in the form of storm water 
runoff; these nutrients promote growth of algae, which in turn reduces clarity. Clarity of lakes is 
measured by the depth to which a Secchi disk, a small plastic disk of specific size, is visible. In 
the late 1960s, average annual Secchi disk visibility was on the order of 100 feet; now, some 30 
years later, the figure is closer to 70 feet. 

Efforts to improve Lake Tahoe water quality include programs implemented at the 
federal, state, and local level to regulate development and prevent pollutants from reaching the 
lake. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bistate agency created by Congress, sets regional 
environmental standards, issues land use permits including conditions to protect water quality, 
and takes enforcement actions on both the California and the Nevada side of the basin. TRPA's 
regional plan provides for the achievement and maintenance of adopted environmental threshold 
carrying capacities while managing growth and development. In addition to its regulatory 
activities, TRPA carries out a capital improvement program designed to repair the environmental 
damage done before the regional plan was adopted. TRPA has identified nearly $500 million in 
capital improvements needed to achieve the environmental threshold standards. Federal, state, 
and local governments have invested nearly $90 million dollars in soil erosion control, storm 
water drainage, stream zone restoration, public transit, and other capital projects. Since over 70 
percent of the land in the Tahoe Basin is controlled by the USPS, Lake Tahoe Basin 
Management Unit, a major emphasis of the LTBMU watershed management plan is water 
quality protection. The LTBMU implements an ongoing watershed restoration program and 
implements a land acquisition program to prevent development of sensitive private lands. 

In recent years, federal and state agencies have increased funding to protect the 
environment of Lake Tahoe. The federal government has budgeted $26 million over two years 
for environmental restoration. The state of Nevada approved a $20 million bond measure to 
perform erosion control and other measures on the east side of the lake while in California the 
passage of Proposition 204 will provide $10 million in bond funds for land acquisition and 

9-12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Siena and Colorado River 



improvement programs in the Tahoe Basin to control soil erosion, restore watersheds, or preserve 
environmentally sensitive lands. 
Leviathan Mine 

Leviathan Mine, an abandoned sulfur mine located in Alpine County, is one of the most 
significant abandoned mine sites in the region. From 1863 to 1952, operations at the site 
involved tunnel mining, which had minimal impact on nearby surface waters. Later, the site was 
converted to an open-pit operation, and tailings and overburden material were placed in or eroded 
into streams that drain the workings, creating water pollution problems with acid mine drainage 
and metals. In 1980, the SWRCB approved a pollution abatement project for the Leviathan 
Mine. The remediation project included channeling Leviathan Creek; filling and regrading the 
mine pit; excavating and regrading the waste dump; creating onsite evaporation ponds; regrading 
the spoil area; and improving drainage. The State acquired the site in 1983 and the project was 
completed in 1985. Although the project reduced the amount of AMD reaching the creek, 
contamination problems still occur today from pond overflows, acidic springs, seepage, and 
erosion. The RWQCB is currently involved in activities to further manage AMD. 
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. 

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project is a recent assessment of forests, key watersheds, 
and significant natural areas on federal lands. In 1996, the University of California released the 
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Study, the result of a three year, congressional ly-mandated study of the 
entire Sierra Nevada, with a primary emphasis on gathering and analyzing data to assist Congress 
and other decision makers in future management of the mountain range. The project's goal is to 
maintain the health and sustainability of the ecosystem, while providing resources to meet human 
needs. The study states that "excluding the hard-to-quantify public good value of flood control 
and reservoir-based recreation, the hydroelectric generating, irrigation, and urban use values of 
water are far greater than the combined value of all other commodities produced in the Sierra 
Nevada." The report estimates the value of water at 60 percent of all commodities produced in 
the foothills and mountains of the Sierra Nevada. 



9-13 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9^ Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



January 1997 Flood Event 

The January 1997 flood event in the North Lahontan Region was one of the most 
significant floods on record within the region. The flood event was a rain-on-snow and rain-on- 
saturated soils flood event, worsened by the warmth of the tropical rain system. Lake Tahoe 
recorded its highest level since 1917 at an elevation of 6,229.39 feet. This elevation was the 
lake's highest since the 1935 Truckee River Agreement, which limited the range of Lake Tahoe's 
surface elevation to between 6,223.0 feet (its natural rim) and 6,229.1 feet. Flood damage 
occurred along the Truckee' s channel immediately downstream from the lake, although the 
greatest economic damages occurred in the Reno-Sparks area. In California, flooding in 
downtown Truckee caused the closure of major highways. Downstream from Truckee, the river 
washed away Floriston Dam, a diversion dam used by Sierra Pacific Power Company to divert 
water to its run-of-river hydroelectric plant at Farad. 

Stream flows along the Carson and Walker river systems exceeded previous flood 
records. Flows along the East Fork Carson River at Markleeville and West Fork Carson River at 
Woodsford peaked at 21,000 cfs and 8,000 cfs, respectively, considerably above the record peak 
flows attained in 1963 and in excess of a 100-year flood event for these reaches of the river. The 
East Walker River near Bridgeport and West Walker River near Coleville peaked at 1810 cfs, 
and 6220 cfs, respectively, also above previously record flows. In Mono County, about 8 miles 
of U.S. Highway 395 were washed out, isolating the communities of Coleville and Walker. At 
the lower mouth of the Walker Canyon, the community of Walker received damage to homes 
and property when the West Walker River spilled its banks. 

Water Management Options for the North Lahontan Region 

Table 9-4 shows a list of options being considered to meeting agricultural shortages in 
the North Lahontan region. Potential options to augment water supplies during drought 
conditions are water conservation, pumping groundwater, and building new reservoirs. Land 
fallowing or temporarily idling land during droughts is practiced when no other feasible 
alternative for eliminating water supply shortages exists. In Mono County, cutbacks in surface 
water deliveries during the recent drought resulted in pasture being fallowed to accommodate 
deficiencies. 

9-14 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Water Conservation 

Urban. Urban conservation options were deferred from evaluation because there is little 
potential to create new water (reduce depletions) from them in the North Lahontan region. 

Agricultural. As with the urban water management options, only those agricultural 
conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. The efficiency of border 
irrigation systems used for alfalfa and pasture can be improved through leveling fields and 
applying water efficiently. However, no significant depletion reductions are expected in the 
region, since most alfalfa irrigation occurs in Honey Lake Valley and excess applied irrigation 
water recharges the groundwater basin. From a regional perspective, it appears that no significant 
depletion savings can be achieved. 



9-15 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-4. North Lahontan Region Comprehensive List of Options 



Category 



Option 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 



Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to O.8ET0 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution system Losses 



Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 

Defer No substantia! depletion reductions attainable 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 



Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements 

Flexible Water Delivery 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailwater Recover. 



Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable 



Modifying Existing Reservoirs/Operations 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Petes Valley Reservoir 
Willard Creek Reservoir 
Goat Mountain Reservoir 
Crazy Harry Gulch Reservoir 
Honey Lake Dike and Reservoir 

Long Valley Creek Reservoir 
Hope Valley Reservoir 
Leavitt Meadows Reservoir 



Pickle Meadow Reservoir 
Roolane Reservoir 
Mountain Lakes Reservoir 



Defer High costs 

Defer High costs 

Defer High costs 

Defer High costs 

Defer Water quality inadequate for agriculture. Very low 

yields with large estimated capita! costs. 

Defer Very little firm yield. 

Defer High costs 

Defer Site is located on the West Walker River, upstream 

of a reach designated under the Calif Wild and 
Scenic River Act. Also subject to interstate water 
issues with Nevada. 

Defer Same concerns as Leavitt Meadows site. 

Defer Same concerns as Leavitt Meadows site. 

Defer Same concerns as Leavitt Meadows site. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Agricultural Groundwater Development 
Eastside Warner Mountain Recharge 



Retain 
Defer 



DFG concerns about potential impacts to the Sand 
Hill Crane, brine shrimp, waterfowl, shorebirds, and 
regional deer herds have diminished local interest in 
a pilot program and/or reconnaissance level 
planning study. 



9-16 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-4. North Lahontan Region Comprehensive List of Options (cont.) 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 



Water Recycling 



Desalination Brackish Groundwater 



Seawater 



Other Local Options 
Statewide Options 

New Reservoirs 

Potential reservoir sites identified in studies by federal, State, and local agencies are 
included in the comprehensive list of options for this region (Table 9-4 ). 

In 1992. DWR investigated six potential reservoir sites in Lassen County that could 
provide storage of up to 20 taf Sites were investigated on the Susan River, and Willow and Long 
Valley creeks. An analysis of project costs indicates that the reservoirs are not economically 
feasible for agricultural water users in the region. 

DWR studies in late 1950s and early 1960s examined potential reservoir sites in Mono 
County that could serve agricultural lands in California. USER, USGS, NRCS. and WRID have 
studied these and other potential sites in California which could provide water for Nevada uses. 
Projects which would provide water only to Nevada are not included here as options. The four 
potential sites in Mono County are located on the West Walker River and have similar economic 
constraints as the sites in Lassen County. They are also subject to interstate water rights 
concerns. 
Groundwater 

Although groundwater is a available in most agricultural areas, water needs are usually 
met from local surface water. Even during a drought, groundwater cannot be used economically 
to replace cutbacks in surface water deliveries because of high pumping costs to irrigate pasture. 

9-17 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Modoc County Resources Conservation District investigated groundwater recharge on six 
creeks which drain to the east of the Warner Mountains in Surprise Valley. This project would 
recharge the alluvial fans using existing stream channels or constructed recharge facilities. 
Experimental construction of recharge areas on one or two of the creeks was proposed, but 
potential environmental impacts and lack of funding prevented implementation. This option was 
deferred. 

Water Resources Management Plan for the North Lahontan Region 

All but one of the options were deferred from further evaluation because of economic or 
environmental reasons, or both (see Table 9A in Appendix 9A). Table 9-5 shows the ranking of 
the retained option. Although groundwater is available to eliminate surface water deficiencies 
during droughts, it is not highly ranked due to its cost. As a result, there are no options that 
would eliminate the drought year shortages. During droughts, pasture irrigation will probably be 
curtailed. 

Table 9-5. North Lahontan Region Options Evaluation 

Option Rank Cost per af Potential Gain 

($) (taf) 



Avg Drt 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Agricultural Groundwater Development M 



Data not available to quantify. Additional production potential is not great. 



9-18 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 9 Eastern Siens and Colorado River 



Table 9-6. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 
North Lahontan Region 



Option 



Potential Gain 
(taf) 



Avg Drt 



Shortage* 10 128 

Conservation 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Recycling 

Desalination 

Statewide Options 

No options were quantified for this region. 
Remaining Shortage 10 128 



* Majority of shortages in this region are agricultural. 



9-19 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



South Lahontan Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The South Lahontan Region encompasses the area from the mountain divide north of 
Mono Lake to the divide south of the Mojave River, encompassing much of the Mojave River 
(see Figure 9-3). The region is bordered on the east by the Nevada state line and on the west by 
the crest of the southern Sierra Nevada and San Gabriel mountains. The region includes all of 
Inyo County and parts of Mono, San Bernardino, Kern, and Los Angeles counties. Prominent 
geographic features of the region are Owens Valley and Death Valley. The region contains the 
highest and lowest points in the lower 48 states ~ Mount Whitney (elevation 14,495 feet) and 
Death Valley (elevation 282 feet below mean sea level). 

The region is a closed drainage basin with many desert valleys that contain central 
playas, or dry lakes, especially in the western Mojave Desert. Major waterbodies in the region 
are, from north to south. Mono Lake, Owens River, and Mojave River. The Amargosa River, 
which drains Death Valley and adjoining areas (including a portion of Nevada), contains water 
only during rare flash floods. Any floodwaters in the Amargosa River would eventually flow 
south to a sink area at the Silver Lake and Soda Lake playas. This sink area is also the terminus 
of the Mojave River, which flows eastward from its headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains 
across the Mojave Desert to the playa lakes. 

"s^^Photo: Joshua tree 

Average aimual precipitation for the region's valleys ranges between 4 and 10 inches. 
Variations above and below this range do occur; for example, Death Valley receives only 1 .9 
inches annually. The Sierra Nevada Mountains can receive up to 50 inches annually, much of it 
in the form of snow. In some years, the community of Mammoth Lakes can have snow 
accumulations of more than 1 feet, enough to make Mammoth Mountain one of southern 
California's most popular ski resorts. 



9-20 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Siena and Colorado River 



Figure 9-3. South Lahontan Hydrologic Region 




9-21 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Although far from densely populated, the region contains some rapidly growing urban 
areas, including the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale in the Antelope Valley of Los Angeles 
County, and the Victor and Apple valleys of San Bernardino County. Many of the new residents 
in these valleys are workers who have chosen a long commute to the greater Los Angeles area in 
exchange for affordable housing. Future population growth in the region is expected to be 
concentrated in these cities within commuting distance of the Los Angeles area. Bishop, 
Ridgecrest, and Barstow are other population centers in the region. The economies of these and 
other small towns in the eastern part of the region are tied to the region's numerous military 
facilities and other governmental employers, and to providing services for travelers and tourists. 

Public lands constitute about 75 percent of the region's area, providing a major 
recreational resource. Popular destinations in the region include the Mono Lake area, June Lakes 
and Mammoth Lakes, Inyo National Forest, Death Valley National Monument, and the recently 
created Mojave National Reserve. Only about 1 percent of the region's land is used for urban and 
agricultural purposes. Most of the irrigated acreage is in the Mono-Owens plaiming subarea, 
primarily for alfalfa and pasture. (This PSA includes Owens Valley, the Lake Crowley area 
northwest of Bishop, and Hammil and Fish Lake valleys.) Throughout the region, alfalfa and 
pasture are the dominant irrigated crops. Some deciduous orchard acreage is found in the 
western part of the region. Table 9-7 shows population and crop acreage for the region. 



Table 9-7. Population and Crop Acreage 
(In thousands) 


1995 


2020 


Population 713 
Irrigated Crop Acres 61 


2,019 
45 



«3-Photo: Owens River 

The major (perennial) waterbodies in the region are in the northeast part ~ Mono Lake 
and Owens River. Since there is relatively little perennial surface water in rest of the region, the 
region's environmental water use is concentrated in the Mono Lake - Owens Valley corridor. 
The major environmental water use requirements are associated with maintenance of Mono Lake 

9-22 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sien-a and Colorado River 



levels for migratory birds, and fishery instream flow requirements for the Owens River system, 
resulting from regulatory actions described in Chapter 2. DFG operates four fish hatcheries in 
the Mono-Owens area: Mt. Whitney, Big Springs, Hot Creek, and Black Rock hatcheries. 

The largest surface water development in the region is the Los Angeles Aqueduct and its 
associated facilities, described in the following section. There are also a few relatively small, 
high-elevation dams operated by Southern California Edison for nonconsumptive hydropower 
purposes. These dams do not provide water supply for the region. One reservoir in the region is 
the SWP's Lake Silverwood on the East Branch of the California Aqueduct, a facility to regulate 
and store imported water. In the San Bernardino Mountains, Lake Arrowhead, owned by the 
Arrowhead Lake Association, is a 48,000 af reservoir that provides recreational opportunities and 
water supply for lakeshore residents. Littlerock Dam on Littlerock Creek impounds a 2,700 af 
reservoir that provides water supply for the Palmdale area in Antelope Valley. 

Water Demands and Supplies 

The water budget for the South Lahontan Region is shown in Table 9-8. Increased 
environmental water demands from recently settled court actions involving LADWP's water 
diversions from the Owens Valley and Mono Lake are included in the base water budget. A 
pending order issued by the air pollution control district in 1 997 which could increase 
environmental water demands in the region by an additional 51 taf per year. This increase is not 
included in the water budget because LADWP is planning to appeal the order. This subject is 
discussed in the local water resources management issues section. 



9-23 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-8. South Lahontan Region Water Demands and Supplies 

(taf) 





1995 




2020 






Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 


Urban 


238 


238 


619 


619 


Agricultural 


332 


332 


257 


257 


Environmental 


107 


81 


107 


81 


Total Applied Water 


676 


651 


983 


957 


Supplies 


Surface Water 


322 


259 


545 


441 


Groundwater 


239 


273 


227 


279 


Recycled and/or Desalted 


27 


27 


27 


27 


Total Supplies 


587 


559 


799 


747 


Shortages 


89 


92 


184 


210 



Los Angeles Aqueduct 

The Los Angeles Aqueduct is the region's major water development feature, although the 
aqueduct does not serve water to the region. In 1913, the first Los Angeles aqueduct was 
completed and began conveying water fi-om the Mono-Owens area to the city of Los Angeles. A 
second Los Angeles aqueduct was completed in 1970. The aqueducts were designed to divert the 
flows of streams tributary to Mono Lake, as well as Owens River water. The combined carrying 
capacity of both aqueducts amounts to 780 cfs. Both aqueducts terminate at the 10,000 af Los 
Angeles Reservoir in the South Coast region. The first aqueduct begins at the intake on Lee 
Vining Creek and the second begins at Haiwee Reservoir. 

There are seven major reservoirs in the LAA system with a combined storage capacity of 
about 325,000 af (Table 9-9). These reservoirs were constructed to store and regulate flows in the 
aqueduct. The northernmost reservoir is Grant Lake Reservoir in Mono County with a capacity 
of 47,600 af Crowley Lake Reservoir, also located in Mono County is the system's largest with 
a capacity of 184,200 af. Six of the seven reservoirs are located in the South Lahontan region. 
Bouquet Reservoir is in the South Coast region. 



9-24 DRAFT 



47,600 


Mono 


184,200 


Mono 


3,000 


Inyo 


16,300 


Inyo 


39,300 


Inyo 


500 


Los Angeles 


33,800 


Los Angeles 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-9. Los Angeles Aqueduct System Reservoirs' 
Reservoir Name Capacity (af) County 

Grant Lake 

Crowley Lake 

Pleasant Valley 

Tinemaha 

Haiwee 

Fairmont 

Bouquet 

^ All reservoirs are located in the South Lahontan Region except Bouquet 

On its way to Los Angeles, water from both aqueducts passes through 1 1 power plants. 
The energy generated is over 1 billion kWh, enough to supply the needs of 220,000 homes. 
State Water Project 

The East Branch of the California Aqueduct follows the northern edge of the San Gabriel 
Mountains, bringing imported water to Silverwood Lake. Table 9-10 shows SWP contractors in 
the region and their contractual entitlements. 



Table 9-10. SWP Contractors in the South Lahontan Region 

Contractor Entitlement (af) 1995 Deliveries (af) 

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 138,400 47,300 

Crestline-Lake Arrowhead 5,800 411 

Littlerock Creek Irrigation District 2,300 480 

Mojave Water Agency 50,800' 8,722 

Palmdale Water District 17,300 6,961 

^ Kffectlve January I. 1998. MWA assumes 25,000 af of KCWA's entitlement which will increase MWA's 
entitlement to 75.800. 

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, the largest SWP contractor in the region, 
serves 5 major and 16 small municipal agencies, as well as Edwards AFB, Palmdale Air Force 
Plant 42, and US Borax and Chemical Facilities. AVEK was formed to bring imported water 
into the area. 

MWA was created in 1 960 in response to declining groundwater levels in the area. All 
communities within MWA's boundaries have no source of supply other than groundwater. 

9-25 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Communities served by MWA include Barstow, Apple Valley, Hesperia, and Victorville. (Most 
of MWA's service area is within the South Lahontan region. Part of the service area extends into 
the Lucerne and Johnson valleys, and the Morongo Basin in the Colorado River hydrologic 
region; 7,257 af of MWA's SWP entitlement is allocated to that area.) 

MWA has taken little of its SWP entitlement to date, due to lack of conveyance facilities. 
In 1994, MWA completed its Morongo Basin pipeline, a 70-mile pipeline with a capacity of 100 
cfs from the East Branch to the Mojave River (7 miles) and then 20 cfs to the Morongo Basin 
and Johnson Valley. This pipeline allows MWA to bring Project water into part of its large 
(almost 5,000 square miles) service area. In 1997, MWA began construction of its 70-mile long 
Mojave River Pipeline (94 cfs capacity) to bring imported water to Barstow and neighboring 
cities. The El Mirage aqueduct is the next proposed addition to its distribution system. The 
aqueduct would deliver approximately 4,000 af of imported water from the SWP East Branch 
near the Los Angeles/San Bernardino county line to the westernmost subarea of the Mojave 
River basin near El Mirage. The imported water would be used to recharge the area's overdrafted 
groundwater basin. 

In 1997, the MWA and Berrenda-Mesa Water District (a member agency of KCWA) 
concluded the permanent transfer of 25,000 af of SWP entitlement, thereby increasing MWA's 
total entitlement to 75,800 af 
Local Surface Water Supplies 

The Mammoth Community Water District supplies the town of Mammoth Lakes, located 
at the northern end of the region. About 70 percent of MCWD's supply comes from Lake Mary, 
the largest of a number of small alpine lakes in the Mono Lakes basin. At present, the remainder 
of MCWD's supply comes from groundwater. Although MCWD serves a permanent population 
of only about 5,000 people, its average daily population is about 13,000, with peak weekends and 
holiday periods reaching 30,000 people per day. These wide fluctuations in service levels above 
the base population are typical of the recreational and resort communities in the area. 

Although the Mojave River appears on maps as a major waterway in the region, it is an 
ephemeral stream for much of its length. Local communities extract groundwater, which is 
recharged by river flows, but do not directly divert significant amounts of surface water from the 

9-26 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Siena and Colorado River 



river. There is one dam on the Mojave River at the edge of the San Bernardino Mountains — 
Mojave River Forks Dam, a USAGE flood control facility. 

The 2,700 af capacity Littlerock Reservoir provides water supply to Littlerock Creek 
Irrigation District and to Palmdale Water District. During a recent seismic rehabilitation of the 
1924-vintage dam, PWD fiinded part of the work in exchange for access to the water supply. 
Water from Littlerock Reservoir may be released into a ditch that conveys flows to PWD's Lake 
Palmdale, a 3,900 af storage reservoir. 

Bs-Photo: renovated Littlerock Creek dam 

Lake Arrowhead in the San Bernardino Mountains is used primarily for recreational 
purposes, but also provides water supply to homeowners' association members. 
Groundwater Supplies 

Historically, the South Lahontan Region has relied mostly on groundwater, which is the 
only water supply available in some parts of the region. Groundwater basin capacities in both 
the Mojave River and Antelope Valley Planning Study Areas, for example, total about 70 maf 
each. (Economically usable storage is significantly less than this amount.) Water quality 
influences the groundwater availability. Some areas in the Mono-Owens area have highly 
mineralized groundwater due to geothermal activity, while saline groundwater is not uncommon 
in areas near playa lakes. Several of the region's groundwater basins are in overdraft. 



9-27 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Searles Lake 

The Mojave Desert has numerous play a lakes, dry or semi-dry lakebeds that occupy 
topographic low points in closed drainage basins. Playa lakes contain surface water only 
briefly after the region's infrequent rains. There may, however, be high groundwater levels 
immediately beneath an apparently dry lakebed. Groundwater found near these lakebeds is 
usually too mineralized for most beneficial uses, because salts have been concentrated (over 
thousands of years) in lakebed deposits during evaporation of the surface waters. Searles 
Lake in northwestern San Bernardino County is an example of an extremely mineralized playa 
lake. 

Within geologic time, California's climate was much wetter than it is today. During 
the late Quaternary Period, the Owens River flowed into several (now dry) lakes in the 
Mojave Desert, filling Searles Lake to a depth of over 600 feet. Long-term deposition of 
evaporates in the lakebed created thick layers of salts and borate minerals. These deposits 
have been the basis of extensive mining operations at the lake, estimated to have produced 
more that $1 billion dollars worth of mineral commodities. 

Borax mining at the lakebed began as early as 1874. Current mining techniques entail 
pumping brines from lakebed sediments and processing them at onsite chemical plants to 
produce commodities such as sodium carbonate, sodium borate, and sodium sulfate. These 
chemicals are used in the manufacture of drugs, dyes, glass, glaze, paper, soap, detergent, 
enamel, chemical products, abrasives, gasoline additives, fire retardants, and metal alloys. 



The Mojave River groundwater basin is a large alluvial formation in the Mojave Desert, 
the only local water source for residents in the western third of San Bernardino County (part of 
the basin is in the Colorado River Region). The Mojave River and groundwater basin act as one 
water source, with the river providing the only major recharge to the basin and groundwater 
discharging in several places to provide surface flows in the Mojave River. The basin is divided 
into subareas at hydrogeologic boundaries including the Helendale and Waterman faults. The 
operational storage capacity of the basin is about 4.9 maf, but currently there is about 3.0 maf of 
water in storage. Due to overextractions the basin has experienced declining groundwater levels 
(see Mojave River Basin Adjudication section). 

The Antelope Valley groundwater basin underlies the closed drainage in the westernmost 
part of the Mojave Desert in northern Los Angeles and southeastern Kern counties. It provides 
most of the local water supplies to users in the high desert from the San Gabriel Mountains to the 
Sierras, including Edwards Air Force Base. Agricultural pumping from the basin has declined 

9-28 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



for several decades while urban extraction has increased as a result of the rapid increase in 
population. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Owens Valley Area 

At the turn of the century, the City of Los Angeles faced a severe shortage of water due 
to a growing urban population. In 1913, the City of Los Angeles completed its first aqueduct 
from Owens Valley to the City of Los Angeles. This aqueduct has a carrying capacity of 480 cfs. 
Due to increased population and industries in Los Angeles, a second aqueduct was completed in 
1970 with a capacity of 300 cfs. LADWP diverts both surface water and groundwater from the 
Owens Valley and surface water from the Mono Basin. 

In 1972, the County of Inyo filed a suit against the City of Los Angeles claiming that 
increased groundwater pumping for the second aqueduct was harming the Owens Valley 
environment. Inyo County asked that LADWP "s groundwater pumping be analyzed in an 
Environmental Impact Report. LADWP prepared an EIR in 1 976 and another in 1 979, both of 
which the Third District Court of Appeal found inadequate. In 1983, Inyo County and LADWP 
decided to work together to develop an EIR and water management plan that would settle the 
litigation. 

A third EIR was prepared jointly by LADWP and Inyo County and released in 1990. In 
1 99 1 , both parties executed a long-term water management agreement delineating how 
groundwater pumping and surface water diversions would be managed to avoid significant 
decreases in vegetation, water-dependent recreational uses and wildlife habitat. However, 
several agencies, organizations, and individuals challenged the adequacy of the EIR and in 1993 
were granted aniici curiae status by the Court of Appeals, allowing them to enter in the EIR 
review process. An MOU was agreed to in 1997, ending more than 25 years of litigation 
between Los Angeles and Inyo County. 

Los Angeles and Inyo County have now begun discussions on how to implement 
provisions of the 1991 agreement, 1990 EIR, and 1997 MOU. Timelines for many provisions 
have already been developed and plans for such major activities as re- watering the Lower Owens 
river are under review. 

9-29 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Surface water diversions from the Owens Valley have dried up Owens Lake since the 
1930s. On windy days, the dust from the dried lake bed creates health and safety concerns in 
neighboring communities. In July 1 997. the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 
issued an order to control Owens Lake dust. Under the order, 8,400 acres of the lake bed would 
be permanently flooded with a few inches of water, another 8,700 acres would be planted with 
grass and irrigated, while 5,300 acres would be covered with a four-inch layer of gravel. This 
order could cost the City of Los Angeles 51 taf of water a year or about 15 percent of LADWP's 
supply. The city is planning to appeal the order. 
Mono Basin 

Mono Lake, located just east of Yosemite National Park at the base of the eastern Sierra 
Nevada, is the second largest lake completely within California. It has long been recognized as a 
valuable environmental resource because of its scenic and biological characteristics. The area is 
famous for its tufa towers and spires, structures formed by years of mineral deposition by the 
lake's saline waters. The lake has no outlet and there are two islands in the lake that provide a 
protected breeding area for large colonies of California gulls and a haven for migrating 
waterfowl. 

Much of the water flowing into Mono Lake comes from snowmelt runoff in fresh water 
creeks. Since 1941, LADWP has diverted water from Lee Vining, Walker, Parker, and Rush 
creeks into tunnels and pipelines that carry the water to the Owens Valley drainage; it is 
eventually transferred, together with Owens River flows, to Los Angeles via the Los Angeles 
Aqueduct. 

Diversions of instream flow from its tributaries lowered Mono Lake's water level to an 
historic low of 6,372 feet above sea level in 1981. With decreased inflow of fresh water, the 
lake's salinity increased dramatically. In addition, when water levels drop to 6,375 feet or lower, 
a land bridge to Negit Island is created, allowing predators to reach gull rookeries; this first 
happened in 1 978 and again during the 1 987-92 drought. 

As a result of these impacts, the lake and its tributaries have been the subject of extensive 
litigation between the Los Angeles and environmental groups since the late 1970s. In 1983, the 
California Supreme Court ruled that SWRCB has authority to reexamine past water allocation 
decisions and the responsibility to protect public trust resources where feasible. Following a long 

9-30 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



series of court decisions which mandated protection for the lake, the SWRCB issued a final 
decision on Mono Lake (Decision 1631) in 1994. The amendments to LA's water right licenses 
are set forth in the order accompanying the decision. 

The order sets instream flow requirements for the protection offish in each of the four 
streams from which LADWP diverts water. The order also establishes water diversion criteria to 
protect wildlife and other environmental resources in the Mono Basin. These water diversion 
criteria: (1) prohibit the export of water from the Mono Basin until the water level of Mono Lake 
reaches 6,377 feet above mean sea level; and (2) restrict Mono Basin water exports to allow the 
water level of Mono Lake to rise to an elevation of 6,391 feet in about 20 years. Once the water 
level of 6,391 feet is reached, it is expected that LADWP will be able to export about 30.8 taf of 
water per year from the Mono Basin. The order also requires LADWP to prepare restoration 
plans to restore the four streams from which it diverts water and to restore a portion of the 
waterfowl habitat which was lost due to the decline of Mono Lake. In May 1997, parties to the 
restoration planning process presented a signed settlement on Mono Basin restoration to the 
SWRCB. If approved, the settlement would guide restoration activities and annual monitoring 
through 2014. The parties to the settlement include LADWP, the Mono Lake Committee, DFG, 
State Lands Commission, DPR. California Trout, National Audubon Society, USPS, BLM, and 
The Trust for Public Land. 

The main thrust of the restoration plan is to restore the natural processes that created the 
Mono Basin's stream and waterfowl habitats. Key features of stream restoration plan include: 

• restoration of peak flows to Rush, Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker creeks; 

• reopening certain abandoned channels in Rush Creek; and 

• a monitoring plan with specific criteria for restoration 

One of the restoration actions required by the SWRCB — bypassing sediment around 
LADWP diversion dams — was deferred for further analysis. 

The waterfowl habitat restoration plan proposes a Mono Basin Waterfowl Habitat 
Restoration Foundation to administer a $3.6 million trust fund established by LADWP. Five of 
the parties to the agreement would serve as initial members of the foundation. Activities would 
include annual monitoring, restoring open water habitat adjacent to the lake, and rewatering Mill 
Creek. LADWP would continue its brine shrimp productivity studies, open several channels on 

9-31 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Rush Creek, and make its Mill Creek water rights available for rewatering Mill Creek, based on 
the recommendations of the foundation. 

The plans are being held under consideration by the SWRCB and a decision is expected 
at the end of 1 997. 
Mojave River Adjudication 

The Mojave River groundwater basin has experienced overdraft conditions since the early 
1950s. The largest increase in overdraft occurred in the 1980s. About 80 percent of the total 
basin recharge comes from the Mojave River. In 1990, the City of Barstow filed a complaint with 
the San Bernardino Superior Court requesting an average annual guaranteed flow of 30 taf to 
mitigate reduced runoff and declining groundwater levels in the Barstow area. The complaint 
also requested a writ of mandate against the MWA to compel it to import water from the State 
Water Project. MWA filed a cross-complaint requesting a determination of water rights in the 
basin. 

In October 1991, the court ordered that the litigation be placed on hold to give the parties 
time to negotiate a settlement and to develop a solution to the overdraft. A Mojave Basin 
adjudication committee was formed. To facilitate data gathering and drafting a stipulated 
judgment and physical solution. The court's final ruling on basin adjudication was issued in 
January 1996. In its ruling, the court emphasized that the area has been in overdraft for decades 
and that MWA must alleviate overdraft through conservation and purchase of supplemental 
water. MWA was appointed as the basin Watermaster. 

The adjudication stipulated that any party pumping more than 10 acre-feet per year 
becomes a party to the judgment and is bound by it. The judgment states that each party has a 
right to its base annual production, which was its highest usage between 1 986 and 1 990. 
However, the judgment also requires MWA to reduce this amount by at least 5 percent each year 
for four years as one way to achieve a physical solution to the longstanding overdraft. Any party 
exceeding its annual allotment must purchase replenishment water from MWA or from other 
parties to the judgment. If there is still overdraft after the end of the first five years of the 
stipulated judgment, then water use in the basin subareas in overdraft will be further reduced. 
The judgment recognizes five basin subareas and requires that if an upstream subarea does not 

9-32 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern S/erra and Colorado River 



meet its obligation to a downstream subarea, the upstream area must provide the costs of 
supplemental water. 

Supplemental water to the Mojave River basin will come from MWA's SWP entitlement, 
or from purchases from willing sellers, and will be delivered through the California Aqueduct. In 
March 1997, MWA began constructing its Mojave River pipeline, extending about 70 miles from 
the California Aqueduct to Newberry Springs, a rural community east of Barstow. MWA also 
recently purchased the permanent right to 25 taf of additional SWP annual entitlement, nearly a 
50 percent increase from the agency's previous entitlement. The combination of reduced 
pumping, increased SWP deliveries and other imports, and new delivery facilities are expected to 
reduce overdraft in the Mojave River basin. 
Antelope Valley Water Management 

The Antelope Valley Water Group was formed in 1991 to provide coordination among 
valley agencies water interests. AVWG members include the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster, 
Edwards AFB, AVEK, Antelope Valley United Water Purveyors Assocation, Los Angeles 
County Waterworks Districts, PWD, Rosamond Community Services District, and Los Angeles 
County. In an attempt to prepare a water resources study with a regional focus, AVWG initiated 
an Antelope Valley Water Resources Study, which was completed in 1995. 

The Antelope Valley Water Resources Study evaluated the valley's existing and fiiture 
water supplies from groundwater, the SWP, Little Rock Reservoir, and recycling, and compared 
these supplies with projected water demands. The study concluded that water supply reliability is 
low in the study area — full 1 998 demands will be met only half the time without overdrafting 
groundwater resources. The study recommended several water conservation, recycling, and 
conjunctive use measures to reduce expected shortages. 

The study identified three sites (two on Amargosa Creek and one on Little Rock Creek) 
with high potential for groundwater recharge through spreading and identified SWP water, 
recycled water, and natural runoff as potential source for recharge through spreading. The study 
also identified several potential groundwater injection sites within existing Los Angeles County 
Waterworks and PWD municipal wellfields. Treated SWP water was identified as a potential 
source for recharge through injection. 

9-33 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



In January 1996, PWD adopted a water facilities master plan and developed a draft EIR 
for its service area. The plan updated a previous 1988 plan for which an EIR was completed in 
1989. PWD currently relies on three water soiirces: Littlerock Creek Reservoir, local 
groundwater and SWF water. The plan indicates that about 40 percent of PWD'S supply is from 
groundwater. Declining groundwater levels have been a local concern in the Palmdale area, 
although extractions presently appear to be within the basin's perennial yield. The plan also 
indicates that existing supplies are insufficient to meet dry year demands. Average year shortages 
are projected to occur by 2005. 

To meet dry year demands, the plan calls for the construction of up to 12 new production 
wells. The draft EIR identified declining groundwater levels as an unavoidable significant impact 
of the plan to construct new production wells. Several mitigation measures are recommends, 
including: conservation and restrictions during drought years; conjunctive use programs (as 
identified in the Antelope Valley Water Resources Study) in cooperation with other water users 
in the Antelope Valley; acquiring an additional 3.1 taf per year of SWP entitlements; participate 
in water transfers; and develop reclaimed water. 
Interstate Groundwater Basins 

California and Nevada share the use of three interstate groundwater basins in the South 
Lahontan region: Fish Lake Valley, crossed by Highway 168 east of Westgard Pass; Pahrump 
Valley, located to the east of Death Valley; and Mesquite Valley, just south of Pahrump Valley. 
On the California side of the border, groundwater extraction supports small-scale agricultural 
development, largely for alfalfa. Pahrump Valley is the most populated of the three valleys, with 
the majority of the development located on the Nevada side of the stateline, in and around the 
community of Pahrump. Pahrump and Mesquite valleys are within about 35 miles of the rapidly 
growing Las Vegas metropolitan area. In the early 1990s, the Southern Nevada Water Authority 
proposed exporting groundwater from several rural counties in central Nevada to help meet Las 
Vegas's rapidly increasing need for water. However, opposition by rural Nevada counties to 
SNWA's proposal caused SNWA to defer this project. Inyo County residents have historically 
been concerned about the proximity of Los Vegas to the interstate basins, although no new 
interstate issues have come up since SNWA's proposed project. 

9-34 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Water Management Options for South Lahontan Region 

Agencies throughout the region are in various stages of developing plans to improve 
water service reliability of their service areas. Table 9-1 1 shows the comprehensive options list 
for the South Lahontan Region. Only two local options were retained for the evaluation (see 
Table 9A-2 in Appendix 9A). 
Water Conservation 

Urban. No significant depletion reductions due to urban conservation are expected in 
this region. Most wastewater treatment plant effluent is used to recharge the region's depleted 
groundwater basins, and outdoor landscape water use in the region is already at about O.8ET0. 

Agricultural. As with the urban water management options, only those agricultural 
conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. Increased investment in 
low-volume irrigation technology and changes in water management practices such as increased 
use of irrigation scheduling or irrigation management to attain seasonal application efficiencies 
of 76 percent to 80 percent were evaluated as agricultural conservation options. It is estimated 
that water savings of less than 1 taf could be achieved in this region, since most users are already 
irrigating at high efficiencies. Options for flexible water delivery and canal lining and piping are 
not feasible in this region because most water supply comes from individual wells with minimal 
conveyance facilities. 
Modify Existing Reser>'oirs/Operations 

Sediment has accumulated behind the dam of Littlerock Reservoir and minor additional 
yield could be realized by removing the sediment. Studies are now underway to evaluate the 
costs and benefits of this option. Preliminary estimates indicate that the cost of this option is in 
the order of $2,000 per af. Because of the high costs, this option was deferred. 
New Reservoirs 

There are no proposed new reservoir developments in this region. The region's aridity 
and consequent lack of surface water resources make new reservoirs infeasible. Future local 
water resources development will be based on groundwater sources. 



9-35 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Category 



Table 9-11. South Lahonta n Region Comprehensive List of Options 

Reason for Deferral 



Option 



Retain 

or 
Defer 



Conservation 
Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to O.8ET0 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 

Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements 
Flexible Water Delivery 
Canal Lining and Piping 
Tailwater Recovery 



Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 

Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

Remove sediment from Littlerock Reservoir 



Defer Excessive high costs for additional yield. 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 




— 





Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Mojave Water Agency 
Palmdale Water District 


Retain 
Retain 




Water Recycling 

Water recycling options 




Defer 


Water recycling options identified in the 1995 survey for 
this region does not generate new water supply. 



Desalination 

Brackish Groundwater 



Seawater 



Other Local Options 

Line Palmdale Ditch 

Reduce Outflow to Playa Lakes 



Defer No net increase in supply. 

Defer Restrictions on use of flows that provide recharge to 
overdraft basins. Costs are high and water quality is poor. 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program Retain 

SWP Interim South Delta Program Retain 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program Retain 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program Retain 

Enlarge Shasta Lake Retain 



9-36 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Water Transfers and Banking 

The California Aqueduct could convey purchased water to MWA's distribution system 
for region's rapidly urbanizing areas. As previously noted, MWA just completed the permanent 
purchase and transfer of 25,000 af of SWP entitlement water from Berrenda-Mesa Water District 
in the San Joaquin Valley. MWA is also pursuing two demonstration water transfer projects of 
2,000 af each. PWD is also seeking to transfer 3,100 af of SWP contractual entitlement from 
Central Valley agricultural water purveyors. Other voluntary water transfers could be developed 
through option agreements, storage programs, and purchases of water through the drought water 
bank or other similar spot markets. 

Capacity has been developed to store additional imported supplies in the Mojave River 
basin at MWA's Rock Springs groundwater recharge facility near Hesperia. Additional recharge 
facilities in the Barstow area are in the final planning stages, which would further increase 
MWA's ability to take delivery of imported supplies when its Mojave River Aqueduct is 
completed. Sufficient basin storage is available to store water in wet years when more SWP 
supplies or purchased supplies might be available. 
Water Recycling 

Water recycling options are deferred for this region because planned projects reported in 
the 1995 DWR and WateReuse survey would not generate new supply. 
Other Local Options 

Line Palmdale Ditch. The ditch that conveys water from Litterock Reservoir to 
Palmdale Lake has an estimated 20 percent conveyance loss, which could be reduced by canal 
lining. Canal lining would reduce groundwater recharge by an estimated 7,000 af, resuhing in no 
net increase in water supply. This option was deferred. 

Reduce Outflow to Playa Lakes. Some of the flow of the Mojave River reaches Soda 
Lake, a playa, where the flow is lost to evaporation. Outflow past Afton Canyon averages 8,400 
af per year; however, the basin adjudication restricts use of flows, that provide recharge to 
downstream subareas of the basin that are in overdraft. This option was deferred. 

Likewise, local storm runoff collects in many small playas throughout the basin. These 
playas generally do not contribute to groundwater recharge, due to the low permeability of playa 
soils. Water collected in the playas evaporates, rather than recharging groundwater. Diversion 

9-37 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



or collection of runoff to playas and recharging it to groundwater basins could result in increased 
groundwater supplies by elimination of the evaporation. Six dry lakebeds could potentially store 
an additional 1,800 af perhaps once every five years. Costs for this option are $1,000 to $3,300 
per af Water quality at the playas is generally poor, with high levels of salts and minerals. This 
option was deferred. 
Statewide Options 

Active planning for statewide water supply options is being done currently for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and for SWP future supply. See Chapter 6 for discussion on 
statewide water supply augmentation options. [The following text on statewide supplies has 
placeholders for potential outcomes of CALFED process. Text will be changed as CALFED 
results become available. No decisions have yet been made as to CALFED Bay-Delta program 
facilities or allocation or their yield.] 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Improving conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
River Delta would increase SWP supply reliability. For illustrative purposes, assuming improved 
Delta conditions through the implementation of CALFED alternatives, additional SWP yield to 
the region could be 8,000 and 9,000 af in average and drought years, respectively. 

State Water Project Improvements. As additional conveyance facilities to deliver SWP 
water to the region are constructed, reliability of SWP supplies will become more critical. The 
Department has three programs underway which would improve SWP yields to its contractors in 
the South Lahontan region. These programs are discussed in Chapter 6. The ISDP would 
augment SWP supplies to the region by 10 taf and 7 taf in average and drought years, 
respectively. The American Basin Conjunctive Use Program would provide 7 taf to the region in 
drought years, and the Supplemental Water Purchase Program could provide an additional 1 1 taf 
in drought years. 

Enlarged Shasta Lake. Enlarging Shasta to 13 maf of storage would increase drought 
year yield by about 1 .5 maf If we assume one-third of this yield is allocated to the environment, 
and the remaining two-third is allocated among the State and federal projects, the South 
Lahontan Region could potentially receive 34 taf and 38 taf in average and drought years 
respectively. 

9-38 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Water Resources Management Plan for the South Lahontan Region 

By 2020, water shortages for the region are estimated to be 1 84 taf and 2 1 taf in average 
and drought years respectively. Most of the region's shortage will be in the Mojave River 
planning subarea which will have average and drought year shortages. Water shortages in the 
Antelope Valley subarea are forecast only in drought years. 

Table 9-12 shows the ranking of options. The most likely options to be implemented to 
meet future shortages in this region (Table 9-13) will involve SWP supplies and water transfers 
conveyed by the California Aqueduct. 

Improving SWP supply reliability through a Delta fix would also provide the region with 
additional supply. 



Table 9-12. South Lahontan Region Options Evaluation 



Option 



Cost Potential Gain 

Rank P^'' ^^ (taf) 

($) 

'^ Avg Drt 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Mojave Water Agency 
Palmdale Water District 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program 

SWP Interim South Delta Program 

SWP American Basin Conjunctive Use Program 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program 

Enlarge Shasta Lake 



150 
175 



10 



34 



9 

7 

7 

11 

38 



9-39 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-13. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 

South Lahontan Region 

Potential Gain 
Option (taf) 



Avg Drt 



Shortage 184 210 

Conservation 

Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 

New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 7 7 

Recycling 

Desalination 

Statewide Options 

Total Potential Gain 
Remaining Shortage 



18 


23 


25 


30 


159 


180 



9-40 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Colorado River Hydrologic Region 

Description of the Area 

The Colorado River Region encompasses the southeastern comer of California. The 
region's northern boundary, a drainage divide, begins along the southern edge of the Mojave 
River watershed in the Victor Valley area of San Bernardino County and extends northeast 
across the Mojave Desert to the Nevada state line. The southern boundary is the Mexican border. 
A drainage divide forms the jagged western boundary through the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, 
and Santa Rosa mountains, and the Peninsular Ranges (which include the Laguna Mountains). 
The Nevada state line and the Colorado River (the boundary with Arizona) delineate the region's 
eastern boundary. (See Figure 9-4) 

Covering over 12 percent of the total land area in the State, the region is California's most 
arid. It includes volcanic mountain ranges and hills; distinctive sand dunes; broad areas of 
Joshua tree, alkali scrub, and cholla communities; and elevated river terraces. Much of the 
region's topography consists of flat plains punctuated by numerous hills and mountain ranges. 
The San Andreas fault traverses portions of the Coachella and Imperial valleys. A prominent 
topographic feature is the Salton Trough in the south-central part of the region. 

The climate for most of the region is subtropical desert. Average annual precipitation is 
much higher in the western mountains than in the desert areas. Winter snows generally fall 
above 5,000 feet; snow depths can reach several feet at the highest levels during winter. Most of 
the precipitation in the region falls during the winter; however, summer thunderstorms can 
produce rain and local flooding in many areas. Despite its dry climate and rugged terrain, the 
region contains productive agricultural areas and popular vacation resorts. Table 9-14 shows the 
region's population and crop acreage for 1995 and 2020. 



Table 9-14. 


Population and Crop Acreage 
(in thousands) 






7995 


2020 


Population 
Irrigated Crop Acres 




533 
749 


1,096 
750 



9 41 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Figure 9-4. Colorado River Hydrologic Region 

< 




N^ 








Parker i^ 
Dam ,•" 






/ 




_._-----( 


^X' 


-n 


Headgat« 


' ' 


1 


Rock Dam 




y 






\ 






s 






\ 






\ 






\ 


■<c 


R S 1 


\ 


2: 




Palo Verde ^ 
Diversion Dam / 


o 




N) 




/ 


^ 




- - - - - ^^^ 


a: 




\ ^ 



) 

M P E R 1 A L ' Imperial 

\ « Dam 



Senator ' 
Wash T* 



^■«^ *«» American £■ - 



10 20 30 



SCALE IN MILES 



9-42 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Most of the population is concentrated in the Coacheila and Imperial valleys. Major cities 
in the Coacheila Valley include Palm Springs, Indio, and Palm Desert. Other urban centers in the 
region are the Cities of El Centro, Brawley, and Calexico in Imperial Valley; the cities of 
Beaumont and Banning in the San Gorgonio Pass area; and the cities of Needles and Blythe 
along the Colorado River. Urban development in the Coacheila Valley is proceeding rapidly. 
■a-Photo: date palms in Coacheila Valley 

Agriculture is an important source of income for the region. Almost 90 percent of the 
developed private land is used for agriculture, most of which is in the Imperial, Coacheila, and 
Palo Verde valleys. The primary crops are alfalfa, winter vegetables, spring melons, table 
grapes, dates, Sudan grass, and wheat. Recreation and tourism are another important source of 
income for the region. In Coacheila Valley, the Palm Springs area and adjoining cove 
communities are an important resort and winter golf destination. Recreational opportunities 
provided by the more than 90 golf courses in the Coacheila Valley, water-based recreation on the 
Colorado River and Salton Sea, and desert camping all contribute to the area's economy. 

Water Demands and Supplies 

Table 9-15 shows the water budget for the Colorado River Region. Agricultural water 
demand makes up the majority of the water use in the region. There are two major areas where 
water is used for wildlife habitat in the region, the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge and the 
Imperial Wildlife Area. There are also several private wetlands. 

About 90 percent of the region's water supply is from surface deliveries from the 
Colorado River (through the Ail-American and Coacheila Canals, local diversions, and the 
Colorado River Aqueduct by means of an exchange for SWP water). Other supplies are from 
groundwater, SWP water, local surface water, and recycled water. Groundwater overdraft in 
1995 was estimated to be about 70 taf 

Major water agencies in the region are the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial 
Irrigation District, Coacheila Valley Water District, Bard Water District, Mojave Water Agency, 
Desert Water Agency, and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. 

Water shortages are expected under both average and drought conditions in the Colorado 
River Region. The primary shortages with existing supplies are expected to occur in the 

9-43 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Coachella planning subarea because of groundwater overdraft. (In the future, reduction in 

California's Colorado River water use from 5.3 maf to 4.4 maf will create an average year 

shortage in the South Coast Region. This year 2020 shortage is shown in the South Coast water 

budget.) 

Table 9-15. Colorado River Region Water Demands and Supplies 

(taf) 





1995 


2020 




Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Applied Water 


Urban 

Agricultural 

Environmental 


418 

4,118 

39 


418 

4,118 

38 


740 

3,583 

44 


740 

3,583 

43 


Total Applied Water 


4,575 


4,574 


4,367 


4,366 


Supplies 


Surface Water 

Groundwater 

Recycled and/or Desalted 


4,154 

337 

15 


4,128 

337 
15 


4,023 
251 

15 


4,013 

250 

15 


Total Supplies 


4,506 


4,479 


4,288 


4,278 


Shortages 


69 


95 


79 


88 



Supplies from the Colorado River 

Most of the water supply in the region comes from the Colorado River, an interstate (and 
international) river whose runoff is apportioned among the seven Colorado River Basin states by 
a complex body of statutes, decrees, and court decisions known collectively as the law of the 
river. Table 9-16 summarizes key elements of the law of the river. USBR acts as the watermaster 
for the Colorado River, and all users of Colorado River water must contract with USBR for their 
supplies. Figure 9-4 shows the location of key Colorado River storage and conveyance facilities. 

Within California, local agencies' allocation of Colorado River water was established 
under the Seven Party Agreement (Table 9-17). Furthermore, all uses occurring within a state 
are charged to that state's allocation under the law of the river. Thus, federal water uses or uses 
associated with federal reserved rights (e.g., tribal water rights) must also be accommodated 



9-44 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



within California's basic apportionment of 4.4 maf per year plus one-half of any available surface 

water. 

Table 9-16. Key Elements of the Law of the River 



Document 



Date 



Main Purpose 



Colorado River Compact 



1922 Equitable apportionment of the river among the two basins. The Upper 

Basin (Wyoming. Colorado, New Mexico. Utah) and the Lower Basin 
(California, Nevada, Arizona) are each provided a basic apportionment 
of 7.5 maf annually of consumptive use. The Lower Basin is given the 
right to increase its consumptive use an additional 1 maf annually. 



Boulder Canyon Project Act 



1928 Authorizes USBR to construct Boulder (Hoover) Dam and the All 

American Canal (including the Coachella branch), and gives 
congressional consent to the Colorado River Compact. Also provides 
that all users of Colorado River water must enter into a contract with 
DOI for the water. 



California Limitation Act 



1929 Limits California's share of the 7.5 maf annually apportioned to the 

Lower Basin to 4.4 maf annually, plus no more than half of any 
surplus waters. 



Seven Party Agreement 



1931 An agreement among PVID, IID, CVWD. MWDSC, city of LA, City 

of SD, and County of SD to divide California's apportionment among 
the California water users. Details are shown in Table 9-17. 



U.S. - Mexican Treaty 



1944 



Guarantees Mexico a supply of 1.5 maf annually of Colorado River 
water. 



Arizona v. California 



1964 Apportions the Lower Basin's 7.5 maf annually among California (4.4 

maf annually), Arizona (2.8 maf annually), and Nevada (0.3 maf 
annually). Also quantities tribal water rights for specified tribes, 
including 131.400 af for diversion in California. 



Colorado River Basin Project Act 1968 



Requires Secretary of the Interior to prepare long-range operating 
criteria for major Colorado River reservoirs. 



Arizona v. California 



1979 



Quantifies present perfected rights in the Lower Basin states. 



9-45 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Siena and Colorado River 



Table 9-17. Apportionment of the Colorado River 

(all amounts represent consumptive use) 

Interstate/International 

Upper Basin States 7.5 maf 

(Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, small portion of Arizona) 

Lower Basin States 7.5 maf 

(Arizona, Nevada, California) 

Arizona 2.8 maf 

Nevada 0.3 maf 

California 4.4 maf 

Additional Lower Basin apportionment, if water available 

Arizona 46% 

Nevada 4% 

California 50% 

Republic of Mexico' 1.5 maf 

Plus 200 taf of surplus water, when available. Water delivered to Mexico must meet salinity requirements specified in 
Minute 242 of the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. 



I ntrastate ( Seven Party Agreement ) 



Priority 1 Palo Verde Irrigation District (based on area of 104,500 ac) 

Priority 2 Lands in California served by USSR's Yuma Project (not to exceed 25,000 ac) 

Priority 3 Imperial Irrigation District and lands served from the All American Canal in Imperial and 

Coachella Valleys; and, Palo Verde Irrigation District for use on 16,000 ac in the Lower Palo 



Verde Mesa. 



Priorities I through 3, collectively, are allocated 3.85 maf There is no specified division of that amount among 
the three priorities. 

Priority 4 MWDSC for coastal plain of Southern California - 550,000 af 

Priority 5 An additional 550,000 af to MWDSC, and 1 12,000 af for the City and County of San Diego^ 

Priority 6 Imperial Irrigation District and lands served from the AH American Canal in Imperial and 

Coachella Valleys, and Palo Verde Irrigation District for 16,000 ac in the Lower Palo Verde Mesa, 
for a total of 300,000 af 

Priority 7 All remaining water available for use in California, for agricultural use in California's Colorado 
River Basin. 

Total of Priorities 1 through 6 is 5.362 maf 

Indian tribes and miscellaneous present perfected right holders that are not identified in California's Seven Party 
Agreement have the right to divert up to approximately 85 taf per year (equating to about 50 taf of consumptive use) 
within California's 4.4 maf basic apportionment. These users are presently consumptively using approximately 32 taf per 
year (assuming about 25 taf of unmeasured return flow). 

Subsequent to execution of the Seven Party Agreement, San Diego executed a separate agreement transferring its 
apportionment to MWDSC. 



9-46 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



The major local agencies in California using Colorado River water in the Colorado River 

Region are PVID, BWD, IID, and CVWD. The remainder of California's Colorado River water 

use occurs in the South Coast Region (Chapter 7). Figure 9-5 is a plot of California and Lower 

Basin allocations compared with historic Colorado River water use. As shown in the figure, 

California's use has historically exceeded its basic allocation, because California has been able to 

divert Arizona's and Nevada's unused apportionments, and to divert 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 virtually all of its apportionment for the first time in 

1998. The fact that California will have to reduce hs Colorado River use from current levels to 

4.4 maf annually has significant water management implications for the South Coast region. In 

calendar year 1996, the actual consumptive use of the Lower Basin states was: 

Nevada 248 taf 

Arizona 2,553 taf 

California 5,226 taf 

Total Lower Basin 8,027 taf 

Within the Colorado River Region, IID, BWD, and PVID receive virtually all of their 
supplies from the Colorado River. IID and CVWD's Colorado River supplies are diverted into 
USBR's All American Canal at Imperial Dam; CVWD is served from the Coachella Branch of 
the AAC. PVID diverts directly from the Colorado River near Blythe. BWD receives its supplies 
from facilities of USBR's Yuma Project, which serves lands in both California and Arizona. 

"s-Photo: Imperial Dam 

The interstate allocations provided in the 1922 Compact were made at a time of relatively 
wet hydrology on the Colorado River. Some have suggested that the allocations overstate the 
river's normally available water supply, even without consideration of subsequent calls on that 
water supply for tribal water rights and endangered species fishery water needs. Table 9-18 
provides an overview of average river hydrology. Although consumptive use in the Lower Basin 
is at 7.5 maf, Upper Basin use is well below that amount. Current projections are that the Upper 
Basin will not reach a consumptive use of 7.5 maf until after 2060. 



9-47 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Figure 9-5. Lower Basin Allocations and Consumptive Use (taf) 



5,000 




Z 3,000 

E 



i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 







I-ii-I-I-i-^^-*-^^^'^^^^-^ 



—♦—Calif. Use 
■ Ariz. Use 
—A — Nev. Use 
—X— Calif .Alloc. 
— I — Ariz. Alloc. 
—X— Nev. Alloc. 



1970 1975 1980 1985 



1990 1995 



9-48 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-18. Colorado River Inflow and Uses^ 

maf 
per year 

Average (1906-1990) Inflow 

Upper Basin 15.2 

Lower Basin 1.0 

TOTAL 16.2 

Current Uses 

Upper Basin 3.7 

Lower Basin^ 7.5 

Mexico LI 





Subtotal 


12.7 


Basin Evaporation and Losses 




LI 




TOTAL 


14.4 




Average Inflow into Reservoir Storage (1( 


S.2 - 14.4) 


1.8 


Prepared by the Colorado River Board of California. 

Reflects restriction on MWDSC's diversion as Central Arizona Project and Southern 
Nevada Water System diversions increase. 



Supplies from Other Sources 

Local agencies contracting with SWP for part of their supplies are shown in Table 9-19. 
T able 9-19. State Water Project Contractors In the Colorado River Regio n 

Agency 

Coachelia Valley Water District 

Desert Water Agency 

Mojave Water Agency 

San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 

^ Contract entitlement covers both South Lahontan and Colorado River regions. 7.257 af of this amount is 
allocated to Colorado River Region. 

Neither CVWD nor DWA have facilities to take direct delivery of SWP water. Instead, 
both agencies have entered into an exchange agreement with MWDSC, whereby MWDSC 
releases water from its Colorado River Aqueduct into the Whitewater River for storage in the 
upper Coachelia Valley groundwater basin. In turn, MWDSC takes delivery of an equal amount 

9-49 DRAFT 



Maximum Contract 


SWP Deliveries in 1995 


Entitlement 


(af) 


(af) 




23,100 


23,100 


38,100 


38,100 


50,800' 


8.722 


17,300 






Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



of the agencies' SWP water. San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, which serves the 
Banning/Beaumont area, also lacks the faciUties to take delivery of SWP water, and to date has 
received no actual supply from the SWP. SGPWA will receive SWP supply when the 
Department completes its extension of the East Branch of the California Aqueduct in 1998. 

Groundwater, local surface water, and wastewater reclamation provide the remaining 
supplies for this region. CVWD, working with DWA, has an active groundwater recharge 
program for the upper end of the Coachella Valley (generally, the urbanized part of the valley). 
CVWD recharges groundwater with imported supplies and with Whitewater River flows using 
percolation ponds constructed in the Windy Point area. CVWD and DWA levy an extraction fee 
on larger groimdwater users in the upper valley. 

Local Water Resources Management Issues 
Management of California's Colorado River Water 

The major water management issue in this region is California's use of Colorado River 
water in excess of its basic annual apportiormient of 4.4 maf This issue affects water users in the 
South Coast Region (Chapter 7) as well as those in Colorado River Region. In the past, Arizona 
and Nevada were not using the full amount of their basic apportionments, and California was, in 
accordance with the Law of the River, able to use the amount apportioned to, but not used by, 
Nevada and Arizona. Discussions among the seven basin states and ten Colorado River Indian 
Tribes over changes to Colorado River operating criteria and ways for California to reduce its 
Colorado River water use began as early as 1991 . The drought in northern California prompted 
California to request that USBR make surplus water available, so that maximum use could be 
made of Colorado River water in southern California. These discussions over changes to 
reservoir operations and how surplus or shortage conditions could be established continued for a 
time in a forum known as the "7/10 process." 

■s-Photo: Rockwood canal 

More recently, the California local agencies, working through the Colorado River Board, 
have been developing a proposal for discussion with the other basin states to illustrate how 
California would reduce its use to the basic apportionment of 4.4 maf Drafts of that proposal, 

9-50 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Ctiapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



referred to as California's 4.4 Plan, have been shared with the other states, and efforts are being 
made to reach intrastate consensus on the plan by the end of 1997. 

As currently formulated, the draft plan would be implemented in two phases. The first 
phase would entail implementing already identified measures (such as water conservation and 
transfers) to reduce California's Colorado River water use to an as-yet-to-be-specified amount by 
some date to be specified. The second phase would implement additional measures to reduce 
California's use to the basic 4.4 maf amount. One of the fundamental assumptions made in the 
plan is that MWDSC's Colorado River Aqueduct will be kept full, by making water transfers 
fi-om agricultural users in the Colorado River region to urban water users in the South Coast 
Region. (The Colorado River Aqueduct's capacity is a maximum of 1 .3 maf per year. However, 
as shown in Table 9-17, MWDSC has a fourth priority right to 550 taf annually ~ the remaining 
capacity of the aqueduct has historically been filled with water unused by other entities or with 
surplus water.) 

In the October 1997 version of the draft plan shared with the other basin states, several 
specific actions were identified for the first phase, including: core water transfers (every year 
water transfers) such as the existing IID/MWD agreement and the proposed IID/SDCWA 
transfer; seepage recovery from unlined sections of the All American and Coachella Canals; 
drought year water transfers similar to the PVID/MWDSC pilot project; groundwater banking in 
Arizona; and conjunctive use of groimdwater in areas such as the Coachella Valley. The actions 
are described in more detail below. The draft plan recognizes that transfers of conserved water 
must be evaluated in the context of preserving the Salton Sea's environmental resources, and also 
that a Colorado River wheeling arrangement would be necessary to implement the proposed 
IID/SDCWA transfer. 

Other actions to occur as part of the first phase would include implementation of the San 
Luis Rey Indian water rights settlement authorized in PL 100-675 and implementation of 
measures to administer agricultural water entitlements within the first three priorities of the 
Seven Party Agreement. Examples of such measures include quantifying amounts of water 
conserved or transferred, and annually reconciling water use with water allocations (e.g., overrun 
accounting). 

9-51 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



An important element of the draft 4.4 plan is the concept that existing reservoir 
operations criteria be changed to make optimum use of the river's runoff and available basin 
storage capacity. (See sidebar on Colorado River operations.) California agencies are presently 
developing new proposed operations criteria for inclusion in the 4.4 plan. The draft plan 
contemplates that changes in operations criteria would be part of both the first and second 
phases. The other basin states have been cautious in their reaction to California's proposals for 
reservoir reoperation, and have suggested that, for example, new criteria should not be 
implemented until California has prepared and executed the environmental documents and 
agreements that would be needed to begin implementation of the 4.4 plan. 

The second phase of the 4.4 plan would include additional average year and drought year 
water transfers. Specifics on these transfers would be developed during phase one of plan 
implementation. One suggested component has been construction of desalting facilities on the 
New or Alamo rivers to divert and treat agricultural drainage water that would otherwise enter 
the sea. The treated water could be conveyed to urban water users in the South Coast Region via 
the Colorado River Aqueduct. As with any alternative that would reduce the amount of fresh 
water reaching the sea, the environmental impacts of this approach would require carefiil 
evaluation. 

Bs-Photo: Parker Dam 



9-52 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sieaa and Colorado River 



Colorado River Operations 

Operations of Colorado River reservoirs are controlled by the USBR, which in effect 
serves as the watermaster for the river. USBR is responsible for maintaining an accounting of 
consumptive use of the basin states' allocations, and for ensuring that Mexican treaty 
requirements are met with respect to the quantity of flows 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 reservoir operating criteria have already been established in the 
statutes comprising the law of the river. 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 Mexican water requirements. 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.) 

"ts-Photo: Hoover Dam 

Current federal operating criteria for the reservoirs 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 has been approaching the 7.5 maf 
basic apportionment, there has been increasing interest in operating the reservoirs more 
efficiently from a water supply standpoint. Proposals discussed among Colorado River water 
users have included a variety of surplus and shortage operating criteria, and augmentation of 
the river's base flow. In order to be implemented, any changes in operating criteria formally 
recommended by the CRB would have to be acceptable to the other basin states and to the 
federal government. 

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. 



Colorado River Board of California 

The Colorado River Board of California is the state agency responsible for 
administering California's Colorado River water allocation, and for dealing with the other 
basin states on river management issues. The Board is composed of six members representing 
the California agencies who were signatories to the 1931 Seven-Party Agreement, two public 
members, and two ex-officio members (the directors of DWR and DFG). The six local 
agencies represented on the CRB are CVWD, IID. LADWP. MWDSC. PVID, and SDCWA. 
CRB's office and staff are located in Glendale. 



9-53 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Tribal Water Rights 

Colorado River Indian Tribes. As a result of the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in 
Arizona v. California, California's basic apportionment of Colorado River water was quantified 
and five lower Colorado River Indian tribes were awarded 905,496 af of annual diversions; 
131,400 af of which were allocated for diversion in and chargeable to California pursuant to a 
later supplemental decree. 

In 1978, the tribes asked the court to grant them additional water rights, alleging that the 
U.S. failed to claim a sufficient amount of irrigable acreage, called omitted lands, in the earlier 
litigation. The tribes also raised claims called boundary land claims for more water based on 
allegedly larger reservation boundaries than had been assumed by the court in its initial award. 
In 1982, the special master appointed by the Supreme Court to hear these claims recommended 
that additional water rights be granted to the Indian tribes. In 1983, however, the Supreme Court 
rejected the claims for omitted lands from further consideration and ruled that the claims for 
boundary lands could not be resolved until disputed boundaries were finally determined. Three of 
the five tribes-Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Quechan Indian Tribe, and Colorado River Indian 
Tribe— are pursuing additional water rights related to the boundary lands claims. A settlement 
has been reached on the Fort Mojave claim and may soon be reached on the CRIT claim. Both 
settlements would then be presented to the special master. The Quechan claim has been rejected 
by the special master on the grounds that any such claim was necessarily disposed of as part of a 
Court of Claims settlement entered into by the tribe in a related matter in the mid-1980s. As with 
all claims to water from the main stem of the Colorado River and any determination by the 
special master, only the U.S. Supreme Court itself can make the final ruling. 

If both the Fort Mojave and CRIT settlements are approved, the two tribes would each 
receive several thousand acre-feet of water rights in addition to the amounts granted them in the 
1964 decree. 

San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. The San Luis Rey Indian Water 
Rights Settlement Act (Public Law No. 100-675; 102 Stat. 4000 [1988]) implements an 
agreement settling over 20 years of litigation affecting the interests of the United States, the City 
of Escondido, the Escondido Mutual Water Company, the Vista Irrigation District, and the La 

9-54 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians, to provide for settlement 
of reserved tribal water rights claims. The litigation and proceedings before the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission involved tribal water rights claims to the waters of the San Luis Rey 
River and questions of the validity of rights of way granted by the U.S. across tribal and allotted 
lands. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to arrange for a 16,000 af/year 
supplemental supply of water to benefit the Bands and the local communities. This supply can be 
obtained either from water development from public lands in California outside the service area 
of the CVP or from water salvaged as the resuh of lining part of the AAC or Coachella Ceinal. 
Title II of P.L. 100-675 authorizes the lining of part of the canals, either by the U.S. or by 
contract with PVID, IID, CVWD, and/or MWDSC for construction or funding. 
Water Conservation and Transfers 

There have been several large-scale water conservation programs involving Colorado 
River water users, as shown in Table 9-20. 



9-55 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Siena and Colorado River 



Table 9-20. Existing Colorado River Water Conservation Programs 



Year 
Executed 



Program 



Participants 



Comments/Status 



Estimated 
Savings 



1980 



Line 49 miles of 
Coachella Branch 
of All American 
Canal 



USER, 

CVWD, 

MWDSC 



Project completed. 



132,000 af/year 



1988 IID distribution IID, MWDSC Multi-year agreement, extends 

system through 2032. Projects MWDSC 

improvements and has funded include canal lining, 

on-farm water regulatory reservoir and spill 

management actions interceptor canal construction, 

tailwater return systems, and 
system automation projects. 
MWDSC will have funded over 
$ 1 50 million for conservation 
program costs through 1997. 



97,740 af/year in 
1997, ultimately up 
to 106,110 

af/yr. 



1992 


Groundwater 


MWDSC, 


Test program to bank up to 300 


MWDSC and SNWA 




banking in Arizona 


CAWCD, 
SNWA 


taf 


have stored 139 taf in 
Arizona groundwater 
basins. 


1992 


PVID land 


PVID, 


Project completed. Two-year 


Total of 185,978 af 




fallowing 


MWDSC 


land fallowing test program. 
Covered 20,215 acres in PVID. 
MWDSC paid $25 million to 
farmers. 


was made available 
from the program, 
but the water use 
subsequently spilled 
from Lake Mead. 


1995 


Partnership 


USBR, 


Provides, among other things. 


N/A 




agreement 


CVWD 


for studies to optimize 
reasonable beneficial use of 
water in the District. 





Bs-Photo: Salton Sea 
Salton Sea 

The present day Salton Sea was formed in 1905, when Colorado River water flowed 

through a break in a canal that had been constructed along the U.S. /Mexican border to divert the 

river's flow to agricultural lands in the Imperial Valley. Until that break was repaired in 1907, the 

full flow of the river was diverted into the Salton Sink, a structural trough whose lowest point is 

about 278 feet below sea level. Within geologic time, the Colorado River's course has altered 

several times. At times, the river discharged to the Gulf of California as it does today. At other 

times it flowed into the Salton Sink. Lake Cahuilla, the most recent of several prehistoric lakes to 

have occupied the Salton Sink, dried up some 300 years ago. 



9-56 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



The Salton Sea is the largest lake located entirely within California, with a volume of 
about 7.7 maf. The Sea occupies a closed drainage basin -- if there were no inflows to maintain 
lake levels, its waters would evaporate as did those of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. The area's 
average aimual precipitation is 3 inches or less, while average annual evaporation is in excess of 
5 feet. The Sea receives over 1 maf annually of inflow, primarily from agricultural drainage. The 
largest sources of inflow (about 80 percent of the total) are the New and Alamo rivers which 
drain agricultural lands in the Mexicali and Imperial valleys and flow into the sea's southern end. 
The New River also receives untreated or minimally treated wastewater flows from the Mexicali 
area; monitoring results generally indicate that pollution associated with wastewater discharges 
does not reach the Sea because of its distance from the Mexican border. 

In 1924, President Coolidge issued an executive order withdrawing seabed lands lying 
below elevation -244 for the purpose of receiving agricultural drainage water. That order was 
expanded in 1928 to lands below elevation -220. The Sea supports water-based recreational 
activities, and has had a popular corvina fishery. During the 1950s, the highest per capita sport 
fishing catches in California were from the Salton Sea. Over the years, concerns about the sea's 
salinity have been voiced in the context of maintaining this recreational fishery with introduced 
species able to tolerate high salinities. 

The Sea also provides important wintering habitat for many species of migratory 
waterfowl and shorebirds, including some species whose diets are based exclusively on the fish 
in the sea. Wetlands near the Sea and adjoining cultivated agricultural lands offer the avian 
population a mix of habitat types and food sources. An area at the Sea's south end was 
established as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1930, although most of that area is now imderwater 
as a result of the Sea's rising elevation. Some of the 380 bird species wintering in the area include 
pelicans, herons, egrets, cranes, cormorants, ibises, ducks, grebes, falcons, plovers, avocets, 
sandpipers, and gulls. The Salton Sea is considered to be a major stopover point for birds 
migrating on the Pacific Fly way, and has one of the highest levels of bird diversity of refuges in 
the federal system. 

Historically, salinity has been the water quality constituent of most concern at the Sea. 
Present levels are about 44,000 mg/1 TDS (seawater is about 35,000 mg/1 TDS). This high level 
of salinity reflects long-term evaporation and concentration of salts found in its inflow. Selenium 

9-57 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



has been a more recent constituent of interest, due to its implications for aquatic species. 
Although selenium levels in the water column in the Sea are less than the federal criteria of 5 
ug/1, thesecriteria can be exceeded in seabed sediment and in influent agricultural drainage water. 
Agricultural drain flows also contribute significant nutrient loading to the Sea, which supports 
large algal blooms at some times of the year. These algal blooms have contributed to odor 
problems and low dissolved oxygen levels in some areas of the Sea. 

Over the long term, the Sea's elevation has gradually increased, going from a low on the 
order of -250 in the 1920s to its present level of about -226 feet. The Sea's maximum elevation in 
recent years was -225.6 in 1995. Since some shoreline areas are relatively flat, a small change in 
elevation can result in a large difference in the extent of shoreline submerged. Levees have been 
constructed to protect adjacent farmland and structures at some sites along the shoreline; the 
remaining managed acreage of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge is also protected from 
the sea by levees. 

Over the years, USBR and others have considered potential solutions to stabilize the Sea's 
salinity and elevation. Most recently, the Salton Sea Authority (a joint powers authority) has 
been performing appraisal-level evaluations of some of the frequently suggested alternatives. 
Categories of alternatives considered include: 

• Diking off part(s) of the Sea to create evaporation pond(s) adjoining the primary water 
body. This approach would divert part of the Sea's water into managed impoundments, 
where the water would be concentrated into a brine and the salts would eventually be 
removed. The facilities would be sized to maintain a primary waterbody at some desired 
salinity concentration and elevation. The desired salinity concentration would probably be 
near that of ocean water (or slightly greater) to allow maintenance of the recreational 
fishery. 

• Pumping Salton Sea water and exporting it to some other location. Possible discharge 
locations include nearby dry desert lakebeds (to create evaporation ponds), evaporation 
ponds to be constructed near the Sea, the Gulf of California, or the Laguna Salada in 
Mexico. 

• Building treatment facilities (such as a desalting plant) to remove salts from inflows to the 
Sea. 

9-58 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



• Importing fresh water to the Sea. The probable source would be the Colorado River, but 

only in years when flood control releases were being made in excess of U.S. needs. 

Maintaining a viable Salton Sea has several water management implications. First will be 
the actions needed to stabilize the Sea's salinity in the near-term, such as the Authority's diking 
proposal. Eventually, a long-term solution will need to be developed. A wide range of costs has 
been mentioned for a long-term solution, including amounts in the billion-dollar range. Some of 
the possible long-term solutions suggested would entail constructing facilities in Mexico, 
bringing a greater level of complexity to their implementation. Other water management 
programs in the region, such as proposals to transfer conserved agricultural water supplies, will 
have to be evaluated in terms of their impacts on the Sea. Recent proposals to desalt water in the 
Alamo or New rivers and to transport that water in the Colorado River Aqueduct to the South 
Coast for urban water supply have raised additional concerns about maintaining the Sea's 
environmental productivity. (In 1997, CVWD filed an application with the SWRCB for water 
rights to Whitewater River flows [storm water and drainage flows] entering the Sea's northern 
end. MWDSC made a similar filing for agricultural drainage flowing into the Sea's southern 
end.) 
Coachella Valley Groundwater Overdraft 

Most PSAs within the Colorado River Region have sufficient water to meet future water 
needs, with the exception of Coachella Valley. Groundwater overdraft has occured in the upper 
(urbanized) part of the valley; DWA and CVWA have been managing extractions in that basin to 
minimize fiiture overdraft. The availability of imported surface water at the upper end of the 
valley has provided a source of recharge water. 

Groimdwater overdraft has occurred in the lower (agricultural) portion of the valley, an 
area that roughly coincides with CVWD's Improvement District No.l . CVWD estimates that 
actual 1995 water use within the ID#1 area was about 520,000 af, part of which was supplied by 
overdrafting the groundwater basin. (Irrigators in the lower valley are supplied by both surface 
water from the Coachella Canal and by groundwater.) The district is in the process of preparing 
a groundwater management plan for the lower valley, and has considered alternatives including 
basin adjudication, water conservation, water recycling, and direct or in-lieu recharge with water 
imported from the Colorado River or from the SWP. 

9-59 DRAFT 



Bullotin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Environmental Water Issues in the Colorado River Basin 

The Colorado River Basin contains a vast network of streams, canals, dams, and reser- 
voirs; portions of which provide habitat fish species listed, or proposed for listing under the 
federal ESA. The listed fish species are Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius); razorback 
sucker (Xyrauchen texanus); humpback chub {Gila cypha); and bonytail chub {Gila elegans). 
Restoration actions to protect these fish will affect reservoir operation and streamflow in the 
mainstem and tributaries. In addition to fish species, there are several sensitive or listed plants 
and animals in the basin including the bald eagle, belted kingfisher, southwestern willow 
flycatcher, and the Kanab ambersnail. 

In 1993, USFWS published a draft Recovery Implementation Program for endangered fish 
in the upper Colorado River basin. The draft program included the following elements: 

• protect instream flows; 

• restore habitat; 

• reduce negative impacts of non-native fish and sportsfish management; 

• conserve genetic integrity; 

• monitor habitat and populations and conduct research; and 

• increase public awareness of the role and importance of native fish. 

Problems facing native fishes in the mainstem Colorado River and its tributaries will not 
be easily resolved. For example, two fish species in the most danger of extinction, the bonytail 
chub and the razorback sucker, are not expected to survive in the wild. Although there was a 
commercial razorback fishery until 1 950, in recent years most stream and reservoir fisheries in 
the basin have been meinaged for non-native fish and these management practices have harmed 
residual populations of natives. Many native fishes are readily propagated in hatcheries, and thus 
recovery programs include captive broodstock programs to maintain the species. Reestablishing 
wild populations from hatchery stocks will have to be managed in concert with programs to 
manage river habitat. For example, although 15 million juvenile razorback suckers were planted 
in Arizona streams from 1981-1990, the majority of these planted fish were likely eaten by 
introduced predators. In 1994, the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah reached an agreement 
with USFWS on protocols for stocking non-native fish in the upper basin - a stocking protocol 
consistent with native fish recovery efforts. 

9-60 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Instream flows in the mainstem and key tributaries are being evaluated as components of 
native fish recovery efforts. State and federal agencies are and will be conducting studies to 
estimate base flow and flushing flow needs for listed and sensitive species. An example of 
flushing flow evaluation occurred in the spring of 1 996 when releases from Glenn Canyon Dam 
were increased several days to attempt to redistribute sediment and create shallow water habitat 
in the mainstem below the dam. 

In a recent court action involving the southwestern willow flycatcher, an environmental 
group filed a lawsuit against USBR in 1997 under the ESA's citizen suit provisions. The group 
alleged that USBR's operation of Lake Mead was endangering the flycatcher's habitat. The 
federal district court ruled in favor of USBR. but the environmental group appealed the district 
court's decision to the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs desired remedy would lower Lake Mead's 
water surface elevation, costing as much as 4 maf of storage. As part of its response to the 
litigation, USBR performed a field reconnaissance survey of flycatcher nesting areas, which 
identified a wide geographic range of nesting sites at Colorado River tributaries. 
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program 

In 1995, DOI executed an agreement with the LCRMSCP Steering Committee for a 
cooperative effort to develop a multi-species conservation program for ESA-listed species within 
the 100-year floodplain of the lower Colorado River. The Steering Committee is composed of 
representatives from California, Nevada, and Arizona, organized under a joint participation 
agreement. (California is represented on the committee by CRB and by DFG.) The Steering 
Committee has been designated as an ecosystem conservation and recovery implementation team 
pursuant to the ESA. 

The conservation program covers USBR's Colorado River operation and maintenance 
actions for the lower river. Species covered in the program include the southwestern willow 
flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker. Developing the program is 
estimated to take three years. Costs of program development, estimated at $4.5 million, are to be 
equally split between DOI and the Steering Committee. A cost-sharing agreement for the 
program was executed in 1996. USBR has initiated a formal Section 7 consultation with 
USFWS, and a five-year final biological opinion on USBR operation and maintenance activities 
from Lake Mead to the southern international boundary with Mexico was issued in 1997. USBR 

9-61 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



has estimated that the cost of implementing the biological opinion's reasonable and prudent 
alternatives and measures could be as high as $26 million. 

Water Management Options for the Colorado River Region 

The reduction in California's use of Colorado River water to the basic 4.4 maf allocation 
reduces the supply available to California by as much as 0.9 maf compared to historic use. A 
mixture of water management options will be needed to make up California's reduced supply 
from the Colorado River. Categories of options under consideration to achieve this goal are 
discussed below (see Table 9-21) and include water transfers/conservation within California, 
interstate transfers and banking, reoperating Colorado River system reservoirs, increasing SWP 
supply reliability, and augmenting Colorado River base flows (i.e., weather modification). 
(Options for meeting the South Coast region's water shortages as a result of reduced Colorado 
River supplies are also discussed in the South Coast Region water management plan in Chapter 
7.) One assumption included in the options analysis is that MWDSC's Colorado River Aqueduct 
would remain at full capacity, because there is an existing reliance on this supply in the South 
Coast Region. The water to provide the additional increment of aqueduct supply would come 
from sources such as the options discussed below. The water could be acquired by water 
purveyors in the South Coast Region that are able to arrange for conveyance or exchanges from 
the Colorado River Region to the South Coast Region. 
Potential Sources of Water for Intrastate Transfers 

The ability to transfer conserved water has already been demonstrated in the region, as 
described previously. Table 9-22 summarizes some potential sources of water for intrastate 
transfers. Such transfers could make up some of the shortages in the South Coast Region 
resulting from California reducing its use to California's basic apportionment of 4.4 maf. 



9-62 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-21 

Comprehensive List of Options 

Colorado River Region 



Category 



Option 



Retain 
or Defer 



Reason for Deferral 



Conservation 



Urban 

Outdoor Water Use to O.8ET0 
Residential Indoor Water Use 
Interior CII Water Use 
Distribution System Losses 



Retain 
Retain 
Retain 
Defer No substantial depletion reductions attainable. 



Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements Retain 

Flexible Water Delivery Retain 

Canal Lining and Piping Retain 

Tailwater Recovery Retain 
Modify Existing Reservoirs/Operations 



Reoperating Colorado River System Reservoirs 



New Reservoirs/Conveyance Facilities 



Defer No generally accepted proposal available for quantifica- 
tion. 



Additional Conveyance Capacity for Colorado River 

Water 



Defer California's current excess use of Colorado River water. 



Groundwater/Conjunctive Use 

Groundwater Recharge Project at East Mesa 



Defer Limited-term program. 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Interstate Banking 
Land Fallowing Program 
MWDSC Exchange Water 



Retain 
Retain 
Defer Currently only in preliminary stages of discussion. 



Water Recycling 



Desalination 



Brackish Groundwater 



Seawater 



Other Local Options 

Lining the All American Canal / Well Fields 
Additional Lining of Coachella Canal 
Weather Modification 



Retain 
Retain 
Defer Complicated by interstate management issues. 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program Retain 

SWP Interim South Delta Program Retain 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program Retain 

Enlarge Shasta Lake Retain 



9-63 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-22. Potential Colorado River Water Conservation Programs 

Estimated 
Savings 



Year 



Program 



Participants 



Comments/Status 



1988 Lining of All USBR, IID 

American Canal CVWD, 

MWDSC 



Authorized by PL 100-675. Final 
EIS published and Record of Deci- 
sion signed in 1988. Preferred al- 
ternative is constructing a new, 
lined parallel canal, rather than 
lining existing canal. Another al- 
ternative is well field construction. 



Not implemented 
yet. Potential of 
67,700 af/yr. 



1995 MOU to negotiate IID, SDCWA Participants have developed initial 

terms and condi- draft terms and conditions, and 

tions of a long- have distributed them for public 

term transfer of up review. Program contingent on 

to 200,000 af/year SDCWA and MWDSC reaching 

agreement on arrangements to 
wheel water in MWDSC's Colo- 
rado River Aqueduct and distribu- 
tion system. 



Not implemented 
yet - under negotia- 
tion. 



Not Additional lining USBR, others 

executed of Coachella Canal 



Authorized by PL 100-675. Draft 
EIR/EIS issued. Further work was 
deferred due to cost of project, but 
project is being reconsidered. 



25,680 af/yr 



Construction of additional conveyance capacity from the Colorado River Region to the 
South Coast area has been a recent subject of discussion. Proposition 204 provides funding for a 
feasibility study of a new conveyance facility from the Colorado River to the South Coast 
Region. Conveyance facilities mentioned include a new aqueduct from the Imperial Valley area 
to San Diego, as well as San Diego's participation in enlarging the existing aqueduct serving 
Tijuana, Mexico. A preliminary engineering study of constructing a canal from IID to San Diego 
has been prepared for SDCWA. Considerable additional work, including geotechnical 
exploration and environmental studies, would be needed to evaluate the project's feasibility. Of 
particular interest, the preliminary study highlighted the need to evaluate desalting the water that 
the aqueduct would supply to enable San Diego's continued reliance on a high level of 
wastewater reclamation. New conveyance facilities from the Colorado River region to the South 
Coast Region have been deferred from evaluation in Bulletin 160-98 because it does not appear 
that they would be constructed within the Bulletin's planning horizon, especially given the other 
basin states' concerns about California's use of Colorado River water. 



9-64 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sien-a and Colorado River 



SDCWA and IID 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, to be followed by development of proposed 
terms and conditions of a transfer. Terms and conditions for a proposed agreement with a 75-year 
term have been distributed for review to the agencies' water users and interested parties. As 
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 agency of MWDSC) must negotiate a wheeling agreement with MWDSC for use of 
capacity in MWDSC's Colorado River Aqueduct. Discussions between SDCWA and MWDSC 
have been ongoing. 

Past conservation projects in the region have included land fallowing, canal lining, 
distribution system reservoir and spill interceptor canal construction, and irrigation distribution 
system improvements. Some proposed projects to recover canal seepage include: 

• Lining part of the All American Canal. Public Law 100-675 authorized the Secretary of 
the Interior to line the canal or to otherwise recover canal seepage, using construction 
funds from PVID, IID. CVWD, or MWDSC. In March 1994. the USBR completed an 
EIS/EIR, which evaluated a parallel canal alternative, several in-place lining alternatives, 
and a well field alternative. The EIS/EIR concluded that the preferred alternative was the 
construction of a concrete-lined canal parallel to 23 miles of the existing canal. The 
parallel canal alternative has the potential to annually conserve an estimated 67,700 af of 
Colorado River water. Environmental documentation has been completed and a Record of 
Decision has been signed. Recently, interest in the well field alternative has increased. 
(Originally, the well field alternative, although less expensive than canal lining, had been 
set aside because of international concerns about groundwater extraction near the border.) 

• Lining the Remaining Section of the Coachella Canal. This project would involve 
lining the remaining 33.4 miles of the Coachella Canal, which loses about 32,350 af of 
water per year through seepage. Four alternatives that have been identified are conven- 
tional lining, underwater lining, parallel canal, and no action. It is estimated that the 
preferred alternative, conventional lining, would conserve 25,680 af/yr. 

9-65 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Other Conservation Actions 

Urban. The urban water supply forecasts for 2020 assume that BMPs are in place; 
consequently, only those urban conservation efforts which exceed BMPs are considered as 
options. All urban conservation options were retained. Reducing outdoor water use to 0.8 ETo in 
new development would attain about 20 taf per year of depletion reductions, while extending this 
measure to include existing development would reduce depletions by about 40 taf per year. 
Reducing indoor water use to 70 gpcd and 65 gpcd would reduce depletion by 10 and 20 taf per 
year, respectively. Reducing commercial, institutional, and industrial water use by 2 percent and 
3 percent would attain 2 taf and 4 taf of depletion reductions per year, respectively. Reducing 
distribution system losses would result in less than 1 taf per year of depletion reductions. 

Agricultural. As with the urban water management options, only those agricultural 
conservation efforts which exceed EWMPs are considered as options. Improving seasonal 
application efficiency to 80 percent from the base of 73 percent could reduce depletions by 50 
taf; while improving flexible water delivery, canal lining (on-farm and distribution system), and 
tailwater recovery systems could together realize 140 taf in depletion reductions. However, the 
ability to implement conservation options that would reduce the amount of fresh water inflow to 
the Salton Sea must be evaluated on a project-specific basis. Goals for preservation of the Sea's 
environmental resources may limit the extent of feasible conservation measures. 
Intrastate Groundwater Recharge or Banking 

IID has proposed a groundwater recharge project at East Mesa in the Imperial Valley. 
The proposed recharge project would divert a portion of flood control releases from Lake Mead 
to a recharge site or sites located along the alignment of the old, unlined Coachella Branch of the 
AAC. (The old canal was abandoned when an adjacent lined canal was constructed.) IID 
estimates that up to 20 taf could be recharged in 1998. IID has prepared a draft, mitigated 
negative declaration for a one-time program in 1998, when flood control releases are expected. 
Since Colorado River flood control releases have historically been infrequent, future water 
supply for such a recharge program would be available only occasionally. We have deferred 
consideration of this option as a future water management action because it was scoped as a one- 
time project. 

9-66 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Siens and Colorado River 



Interstate Banking/Conservation 

Prior Banking. Under an agreement between MWDSC and the Central Arizona Water 
Conservation District, MWDSC stored unused Colorado River water in Arizona between 1992 
and 1995. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has also participated in the program. Under the 
agreement, up to 300 taf can be stored in central Arizona through December 3 1 , 2000. To date, 
MWDSC has placed 89 taf and SNWA has placed 50 taf in storage for a total of 139 taf About 
90 percent of the stored water can be recovered. 

Future Banking. In its 1996 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 fiirther 
provided that the Authority may enter into agreements with California and Nevada agencies to 
bank water in Arizona basins, with the following limitations. 

1 ) Regulations governing interstate banking would need to be promulgated by the Secretary 
of the Interior and the Arizona Department of Water Resources. 

2) ADWR finds that DOI's regulations adequately protect Arizona's rights to Colorado 
River water. 

3) The ability to bank interstate water would be subordinate to banking of water to supply 
Arizona needs. 

4) Interstate banking would be precluded in years when Arizona is using its full 
apportionment of 2.8 maf (including water being delivered to Arizona for banking by 
Arizona agencies), unless surplus conditions were declared on the river system. 

5) Interstate withdrawals from the bank are limited to 1 00 taf per year, although there is no 
statutory limitation on annual deposits. 

Under this legislation, future interstate banking in Arizona would have a maximum 
drought year yield of 1 00 taf, with 50 taf being available to California (assuming 50 taf would 
be available to Nevada). However, Arizona may effectively limit withdrawals in drought years 
by declining to decrease its diversions of surface water that would allow recovery of the banked 
water. 

9-67 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Land Fallowing Programs 

Land fallowing programs such as the Palo Verde test land fallowing program discussed in 
Chapter 7, could be implemented to provide water for transfer to urban areas in the South Coast 
Region during drought periods. 
Reoperating Colorado River System Reservoirs 

Member agencies represented at the Colorado River Board of California have discussed 
establishing new river operations criteria that would benefit California while protecting the 
apportionments of the other basin states and satisfying Mexican treaty obligations. Such criteria 
would also constitute part of the package of actions for California to transition its use of river 
water from current levels to 4.4 maf per year. Operations studies have evaluated specific shortage 
and surplus criteria for the river system, including selection of desired probabilities for water 
supply reliability and reservoir operating elevations. 

Results of the operations studies performed by CRB and by USBR suggest that there 
would be no hydrologic impediment to using reservoir reoperation ~ particularly as a limited- 
term measure to help California reduce its Colorado River use ~ as a water management option 
for this region. As described in Chapter 3, the Colorado River has a high ratio of storage 
capacity to average annual runoff. Projections of consumptive use for the upper basin states 
suggest that those states will not attain full use of their compact apportionments until after year 
2060. user's surplus declarations to date have not adversely impacted the other states' use of 
their apportionments — for example, flood control releases were made in 1 997. and are expected 
in 1998. The more significant impediment to implementing reoperation would be the concerns of 
the other basin states about impacts of an extended period of reoperation on the ability to avoid 
future shortages, considering the river's variable year to year runoff. 

For this bulletin, reservoir reoperation is not evaluated as a water management option and 
no numerical evaluation is made, since there is presently no generally accepted proposal 
available for quantification. 
Water Augmentation (Weather Modification) 

One of the fundamental management issues associated with Colorado River water 
suppliijs is the apparent overstatement of the Compact apportionment relative to the river's 
historic hydrology. There have been a variety of proposals over the years to augment the river's 

9-68 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



base flow to provide additional supplies. For example, USBR had developed a proposed pilot 
program in 1993 to evaluate cloud seeding potential in the upper basin. The state of Colorado 
did not favor moving ahead with this program. 

Weather modification has recently been raised again as part of a possible menu of options 
to resolve California's use in excess of the 4.4 maf basic apportionment, although no specific 
proposals have been made. In concept, this option would entail cloud seeding in the Upper Basin 
to increase runoff, and might yield a 5 percent increase in base flow if a large area of the upper 
basin were seeded. Large-scale weather modification projects are typically difficult to implement 
due to institutional and third-party concerns, and can require several years of study and testing 
prior to being placed in operational status. Weather modification on the Colorado River is also 
complicated by interstate management issues. This option has been deferred for these reasons. 
Options for Coachelia Valley 

Conjunctive Use Programs. MWDSC and CVWD may agree to store water conserved 
from the existing MWD/IID conservation program (or surplus Colorado River water, if avail- 
able,) in the Coachelia Valley groundwater basin for extraction for MWDSC's use in drought 
years. Coachelia Valley users could be protected by ensuring that MWDSC recharged more 
water than it would be entitled to extract. This would be in addition to the current agreement that 
MWDSC has with CVWD for advance delivery of Colorado River water in exchange for SWP 
supply. Conveyance of this water to CVWD's groundwater basin would need to be negotiated. 
Alternatively, MWDSC and CVWD could negotiate an agreement to store additional supplies 
conveyed by the SWP. Likewise, other agencies with Colorado River supplies could negotiate 
similar agreements. This concept is in the preliminary stages of discussion and is deferred from 
further analysis here because potential options have not yet been quantified. 

Purchase Additional SWP Water/Transfers Conveyed by SWP. CVWD could, as other 
SWP urban water contractors are doing, participate in the permanent transfer of agricultural 
entitlement water provided for in the Monterey Agreement contract amendments. CVWD could 
also purchase water from other sources, by way of exchange with MWDSC, subject to negotia- 
tion of conveyance in the SWP and CRA. Since no specific proposals are currently pending, we 
have not quantified this option in the Bulletin. 

9-69 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Statewide Options 

Active planning for statewide water supply options is currently being done for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and for SWP future supply. Improving the water supply reliability 
of supplies conveyed across the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta provides a significant 
improvement in supply reliability to urban water users in the South Coast Region. To the extent 
that demands in the South Coast Region are satisfied from northern California supplies, there 
will be less pressure on use of Colorado River supplies for that region. It is estimated that 
proposed Delta and SWP improvements would provide about 5,000 af to the Colorado River 
Region, and over 300,000 af to the South Coast Region. See Chapter 6 for discussion on 
statewide water supply augmentation options. [The following text on statewide supplies is in 
part a placeholder for potential outcomes of CALFED process. Text will be changed as 
CALFED results become available.] 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. For illustrative purposes, assuming improved Delta 
conditions through the implementation of CALFED alternatives, additional SWP yield to the 
region could be 2,000 af in average and drought years. 

State Water Project Improvements. DWR has two programs underway which could 
improve SWP yields to its contractors in the Colorado River Region. The programs are discussed 
in Chapter 6. The ISDP would augment SWP supplies to the region by 3,000 af in average and 
drought years. The Supplemental Water Purchase Program could potentially provide an 
additional 3,000 af in drought years. 

Enlarged Shasta Lake. Enlarging Shasta to 13 maf of storage would increase drought 
year yield by about 1 .5 maf. If we assume one-third of this yield is allocated to the environment, 
and the remaining two-third is allocated among the State and federal projects, the Colorado River 
Region could potentially receive about 8 taf per year. 

Water Resources Management Plan for the Colorado River Region 

Apart from groundwater overdraft in the Coachella Valley, there are no water shortages 
in this hydrologic region. However, the reduction in California's Colorado River water use from 
5.3 maf to 4.4 maf creates an average year shortage of up to 0.56 maf in the South Coast Region. 
This year 2020 shortage is shown in the South Coast Region water budget, but options for 

9-70 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 9. Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



addressing the South Coast shortage that involve changes to water management in the Colorado 
River Region are also described in this section. Evaluation of options for Coachella Valley and 
the Colorado River 4.4 plan are shown in Table 9A-3 in Appendix 9A and the results are 
presented in Table 9-23. The following plan identifies actions that could be taken in the Colorado 
River Region to address Coachella Valley overdraft and to provide supplies for the South Coast 
Region. 

Table 9-24 summarizes the actions most likely to be implemented by 2020 to meet 
forecasted shortages. Urban agencies in the South Coast Region that exercise Colorado River 
water conservation and transfer options will probably choose to exercise some options only in 
dry years, depending on the status of their imported water supplies from northern California. 

As shown in Table 9-24, urban conservation and statewide options for the region could 
develop 47 taf of water to address Coachella Valley's overdraft. The readily quantifiable options 
for the Colorado River 4.4 Plan which can be developed amount to 284 taf in average years and 
434 taf in drought years. Assuming that enough water remains within the region to address the 
remaining shortages in the region (32 taf and 41 in average and drought years, respectively), 252 
taf and 393 taf are potentially available for transfer to the South Coast Region in average and 
drought years, respectively. 

There remain, however, other options available to the South Coast Region that cannot be 
quantified at this time, such as the reoperation of Colorado River storage reservoirs. The other 
basin states have indicated that they are unwilling to approve changes to existing river operations 
criteria until they are satisfied that California has a firm plan in place to reduce its Colorado 
River water use to the state's basic apportionment. The local agencies represented on Califor- 
nia's Colorado River Board are attempting to develop such a plan. 



9-71 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-23. Colorado River Region Options Evaluation 



Option 



Rank 



Cost 
per af 

($) 



Potential Gain 

(taf) 



Avg 



Drt 



Conservation 



Urban 

Outdoor Water Use - New Development 

Outdoor Water Use -New and Existing Development 

Residential Indoor Water Use (70gpcd) 

Residential Indoor Water Use (65gpcd) 

Interior CII Water Use (2%) 

Interior CII Water Use( 3%) 



500 

400 
600 
500 

750 



20 
40 
10 
20 

2 
4 



20 
40 
10 
20 
2 
4 



Agricultural 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (76%) H 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (78%) M 

Seasonal Application Efficiency Improvements (80%) M 

Flexible Water Delivery M 

Canal Lining and Piping M 

Tailwater Recoverv M 



100 
250 
450 
1,000 
1,200 
150 



10 
30 
50 
30 
45 
65 



10 
30 
50 
30 
45 
65 



Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 

Interstate Banking 
Land Fallowing Program 



50 
100 



Other Local Options 

Lining the All American Canal / Well Fields 
Additional Lining of Coachella Canal 



120 



26 



Statewide Options 

CALFED Bay / Delta Program 

SWP Interim South Delta Program 

SWP Supplemental Water Purchase Program 

Enlarge Shasta Lake 



100 

175 



Data not available. 



9-72 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 9 Eastern Sierra and Colorado River 



Table 9-24. Summary of Options Most Likely to be Implemented by 2020 
Colorado River Region 

Option 



Shortage 

Conservation (Urban) 
Statewide Options 

Total Potential Gain 
Remaining Shortage 



Potential Gain 


(taf) 




Avg 


Drt 


79 


88 


42 


42 


5 


5 


47 


47 



32 



41 



Options for Colorado River 4.4 Plan 

Conservation (Agricultural) 
Water Transfers/Banking/Exchange 
Other Local Options 

Total Potential Gain 
Less Options to Reduce Remaining Shortage in Region 
Remaining Shortage 



190 


190 


- 


150 


94 


94 


284 


434 


(32) 


(41) 









Total Options for CR 4.4 Plan 



252 



393 



9-73 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Conclusions 



Water Supply 

The State's 1 995 level average water year supply is about 77. 1 maf. Even assuming a 
reduction in Colorado River supplies to California's 4.4 maf basic apportionment, average year 
statev^de 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), additional groundwater extraction and 
facilities now under construction will also provide new supplies. 

The State's 1995 level drought year supply is about 59.1 maf. Drought year supply is 
projected to increase 0.27 maf by 2020 without additional future water supply options, for the 
same reasons that average year supplies are expected to increase. 

Bulletin 160-98 estimates a statewide groundwater overdraft of about 1.5 maf per year at 
a 1995 level of development, a slight increase from the Bulletin 160-93 1990 base year value. 
Increasing groundwater overdraft is a reversal fi-om the trend of the 1980s. The increase in 
groundwater overdraft (which occurred mziinly in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake regions) from 
Bulletin 160-93's 1990 base year was due primarily to Delta export restrictions associated with 
the SWRCB's Order WR 95-6 and reductions in CVP supplies. 

Water recycling continues to be a small, yet growing, element of California's water 
supply. At a 1995 level of development, water recycling produces about 0.32 maf per year of 
new water (reclaiming water that would otherwise flow to the ocean or to a salt sink), up 
significantly from the 1990 annual supply (0.17 maf) reported in Bulletin 160-93. Greater 
production at existing treatment plants and additional production at plants currently under 
construction are expected to increase new recycled supplies to 0.47 maf per year by 2020. 
Water Demand 

California's estimated demand for water at a 1995 level of development is 78.7 maf in 
average years and 64.3 maf in drought years. California's water demand in 2020 is forecasted to 
reach 80.6 maf in average years and 66.4 maf in drought years. 

California's population is forecasted to increase to 47.5 million people by 2020 (about 1 5 
million people more than the 1995 base). Even with extensive water conservation, urban water 
demand will increase by about 3.2 maf in average years. Forty-five percent of the State's 
population increase is expected to occur in the South Coast region. 



10-2 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Conclusior)s 



Irrigated crop acreage is expected to decline by 330.000 acres — from the 1995 level of 
9.52 million acres to a 2020 level of 9.19 million acres. Reductions in forecasted irrigated 
acreage are due primarily to urban encroachment onto agricultural land and land retirement in the 
western San Joaquin Valley. Increases in water use efficiency combined with reductions in 
irrigated agricultural acreage are expected to reduce average year water demand by about 2.3 maf 
in 2020. 

Average water year needs for environmental use are forecasted to increase by about 0.9 
maf by 2020. This forecasted increase is due primarily to CVPIA instream flow needs and 
refuge water supply needs in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River regions. Drought year 
environmental water needs are considerably lower than average year environmental water needs, 
reflecting the variability of natural flows in North Coast wild and scenic rivers. 

Because much of the environmental water demand is brought about by legislative or 
regulatory processes, forecasting environmental water demand is subject to much uncertainty. 
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.) Implementation of CVPIA and SWRCB's 
Bay-Delta Plan, new ESA restrictions, and FERC relicensing/electric utility deregulation are 
actions that could significantly modify environmental demands within the Bulletin 160-98 
plarming period. 
Water Shortages 

Californians are facing water shortages now, as well as in the future. The shortage shown 
in Table 10-1 for 1995 average water year conditions reflects Bulletin 160-98's inclusion of 
groundwater overdraft as a shortage in the base year. As Californians experienced during the 
most recent drought, and especially in 1991 and 1992, drought year shortages are large. Urban 
residents faced cutbacks in supply and mandatory rationing, some small rural communities saw 
their wells go dry, agricultural lands were fallowed, and environmental water supplies were 
reduced. By 2020, without additional facilities and programs, these conditions will worsen, 
reflecting California's forecasted population increase. 

Water shortages vary widely from region to region. For example, the North Coast. San 

10-3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10 Conclusions 



Francisco and North Lahontan regions are not expected to experience future shortages during 
average water years, but will see shortages in drought years. The State's remaining regions 
experience average and drought year shortages now, and are forecasted to experience continued 
shortages in 2020. The largest future shortages are forecasted for the Tulare Lake and South 
Coast regions, both areas that rely heavily on imported water supplies. Table 10-2 shows 
forecasted shortages by hydrologic region, assuming that no new facilities or programs are 
implemented. 

Table 10-2. Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region (taf) 



Region 


1995 


2020 




Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 





177 





194 


San Francisco Bay 





349 





376 


Central Coast 


214 


282 


177 


273 


South Coast 





568 


728 


1295 


Sacramento River 


111 


867 


206 


1109 


San Joaquin River 


239 


788 


805 


1481 


Tulare Lake 


870 


1862 


735 


1866 


North Lahontan 





128 


10 


128 


South Lahontan 


89 


92 


184 


210 


Colorado River 


69 


95 


79 


88 


Totals (rounded) 


1,590 


5,210 


2,920 


7,020 



South Coast Region shortages reflect forecasted population growth, plus lower Colorado 
River supplies as California reduces its use of Colorado River water to the State's basic 
apportionment. Tulare Lake Region shortages reflect the region's extensive agricultural 
development and limited local sources of water supply. Shortages in the Sacramento River and 
San Joaquin River regions include CVPIA supplemental fish and wildlife water needs. To the 
extent that these needs are met by reducing other water uses (i.e., transfers of developed water 
supply) those other demands would be reduced, thereby reducing the regions' shortages. 

Reliable water supplies are important to California's economy and its environment. 
Californians cannot afford to sustain future water shortages of this magnitude. The State is 

10 4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Conclusions 



fortunate in having an extensive water supply infrastructure already in place, one that enables 
water conveyance to many locations and facilitates water transfers and exchanges. California's 
water purveyors have recognized the need to plan for the future, and many are already working 
on ways to build on existing water supplies while at the same time maintaining valuable 
environmental resources. 

Recommended Options to Meet Future Demands 

The actions summarized in this section represent a snapshot of the plans that water 
purveyors have for meeting future needs. This material relies heavily on actions identified by 
local water agencies, which collectively provide about 70 percent of the State's developed water 
supply. As described in the preceding four chapters, selection of water management options 
most likely to be implemented was based on a ranking process that evaluated, at an appraisal 
level, factors such as technical feasibility, cost, and environmental considerations. This process 
is most effective in hydrologic regions where local agencies have relatively recently prepared 
plans for meeting future needs in their service areas. 

Since the focus of the Bulletin 160 series is on water supply, the statewide level plan has 
not been tailored to meet other water-related objectives such as flood control, hydropower 
generation, recreation, and nonpoint source pollution control. In the evaluation process used to 
selected options most likely to be implemented, the scores assigned to the options did reflect 
their ability to provide multiple benefits. The accompanying sidebar discusses the relationship of 
water supply and flood control needs, a subject receiving increasing attention in response to the 
January 1997 floods. 



10-5 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10 Conclusions 



Multipurpose Facility Considerations 

As discussed in Chapter 6, Bulletin 160-98 focuses on evaluation of water supply 
benefits of potential options. The January 1997 floods demonstrated that Central Valley flood 
protection needs improvement. The 1997 Final Report of the Governor 's Flood Emergency 
Action Team identified many actions that could be taken to improve flood protection in the 
Valley, including: better emergency preparedness, floodplain management actions, levee 
system improvements, construction of new floodways, temporary storage of floodwaters on 
wildlife refuges, reoperation or enlargement of existing reservoirs to increase flood storage, 
and construction of new reservoirs. These latter two actions have implications from a water 
supply standpoint. Reoperating existing reservoirs to provide greater flood control storage 
usually comes at the expense of water supply. Reoperation is particularly problematical in the 
San Joaquin River Basin, where water supplies are already limited. 

The existing Folsom Reservoir reoperation program illustrates the magnitude of 
operational changes that can be entailed. The 1 maf reservoir has a normal winter flood 
control reservation of 400 taf (estimated to provide the Sacramento area with protection from 
a storm having a l-in-63-year return period). SAFCA's purchase of up to 270 af of additional 
winter flood control space only increases the level of protection to a l-in-85-year event. As 
California's population continues to increase and more demands are place on existing water 
supplies, reservoir reoperation will become increasingly difficult to implement. In contrast, 
enlarging reservoirs or constructing new reservoirs can have water supply benefits. 



Summary of Options 

California should be able to meet its future water service reliability needs through a 
variety of local and statewide water management options, while protecting and enhancing fish 
and wildlife habitats. Table 10-3 provides a summary of recommended options by category. 
Many of the recommended options will require large commitments of funds to implement and 
maintain them over time. 



10-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Conclusior)s 



Table 10-3. California Water Plan 2020 Options Summary By Category (maf) 



Options 


Average 


Drought 


Local Demand Management Options 


0.438 


0.474 


Local Supply Augmentation Options 







Surface Water 


0.243 


0.448 


Groundwater 


0.002 


0.683 


Transfer/Banking/Exchange 


0.039 


0.239 


Recycling & Desalt 


0.256 


0.357 


Statewide Options 






CALFED 


0.280 


0.330 


State Water Project 


0.151 


0.155 


Drought Water Bank 


— 


0.250 


Land Retirement 


0.065 


0.065 


Multipurpose Reservoir Projects 


0.070 


0.075 


Total Options 


1.54 


3.08 



The recommended options in Table 10-3 include 0.44 maf/yr of water conservation 
options (0.47 maf per year under drought conditions). These water conservation options are in 
addition to base amounts of urban and agricultural conservation incorporated in 2020 demand 
forecasts. Bulletin 160-98 assumes that water agencies statewide will implement urban BMPs 
and agricultural EWMPs by 2020, resulting in a 2020 demand reduction of 2.3 maf armually. 
The water conservation options shown here are in addition to that amount, and are options that 
would produce new water supply through reduction of depletions. 

Recommended local supply augmentation options comprise the largest potential new 
source of water for the State. (These local options include implementation of California's "4.4 
Plan" to reduce its use of Colorado River water to the State's basic apportionment.) In this table 
and in the water budgets, only those water transfers are quantified where the gaining and losing 
regions can be identified. (Water transfers vsdthin a hydrologic region, although representing a 
change in type of water use, do not affect the overall water budget for the region.) Considerably 
more transfers have been described in the text of the four preceding chapters than are shown in 
the budgets, reflecting many local agencies' plans to seek future transfers from sources yet to be 
identified. Where the participants in a proposed transfer are known, the giving region's average 



10-7 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10^ Coriclusions 



year or drought year supply has been reduced in the water budgets. Presently, the only transfers 
that fit this category and are large enough to be visible in the water budgets are those associated 
with the Colorado River 4.4 Plan. 

Recommended statewide options include actions that could be taken by CALFED to 
develop new water supplies. As discussed earlier, the water supply benefits shown for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta program's preferred alternative are a placeholder at this time, until 
CALFED completes its final program environmental document for a Bay-Delta solufion. The 
CALFED placeholder does not address specifics of which upstream of Delta storage facilifies 
might be selected, or how conjunctive use programs might be operated. CALFED information 
will be updated in the final version of the Bulletin. 

Other recommended statewide options include specific projects to improve SWP water 
supply reliability, the Department's drought water bank, land retirement on the westside of the 
San Joaquin Valley, and two multipurpose reservoirs. A third potential muhipurpose reservoir 
option, an enlarged Shasta Lake, was not included in our list of options most likely to be 
implemented because further studies are needed to quantify the water supply and flood control 
benefits associated with different potential reservoir sizes. We do recommend additional 
evaluation of this option. Some cursory evaluations of an enlarged Shasta Lake are being 
performed now and may be available in time for an expanded discussion on enlarging Shasta 
Lake in the final version of Bulletin 160-98. 

The two multipurpose reservoir projects included as recommended statewide options ~ 
Auburn Reservoir and enlarged Millerton Lake (Friant Dam) ~ were included in the plan to 
recognize the interrelationship between water supply needs and the Central Valley's flood 
protection needs. Both reservoir sites were ranked in the medium category from a water supply 
standpoint. But, as discussed in Chapter 6, each offers significant flood protection benefits. It is 
recognized that both projects may have controversial aspects and that neither of them is 
inexpensive. However, they offer enough benefits to justify serious consideration. The lead time 
for plarming and implementation for any large reservoir project is long, and it would take almost 
to this Bulletin's 2020 planning horizon for the projects to be constructed. 

The two multipurpose reservoir projects contrast with the other statewide options in that 
the identity of the specific entity(ies) that might implement them is uncertain. USBR, as the 

10-8 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10 Conclusions 



owner of the existing Friant Dam and as tlie federal agency having authorization for operating 
Auburn, would presumably be a participant. The implementing entity could be a partnership of 
some combination of federal/state/local agencies. 

The multipurpose reservoir projects' water supply was allocated among potentially 
participating hydrologic regions, to illustrate how the supplies might be used. Because the San 
Joaquin River system is oversubscribed with respect to the demands placed upon it, as described 
in the Resources Agency's 1995 San Joaquin River Water Management Plan, Friant's potential 
supply was shown as remaining in the San Joaquin River Region. For Auburn, the supply was 
divided between the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River regions, areas where the water 
could be conveyed (or supplied by exchange) to water users served by CVP facilities. Auburn 
could also provide supplies for additional small foothill communities that are too small to 
develop projects on their own, as was discussed in Chapter 8. (In neither option is it assumed 
that the CVP (or SWF) would contract for the supply — only that conveyance facilities exist to 
make the water available to potential users.) The Bulletin makes no attempt to allocate costs of 
these projects between flood protection and water supply. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, CVPIA supplemental fishery water supply needs (and Level 4 
refuge water supply needs) were included in the Bulletin's forecasted future environmental water 
needs. The amounts used were identified in USBR's draft CVPIA PEIS, although they are a 
placeholder at this time, since decisions have not yet been made with respect to the draft PEIS. 
These supplemental water needs would be met by voluntary water transfers. Since no long-term 
arrangements for acquiring this water have yet been established, it is 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. 
Statewide Overview 

The statewide plan shown in Table 10-4 was developed by combining the regional water 
management plans for each of the State's ten hydrologic regions. The plan illustrates the results 
of implementing likely water management options by 2020. (Tables lOA-1 1 through lOA-20 in 
Appendix 1 OA show the regional water budgets with option implementation.) 



10-9 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Chapter 10. Conclusions 



Table 10-4. California Water Budget with Recommended Options (maf) 





1995 


2020 


Demands & Supplies 


Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


Demands 










Urban 


8.773 


9.009 


12.017 


12.356 


Agriculture 


33.775 


34.538 


31.501 


32.333 


Environmental 


36.104 


20.799 


37.043 


21.734 


Management Options 






(-0.503) 


(-0.539) 


Total Demands 


78.65 


64.35 


80.06 


65.88 


Supplies 










Surface Water 


64.242 


43.021 


64.578 


43.027 


Groundwater 


12.493 


15.784 


12.591 


15.906 


Recycled & Desalted 


0.324 


0.333 


0.469 


0.470 


Augmentation Options 






1.041 


2.537 


Total Supplies 


77.06 


59.14 


78.68 


61.94 


Demands minus Supplies 


1.59 


5.21 


1.38 


3.94 


(Shortage) 











This table shows that drought year shortages are much greater than average year 
shortages, and that water management options now under consideration by water purveyors 
throughout the State do not reduce either average water year or drought year shortages to zero in 
2020. 

Bulletin 160-98 environmental water demands include 877 taf of supplemental water 
identified in USBR's draft CVPIA PEIS as potentially being needed for CVPIA fish doubling 
goals and refuge water supplies. This 877 taf of supplemental water represents over half of the 
forecasted 2020 average water year shortage. 

The difference between average water year and drought year water shortages can be 
significant. Water purveyors generally consider shortages in average years as basic deficiencies 
that should be corrected by implementing long-term demand reduction or supply augmentation 
measures. Shortages in drought years may be managed by these long-term measures, in 
combination with short-term actions designed to be implemented only during droughts. Such 
short-term measures could include purchases fi-om the Department's drought water bank, urban 
water rationing, or agricultural land fallowing. Agencies may evaluate the marginal costs of 



10-10 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10 Conclusions 



developing new supplies and may conclude that the costs of their development exceeds the costs 
of shortages to their service areas, or exceeds the costs of implementing contingency measures, 
such as transfers or rationing. 

Ability to pay is another consideration. Large urban water agencies frequently set high 
water service reliability goals, and are able to finance actions necessary to meet the goals. 
Agencies supplying small rural communities may not be able to afford capital- intensive projects. 
Small communities have limited populations over which to spread capital costs and may have 
difficulty obtaining financing. If local groundwater resources are not adequate to support 
expected growth, these communities may not be able to afford options such as a new pipeline to 
bring in a surface water supply, or a seawater desalting plant. Small rural communities that are 
geographically isolated from population centers cannot readily interconnect with other water 
systems. 

Agricultural water agencies may have a lesser ability to pay for capital improvements 
than do urban water agencies. Much of the State's earliest large-scale water development was 
for agriculture, and the irrigation works were constructed at a time when water development was 
inexpensive by present standards. Today's users of these facilities may not be able to compete 
with urban water users for development of new supplies. Also, some agricultural water users 
have historically been willing to accept a lower water supply reliability in return for less 
expensive water supplies. It can often be less expensive for self-supplied agricultural water users 
and users in small water agencies to idle land in drought years, rather than incur capital costs of 
new water supply development. This can be particularly true for regions already faced with 
production constraints, such as short growing seasons or lower quality lands ~ areas where the 
dominant water use is often irrigated pasture. In areas such as the North Lahontan Region, for 
example, local agencies generally do not have plans for new programs or facilities to reduce 
agricultural water shortages in drought years. Table 1 0-5 shows forecasted future shortages by 
hydrologic region, to illustrate geographic variations in expected shortages 



10-1 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Conclusions 



Table 10-5. Water Shortages by Hydrologic Region, 
With Implementation of Water Management Options (taf) 



Region 


1995 


2020 




Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


North Coast 





177 





190 


San Francisco Bay 





349 





71 


Central Coast 


214 


282 


34 


170 


South Coast 





568 





25 


Sacramento River 


111 


867 





780 


San Joaquin River 


239 


788 


768 


1,369 


Tulare Lake 


870 


1,862 


409 


1,031 


North Lahontan 





128 


10 


128 


South Lahontan 


89 


92 


159 


180 


Colorado River 


69 


Q5 








Totals (rounded) 


1,590 


5,210 


1,380 


3,490 



This table illustrates several concepts. For areas with forecasted shortages, there is a 
correlation between agencies having the ability to finance actions to meet those needs, and 
agencies having detailed plans to reduce shortages. Since the Bulletin's evaluation process is 
based on compilation of options that have, or are, being planned by local agencies, the tabulation 
reflects this correlation. Also, California's 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 that show how the agencies will meet their 
service area needs. Thus, many options have been generated from planning performed by urban 
agencies. An example is the South Coast Region, a region with high financial capability and 
extensive future planning by local water agencies. Even though this region has large forecasted 
average year and drought year shortages, there are options available to essentially eliminate the 
shortages. 

Local agencies that expect to have significant future new demands generally do more 
planning than agencies where demands are expected to remain relatively level. Bulletin 160-98 
forecasts a slight decline in irrigated acreage in 2020, and a large increase in California's 
population. Most agricultural water agencies are not faced with having to plan to meet new, 
larger future agricultural demands, although some agencies are examining ways to improve the 

10 12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10. Conclusions 



reliability of their existing supplies. Cost considerations limit the types of future options 
available to many agricultural users. Thus, the agricultural sector has tended to develop fewer 
options that could be included in future statewide water supply planning, as reflected in the 
relatively smaller shortage reductions in regions having high levels of agricultural water use. 

Geography also plays a role in the feasibility of implementing different types of options, 
and not solely with respect to the availability of surface water and groundwater supply sources. 
Water users in the Central Valley, Bay Area, and Southern California having access to major 
regional conveyance facilities have greater opportunities to rely on transfers and exchanges, 
banking, and conjunctive use options than do water users isolated from the State's main water 
infrastructure. 

Recommended Actions 

The first recommendation is that water purveyors throughout the State implement water 
management options to reduce future shortages in their service areas. The second 
recommendation follows from the first -- that water purveyors statewide should continue to plan 
for additional options to address future water shortages. The magnitude of potential shortages, 
especially drought year shortages, demonstrates the urgency of taking action. The do-nothing 
alternative is not an alternative that will meet the needs of 47.5 million Califomians in 2020. 

There is not one magic bullet for meeting California's fiature water needs ~ not new 
reservoirs, not new conveyance facilities, not more groundwater extraction, not more water 
conservation, not more water recycling. Each of these options has its place. The most frequently 
used methods of providing new water supplies have changed with the times, reflecting changing 
circumstances. Much of California's early water development was achieved by constructing 
reservoirs and diverting surface water. Advances in technology, in the form of deep well turbine 
pumps, subsequently allowed substantial groundwater development. More recent improvements 
in water treatment technology have made water recycling and desalting feasible options. Today, 
water purveyors are fortunate in having an array of water management options available to meet 
future water supply reliability needs. 

All of the State's water purveyors have a role to play in meeting California's future water 
needs. The federal government operates California's largest water project, together with other 



10-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Chapter 10 Conclusions 



federally owned projects, and plays an important role in flood operations of some water supply 
facilities. At the State level, the Department operates California's second largest water project, 
administers dam safety and flood protection programs, and provides assistance to local agencies. 
SWRCB administers rights to surface water, balancing competing uses of California's 
waterbodies. Local water agencies provide about 70 percent of the State's developed water 
supplies, manage groundwater resources, and operate flood protection programs. 

All three of California's water using sectors ~ agricultural, environmental, and urban ~ 
must work together to recognize each others' legitimate needs and to seek solutions to meeting 
the State's future water shortages. When the Bay-Delta Accord was signed three years ago, it 
was hailed as a truce in, if not an end to, one of the State's longstanding water wars. The Accord, 
and the efforts by California agencies to negotiate a resolution to interstate and intrastate 
Colorado River water issues, represent a new spirit of fostering cooperation and consensus rather 
than competition and conflict. Such an approach will be increasingly necessary, given the 
magnitude of the water shortages facing California. Mutual accommodation of each others' 
needs is especially important in drought years, when water purveyors face the greatest water 
supply challenges. With continued efforts to prepare for the future, California can have safe and 
reliable water supplies for urban areas, adequate long-term water supplies to maintain the State's 
agricultural economy, and restoration and protection offish and wildlife habitat. 



10-14 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



Appendix 2A. 

Institutional Framework for Allocating and 

Managing Water Resources in California 

In California, water use and supplies are controlled and managed under an intricate 
system of federal and state laws. Common law principles, constitutional provisions, state and 
federal statutes, court decisions, and contracts or agreements all govern how water is allocated, 
developed, or used. All of these components, along with the responsible State, federal, and local 
agencies, compose the institutional framework for allocation and management of water resources 
in California. 

This appendix presents an overview of California's institutional framework for managing 
water resources in California, highlighting some of the more recent changes. Summarized here 
are major constitutional requirements, statutes, court decisions, and agreements that form the 
groundwork for many water resource management and planning activities. Changes since the 
publication of Bulletin 160-93 are covered in Chapter 2. 

Allocation and Management of California's Water Supplies 

The following subsections condense basic water rights laws and doctrines governing 
allocation and use of California's water supplies. 
California Constitution Article X, Section 2 

The keystone to California's water law and policy. Article X, Section 2 of the California 
Constitution, requires that all uses of the State's water be both reasonable and beneficial. It places 
a significant limitation on water rights by prohibiting the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable 
method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water. 
Riparian and Appropriative Rights 

California operates under a dual system of water rights for surface water which 
recognizes both the doctrine of riparian rights and appropriative rights. Under the riparian 
doctrine, the owner of land has the right to divert, but not store, a portion of the natural flow of 
water flowing by his land for reasonable and beneficial use upon his land adjacent to the stream 
and within its watershed, subject to certain limitations. Generally, all riparian water right holders 
must reduce their water use in times of water shortages. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a 
person has a right to divert, store, and use water regardless of whether the land on which it is 

2A-1 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



used is adjacent to a stream or within its watershed, provided that the water is used for reasonable 
and beneficial uses and is surplus to water from the same stream used by earlier appropriators. 
The rule of priority between appropriators is "first in time is first in right." 
Water Rights Permits and Licenses 

The Water Commission Act, which took effect in 1914 following a referendum, 
recognized the overriding interest of the people in the waters of the state, but provided that 
private rights to use the water may be acquired in the manner provided by law. The act 
established a system of state-issued permits and licenses to appropriate water. Amended over the 
years, it now appears in Division 2 (commencing with Section 1000) of the Water Code. These 
provisions place responsibility for administering appropriative water rights with the State Water 
Resources Control Board; however, the permit and license provisions do not apply to pre-1914 
appropriative rights (those initiated before the act took effect in 1914). The act also provides 
procedures for adjudication of water rights, including court references to the State Water 
Resources Control Board and statutor>' adjudications of all rights to a stream system. 
Groundwater Management 

Generally, groundwater is available to any person who owns land overlying the 
groundwater basin. Groundwater management in California is accomplished either by a judicial 
adjudication of the respective rights of overlying users and exporters, or by local management of 
rights to extract and use groundwater as authorized by statute or agreement. Statutory 
management may be granted to a public agency that also manages surface water, or to a 
groundwater management agency created expressly for that purpose by a special district act. 

In 1991, the Water Code was amended by AB 255 to allow local water agencies 
overlying critically overdrafted groundwater basins to develop groundwater management plans. 
Only a few local agencies adopted plans pursuant to that authorization. In 1992, the Legislature 
adopted new sections authorizing another form of groundwater management, also available to 
any local agency that provides water service, if the groundwater was not subject to management 
under other provisions of law or a court decree. Plans adopted pursuant to the 1992 statute 
(commonly called AB 3030 plans) may include control of salt water intrusion; identification and 
protection of well head and recharge areas; regulation of the migration of contaminated water; 
provisions for abandonment and destruction of wells; mitigation of overdraft; replenishment; 



2A-2 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 
and Managing Water Resources in California 



monitoring; facilitating conjunctive use; identification of well construction policies; and 
construction of cleanup, recharge, recycling, and extraction projects by the local agency. Table 
A2-1 lists agencies that had adopted AB 3030 plans as of January 1997. The table is based on 
surveys conducted by the Association of California Water Agencies and on plans submitted to 
the Department. 

Table 2A-1. Agencies with AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plans 



Alpaugh ID * 
Alta ID 
Angiola WD * 
Arcade WD 
Atwell Island WD* 
Banta-Carbona ID 
Biggs- West Gridley WD 
Butte WD 
Byron-Bethany ID 
Carpinteria Valley WD 
Cawelo WD 
Central WD 
Citrus Heights WD 
City of Corcoran * 
Consolidated ID 
Corcoran ID 
Del Puerto WD 
Eastern MWD 
Eastside WD 
El Camino ID 
Fresno ID 
Glenn-Colusa ID 
James ID 



Joshua Basin WD 
Kaweah Delta WCD 
Kern Delta WD 
Kings River WD 
Lakeside Irrigation WD 
Liberty WD 
Lower Tule River ID 
Melga WD 
Modesto ID 
Newhall CWD 
North Kern WSD 
North San Joaquin WCD 
Oakdale ID 
Pixley ID 
Porterville ID 

Princeton-Codora-Glenn ID 
Reclamation Dist. #108 
Reclamation Dist. #2035 
Rio Linda WD 
Riverdale ID 
Rosamond CSD 
Sacramento Metro WA 
Santa Maria Valley WCD 



Santa Ynez River WCD 
Sausalito ID 
Scotts Valley WD 
Shafter-Wasco ID 
Solano ID 
Soquel Creek ID 
South San Joaquin ID 
South Sutter WD 
Stockton East WD 
Sutter Extension WD 
Sweetwater Authority 
Terra Bella ID 
Tia Juana Valley CWD 
Truckee-Donner PUD 
Tulare Lake Basin WSD* 
Turlock ID 
United WCD 
West Stanislaus ID 
Western Canal WD 
Westlands WD 
Woodbridge ID 



* Members of the Tulare Lake Bed Coordinated Ciroundwater Management Plan under a Joint Powers Agreement 

Public Trust Doctrine 

In the 1980s, the Public Trust Doctrine was used by courts to limit traditional water 
rights. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, each state has title to tidelands 
and the beds of navigable lakes and streams within its borders. The Public Trust Doctrine— 



2A-3 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and ti/lanaging Water Resources in California 



recognized in some form by most states—embodies the principle that the state holds title to such 
properties within the state in trust for the beneficial use of the public, and that public rights of 
access to and use of tidelands and navigable waters are inalienable. Traditional public trust rights 
include navigation, commerce, and fishing. California law has expanded the traditional public 
trust uses to include protection offish and wildlife, preserving trust lands in their natural 
condition for scientific study and scenic enjoyment, and related open-space uses. 

In 1983, the California Supreme Court extended the public trust doctrine's limitation on 
private rights to appropriative water rights. In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of 
Alpine County, the court held that water right licenses held by the city of Los Angeles to divert 
water from streams tributary to Mono Lake remain subject to ongoing State supervision under 
the public trust doctrine. The court held that public trust uses must be considered and balanced 
when rights to divert water away from navigable water bodies are considered. The court also held 
that California's appropriative rights system and the public trust doctrine embody important 
precepts which "... make the law more responsive to the diverse needs and interests involved in 
planning and allocation of water resources." Consequently, in issuing or reconsidering any rights 
to appropriate and divert water, the State must balance public trust needs with the needs for other 
beneficial uses of water. In 1994, the SWRCB issued a final decision on Mono Lake (Decision 
1631) in which it balanced the various uses in determining the appropriate terms and conditions 
of the water rights permit for the city of Los Angeles. The public trust doctrine will also be 
applied by the SWRCB in its current consideration of water rights in the Bay-Delta. 

Since the 1983 National Audubon decision, the public trust doctrine has been involved in 
several other cases. In United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (commonly 
referred to as the Racanelli Decision and discussed below), the State Court of Appeal reiterated 
that the public trust doctrine is a significant limitation on water rights. The public trust doctrine 
was also a basis for the decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility 
District. In this case, EDF claimed that EBMUD should not contract with USBR for water 
diverted from the American River upstream the Sacramento urban area in a manner that would 
harm instream uses including recreational, scenic, and fish and wildlife preservation purposes. 
The Superior Court upheld the validity of EBMUD's contract with USBR, but placed limitations 
on the timing and amounts of deliveries to EBMUD. As a result of these cases, the SWRCB now 



2A-4 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



routinely implements the public trust doctrine through regulations and through terms and 
conditions in water rights permits and licenses. 
Federal Power Act 

The Federal Power Act created a federal licensing system administered by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission and requires that a license be obtained for nonfederal 
hydroelectric projects proposing to use navigable waters or federal lands. The act contains a 
clause modeled after a clause in the Reclamation Act of 1902, which disclaims any intent to 
affect state water rights law. 

In a number of decisions dating back to the 1940s, the U.S. Supreme Court held that 
provisions of the Reclamation Act and the Federal Power Act preempted inconsistent provisions 
of law. Decisions under both acts found that these clauses were merely "saving clauses" which 
required the United States to follow minimal state procedural laws or to pay just compensation 
where vested nonfederal water rights are taken. 

In California v. United States (1978), however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 
number of earlier Supreme Court decisions which found that the Reclamation Act substantially 
preempts state water law. It held that the Reclamation Act clause requires the USBR to comply 
with conditions in state water rights permits unless those conditions conflict with "clear 
Congressional directives." In California v. FERC (1990). commonly referred to as the Rock 
Creek Decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California's argument that the Federal Power 
Act clause required deference to state water law, as the Reclamation Act did. The Supreme Court 
distinguished between the two acts, finding that the Federal Power Act envisioned a broader and 
more active oversight role than did the Reclamation law. The Federal District Court case of 
Sayles Hydro Association v. Maughan (1993), reinforced this view by holding that federal law 
prevents any state regulation of federally licensed power projects other than determining 
proprietary water rights. 

In 1994. the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision referred to as the Elkhom decision or 
Tacoma decision (PUD No. I of Jefferson County and City ofTacoma v. Washington 
Department of Ecology). The court held that a state minimum instream flow requirement is a 
permissible condition of a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification, in response to a proposal to 
construct a hydroelectric project on the Dosewallips River. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean 



2A-5 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



Water Act, the project proponents were required to obtain state certification for the hydroelectric 
project. The State of Washington set an instream flow requirement in its certification process to 
protect the river's designated use as fish habitat. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires 
states to establish water quality standards for intrastate waters, with the standards to include both 
numeric water quality criteria and designated uses. 

Area of Origin Statute. During the years when California's two largest water projects, the 
Central Valley Project and State Water Project, were being planned and developed, area of origin 
legislation was enacted to protect local Northern California supplies from being depleted as a 
result of the projects. County of origin statutes reserve water supplies for counties in which the 
water originates when, in the judgment of the SWRCB, an application for the assignment or 
release from priority of state water right filings will deprive the county of water necessary for its 
present and future development. Watershed protection statutes are provisions which require that 
the construction and operation of elements of the CVP and the SWP not deprive the watershed, 
or area where water originates, or immediately adjacent areas which can be conveniently 
supplied with water of the prior right to water reasonably required to supply the present or future 
beneficial needs of the watershed area or any of its inhabitants or property owners. 

The Delta Protection Act, enacted in 1959 (not to be confused with the Delta Protection 
Act of 1992, which relates to land use), declares that the maintenance of an adequate water 
supply in the Delta—to maintain and expand agriculture, industry, urban, and recreational 
development in the Delta area and provide a common source of fresh water for export to areas of 
water deficiency—is necessary for the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state, 
and is subject to the County of Origin and Watershed Protection laws. The act requires theSWP 
and the CVP to provide an adequate water supply for water users in the Delta through salinity 
control or through substitute supplies in lieu of salinity control. 

In 1984, additional area of origin protections were enacted covering the Sacramento, 
Mokelumne, Calaveras, and San Joaquin rivers; the combined Truckee, Carson, and Walker 
rivers; and Mono Lake. The protections prohibit the export of groundwater from the combined 
Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta basins, unless the export is in compliance 
with local groundwater plans. 



2A-6 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



Environmental Regulatory Statutes and Programs 
Endangered Species Act 

Under the federal ESA, an endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction in all 
or a significant part of its range, and a threatened species is one that is likely to become 
endangered in the near future. The ESA is designed to preserve endangered and threatened 
species by protecting individuals of the species and their habitat and by implementing measures 
that promote their recovery. The ESA sets forth a procedure for listing species as threatened or 
endangered. Final listing decisions are made by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or 
the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Once a species is listed, Section 7 of the act requires that federal agencies, in consultation 
with the USFWS or NMFS, ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species or habitat critical for the survival of that species. The federal wildlife agencies are 
required to provide an opinion as to whether the federal action would jeopardize the species. The 
opinion must include reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid 
jeopardizing the species' existence. Federal actions subject to Section 7 include issuance of 
federal permits such as the dredge and fill permit required under Section 404 of the federal Clean 
Water Act, which requires that the project proponent demonstrate that there is no feasible 
alternative consistent with the project goals that would not affect listed species. Mitigation of the 
proposed project is not considered until this hurdle is passed. 

State agencies and private parties also are subject to the ESA. Secfion 9 of the ESA 
prohibits the "take" of endangered species and threatened species for which protective regulations 
have been adopted. Take has been broadly defined to include actions that harm or harass listed 
species or that cause a significant loss of their habitat. State agencies and private parties are 
generally required to obtain a permit from the USFWS or NMFS under Section 10(a) of the ESA 
before carrying out activities that may incidentally result in taking listed species. The permit 
normally contains conditions to avoid taking listed species and to compensate for habitat 
adversely impacted by the activities. 
California Endangered Species Act 

The California Endangered Species Act is similar to the federal ESA and must be 
complied with in addition to the federal ESA. Listing decisions are made by the California Fish 



2A-7 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and f/lanaging Water Resources in California 



and Game Commission. 

All State lead agencies are required to consult with the Department of Fish and Game 
about projects that impact State listed species. DFG is required to render an opinion as to 
whether the proposed project jeopardizes a listed species and to offer alternatives to avoid 
jeopardy. State agencies must adopt reasonable alternatives unless there are overriding social or 
economic conditions that make such alternatives infeasible. For projects causing incidental take, 
DFG is required to specify reasonable and prudent measures to minimize take. Any take that 
result from activities that are carried out in compliance with these measures is not prohibited. 

Many California species are both federally listed and State listed. CESA directs DFG to 
coordinate with the USFWS and NMFS in the consultation process so that consistent and 
compatible opinions or findings can be adopted by both federal and State agencies. 
Natural Community Conservation Planning 

Adopted in 1991, California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act establishes 
a program to identify the habitat needs of species before they become listed as threatened or 
endangered, and to develop appropriate voluntary conservation methods compatible with 
development and growth. This program is designed to preserve habitat for the variety of species 
that are dependent upon each other. Participants in the program develop plans to protect certain 
habitat and will ultimately enter into agreements with DFG to ensure that the plans will be 
carried out. Plans must be created so that they are consistent with endangered species laws. 
Dredge and Fill Permits 

Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged and fill 
materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The term "discharge of dredged 
and fill material" has been defined broadly to include the construction of any structure involving 
rock, soil, or other construction material. No discharge may occur unless a permit is obtained 
from the USAGE. Generally, the project proponent must agree to mitigate or have plans to 
mitigate environmental impacts caused by the project before a permit is issued. The EPA has the 
authority to veto permits issued by the Corps for projects that have unacceptable adverse effects 
on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Section 404 allows the issuance of a general permit on a State, regional, or nationwide 
basis for certain categories of activities that will cause only minimal environmental effects. Such 



2A-8 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



activities are permitted without the need of an individual permit application. Installation of a 
stream gaging station along a river levee is one example of an activity which falls within a 
nationwide permit. 

The USAGE also administers a permitting program under Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers 
and Harbors Act. Section 1 generally requires a permit for obstructions to navigable water. The 
scope of the permit under Section 10 is narrower than under Section 404 since the term 
"navigable waters" is more limited than "waters of the United States." 

The majority of water development projects must comply with Section 404, Section 10, 
or both. 
Public Interest Terms and Conditions 

The Water Code authorizes the SWRCB to impose public interest terms and conditions to 
conserve the public interest, specifically the consideration of instream beneficial uses, when it 
issues permits to appropriate water. It also considers environmental impacts of approving water 
transfers under its jurisdiction. Frequently, it reserves jurisdiction to consider new instream uses 
and to modify permits accordingly. 
Releases of Water for Fish 

Fish and Game Code Section 5937 provides protection to fisheries by requiring that the 
owner of any dam allow sufficient water at all times to pass through the dam to keep in good 
condition any fisheries that may be planted or exist below the dam. In California Trout, Inc. v. 
the State Water Resources Control Board (\9S9), the court determined that Fish and Game Code 
sections 5937 and 5946 require the SWRCB to modify the permits and licenses issued to the city 
of Los Angeles to appropriate water from the streams feeding Mono Lake to ensure sufficient 
water flows for downstream fisheries. The SWRCB reconsidered Los Angeles's permits and 
licenses in light of Fish and Game Code section 5937 and the public trust doctrine. In 1994, the 
SWRCB adopted D-1631, which requires Los Angeles to allow sufficient flows from the streams 
feeding Mono Lake to reach the lake to cause it to rise to the level of 6,391 feet in approximately 
twenty years. 
Streambed Alteration Agreements 

Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 and 1603 require that any governmental entity or 
private party altering a river, stream, lake bed, bottom or channel enter into an agreement with 



2A-9 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



the DFG. When the project may substantially impact an existing fish or wildlife resource, DFG 
may require that the agreement include provisions designed to protect riparian habitat, fisheries, 
and wildlife. New water development projects and ongoing maintenance activities are often 
subject to these sections. 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

This act implements various treaties for the protection of migratory birds and prohibits 
the "taking" (broadly defined) of birds protected by those treaties without a permit. The Secretary 
of the Interior determines conditions under which a taking may occur, and criminal penalties are 
provided for unlawfully taking or transporting protected birds. Liability imposed by this act was 
one of several factors leading to the decision to close the San Luis Drain and Kesterson 
Reservoir. 

Environmental Review and Mitigation 

Another set of environmental statutes compels governmental agencies and private 
individuals to document and consider the environmental consequences of their actions. They 
define the procedures through which governmental agencies consider environmental factors in 
their decision-making process. 
National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA directs federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement for all 
major federal actions which may have a significant effect on the human environment. It states 
that it is the goal of the federal government to use all practicable means, consistent with other 
considerations of national policy, to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. It is a 
procedural law requiring all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their 
proposed actions during the planning and decision-making processes. 
California Environmental Quality Act 

CEQA, modeled after NEPA, requires California public agency decision-makers to 
document and consider the environmental impacts of their actions. It requires an agency to 
identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage, and to implement those measures where 
feasible. CEQA applies to all levels of California government, including the State, counties, 
cities, and local districts. 

CEQA requires that a public agency carrying out a project with significant environmental 



2A-10 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



effects prepare an environmental impact report. An EIR contains a description of the project; a 
discussion of the project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; public 
comments; and the agency's responses to the comments. In other instances, a notice of exemption 
from the application of CEQA may also be appropriate. 

NEPA does not generally require federal agencies to adopt mitigation measures or 
alternatives provided in the EIS. CEQA imposes substantive duties on all California 
governmental agencies that approve projects with significant environmental impacts to adopt 
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that substantially lessen these impacts, unless there 
are overriding reasons. When a project is subject to both CEQA and NEPA. both laws encourage 
the agencies to cooperate in planning the project and to prepare joint environmental documents. 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act expresses Congressional policy to protect the 
quality of the aquatic environment as it affects the conservation, improvement, and enjoyment of 
fish and wildlife resources. Under this act, any federal agency that proposes to control or modify 
any body of water, or to issue a permit allowing control or modification of a body of water, must 
first consult with the USFWS and state Fish and Game officials. This requires coordination early 
in the project planning and environmental review processes. 

Protection of Wild and Natural Areas 

Water use and management are also limited by several statutes designed to set aside 
resources or areas to preserve their natural conditions. These statutes preclude many activities, 
including most water development projects, within the areas set aside. 
Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

In 1968, Congress passed the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to preserve, in their 
free-flowing condition, rivers which possess "outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, 
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values." The act also states: "... 
that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of rivers 
of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected 
rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers 
and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes." 



2 A- 11 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



The act prohibits federal agencies from constructing, authorizing, or funding the 
construction of water resources projects having a direct and adverse effect on the values for 
which a river was designated. This restriction also applies to rivers designated for potential 
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Included in the system are most rivers 
protected under California's State Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; these rivers were included in the 
national system upon California's petition on January 19, 1981. The West Walker and East Fork 
Carson rivers are not included in the federal system. 
California Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

In 1972, the California legislature passed the State Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, declaring 
that specified rivers possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values that 
should be preserved in a free-flowing state for the benefit of the people of California. It declared 
that such use of the rivers would be the highest and most beneficial use within the meaning of 
Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution. The act prohibits construction of any dam, 
reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment on a designated river. Diversions needed to 
supply domestic water to residents of counties through which the river flows may be authorized, 
if the Secretary for Resources determines that the diversion will not adversely affect the river's 
free-flowing character. 

The major difference between the national and state acts is that if a river is designated 
wild and scenic under the State act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can still issue a 
license to build a dam on that river, thus overriding the state system. (See Federal Power Act 
discussion above.) This difference explains why national wild and scenic designation is often 
sought. 
National Wilderness Act 

The Wilderness Act sets up a system to protect federal land designated by Congress as a 
"wilderness area" and preserve it in its natural condition. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped 
federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or 
human habitation. Commercial enterprise, permanent roads, motor vehicles, aircraft landings, 
motorized equipment, or construction of structures or installations (such as dams, diversions, 
conveyance facilities, and gaging stations) are prohibited within designated wilderness areas. 



2A-12 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



Water Quality Protection 

Water quality is an important aspect of water resource management. The SWRCB plays a 
central role in determining both water rights and regulating water quality. The Department of 
Health Services has regulatory oversight over drinking water quality, a program administered in 
coordination with county environmental health agencies. Discussed below are key state and 
federal laws governing water quality. 
Porter-Cologne Water Qualit> Control Act 

This act is California's comprehensive water quality control law and is a complete 
regulatory program designed to protect water quality and beneficial uses of the State's water. The 
act requires the adoption of water quality control plans by the State's nine regional water quality 
control boards for areas within their regions. These plans are subject to the approval of the 
SWRCB, and ultimately the federal EPA. The plans are to be reviewed and updated. 

The primary method of implementing the plans is to require each discharger of waste that 
could impact the waters of the state to meet formal waste discharge requirements. Anyone 
discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste into the state's water must file a "report of 
waste discharge" with the regional water quality control board within whose jurisdiction the 
discharge lies. Dischargers are subject to a wide variety of administrative, civil, and criminal 
actions for failing to file a report. After the report is filed, the regional board may issue waste 
discharge requirements that set conditions on the discharge. The waste discharge requirements 
must be consistent with the water quality control plan for the body of water and protect the 
beneficial uses of the receiving waters. The regional boards also implement Section 402 of the 
federal Clean Water Act, which allows the state to issue a single discharge permit for the 
purposes of both state and federal law. 
Clean Water Act -- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established a permit system known as the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to regulate point sources of discharges in navigable 
waters of the United States. The EPA was given the authority to implement the NPDES, although 
the act also authorizes states to implement the act in lieu of the EPA, provided the state has 
sufficient authority. 



2A-13 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



In 1972, the California Legislature passed a law amending the Porter-Cologne Act which 
gave California the authority and ability to operate the NPDES permits program. Before a permit 
may be issued. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board certify that the discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards. 
After making the certification, the regional board may issue the permit, satisfying both state and 
federal law. In 1987. Section 402 was amended to require the regulation of storm water runoff 
under the NPDES. 
Safe Drinking Water Act 

The SDWA, enacted in 1974 and significantly amended in 1986 and 1996, directed the 
EPA to set national standards for drinking water quality. It required the EPA to set maximum 
contaminant levels for a wide variety of constituents. Local water suppliers are required to 
monitor their water supplies to assure that regulatory standards are not exceeded. 

The 1986 amendments set a timetable for the EPA to establish standards for specific 
contaminants and increased the range of contaminants local water suppliers were required to 
monitor to include contaminants that did not yet have an MCL established. The amendments 
included a wellhead protection program, a grant program for designating sole-source aquifers for 
special protection, and grant programs and technical and financial assistance to small systems 
and states. 

The 1 996 amendments added a provision requiring states to create their own state 
revolving fund in order to be eligible to receive federal matching funds for loans and grants to 
public water systems. More details of the 1996 amendments are described in Chapter 2. 
California Safe Drinking Water Act 

In 1976, California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the Department 
of Health Services to administer laws relating to drinking water regulation including: setting and 
enforcing both federal and state drinking water standards, administering water quality testing 
programs, and administering permits for public water system operations. The federal Safe 
Drinking Water Act allows the state to enforce its own standards in lieu of the federal standards 
so long as they are at least as protective as the federal standards. Significant amendments to the 
state's act in 1989 incorporated the new federal safe drinking water act requirements into 
California law, gave DHS discretion to set more stringent MCLs, and recommended public 



2A-14 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



health levels for contaminants. DHS was authorized to consider the technical and economic 
feasibility of reducing contaminants in setting MCLs. The standards established by DHS are 
found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. 

Historic Background — Bay-Delta Regulatory Actions 

The SWRCB issued the first water rights permits to the USBR for operation of the CVP 
in 1958, and to DWR for operation of the SWP in 1967. In these and all succeeding permits 
issued for the CVP and SWP, the SWRCB reserved jurisdiction to reformulate or revise terms 
and conditions relative to salinity control, effect on vested rights, and fish and wildlife protection 
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Board has a dual role of issuing both water rights 
permits and regulating water quality. 
Decision 1485 

In 1976, the Board initiated proceedings leading to the adoption of Water Right Decision 
1485 in 1978. Decision 1485 set forth conditions— including water quality standards, export 
limitations, and minimum flow rates~for SWP and CVP operations in the Delta and superseded 
all previous water rights decisions for the SWP and CVP operations in the Delta. Among 
beneficial uses to be protected by the decision were: (1) municipal and industrial water supply, 
(2) agriculture, and (3) fish and wildlife. 

In formulating Decision 1485, the SWRCB asserted that Delta water quality should be at 
least as good as it would have been if the SWP and CVP had not been constructed. In other 
words, both the SWP and the CVP were to be operated to meet "without project" conditions. 
Decision 1485 standards included different levels of protection to reflect variations in hydrologic 
conditions during different types of water years. 

To help implement these water quality standards. Decision 1485 mandated an extensive 
monitoring program. It also called for special studies to provide critical data about major 
concerns in the Delta and Suisun Marsh for which information was insufficient. Decision 1485 
included water quality standards for Suisun Marsh, as well as for the Delta, requiring DWR and 
the USBR to develop a plan for the marsh that would ensure meeting long-term standards. 

Recognizing that the complexities of project operations and water quality conditions 
would change over time, the SWRCB also specified that the Delta water right hearings would be 
reopened within ten years of the date of adoption of Decision 1485, depending upon changing 



2A-15 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



conditions in the Bay-Delta region and the availability of new evidence on beneficial uses of 

water. 

Racanelli Decision 

Lawsuits by various interests challenged Decision 1485 and the decision was overturned 
by the trial court in 1984. Unlike its predecessor, D-1379, whose standards had been judicially 
stayed, D-1485 remained in effect. In 1986, the appellate court in the Racanelli Decision (named 
after Judge Racanelli who wrote the opinion) broadly interpreted the SWRCB's authority and 
obligation to establish water quality objectives, and its authority to set water rights permit terms 
and conditions that provide reasonable protection of beneficial uses of Delta water of San 
Francisco Bay. 

The court stated that SWRCB needed to separate its water quality planning and water 
rights fiinctions. SWRCB needs to maintain a "global perspective" in identifying beneficial uses 
to be protected (not limited to water rights) and in allocating responsibility for implementing 
water quality objectives (not just to the SWP and CVP, nor only through the SWRCB's own 
water rights processes). The court recognized the SWRCB's authority to look to all water rights 
holders to implement water quality standards and advised the Board to consider the effects of all 
Delta and upstream water users in setting and implementing water quality standards in the Delta, 
as well as those of the SWP and the CVP. 
SWRCB Bay-Delta Proceedings 

Hearings to adopt a water quality control plan and water rights decision for the Bay-Delta 
estuary began in July 1987. Their purpose was to develop a San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta water quality control plan and to consider public interest issues related to Delta 
water rights, including implementation of water quality objectives. During the first phase of the 
proceedings, testimony was heard on issues pertaining to the reasonable and beneficial uses of 
the estuary's water. The second phase of the Bay-Delta hearings was to come up with a water 
quality control plan. SWRCB adopted a final plan in May 1991 . The federal EPA rejected this 
plan in September 1991, setting the stage for preparation of federal water quality standards for 
the Bay-Delta. 

With the adoption of the Water Quality Control Plan, the SWRCB began the EIR scoping 
phase and held several workshops during 1991 to receive testimony regarding planning activities. 



2A-16 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and f/lanaging Water Resources in California 



facilities development, negotiated settlements, and flow objectives. 

Concurrently, under the broad authority of the Endangered Species Act, the federal 
regulatory process was proceeding toward development of Delta standards and upstream 
measures applicable to the CVP and SWP for the protection of the threatened winter-run chinook 
salmon. In February 1993, the NMFS issued a long-term biological opinion governing operations 
of the CVP and SWP with Delta environmental regulations that, in certain months, were more 
restrictive than SWRCB's proposed measures. In March 1993, the USFWS listed the Delta smelt 
as a threatened species and shortly thereafter indicated that further restrictions of CVP and SWP 
operations would be required. In December 1993, EPA announced its proposed standards for the 
estuary in place of the SWRCB water quality standards EPA had rejected in 1991. In addition, 
USFWS proposed to list the Sacramento splittail as a threatened species, and NMFS announced 
its decision to change the status of winter-run salmon from threatened to endangered. 

The impending regulatory gridlock lead to the negotiation and signing of the June 1994 
Framework Agreement for the Bay-Delta Estuary. The Framework Agreement and subsequent 
Bay-Delta activities are described in Chapter 2. 

Fish Protection Agreements. To mitigate fish losses at Delta export facilities, both the 
SWP and the CVP have entered into agreements with DFG. As part of the environmental review- 
process for installing four additional pumps at DWR's Banks Pumping Plant in the Delta in 1992, 
DFG and DWR negotiated an agreement to preserve fish potentially affected by the operation of 
the pumps. This agreement, signed by the two departments in 1 986, identifies the steps needed to 
offset adverse impacts of the Banks Pumping Plant on fisheries. It sets up a procedure to 
calculate direct fishery losses annually and requires DWR to pay for mitigation projects that 
would offset the losses. Losses of striped bass, chinook salmon, and steelhead are to be mitigated 
first. Mitigation of other species is to follow as impacts are identified and appropriate mitigation 
measures found. In recognition of the fact that direct losses today would probably be greater if 
fish populations had not been depleted by past operations, DWR also provided a $1 5 million 
capital outlay for a program to increase the probability of quickly demonstrated results. In 1996, 
DWR and DFG agreed to extend the period for expending the remainder of the $15 million to the 
year 2001. 



2A-17 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



Following negotiation of the agreement for Banks Pumping Plant, DFG negotiated a 
similar agreement with USBR for its Tracy Pumping Plant. 

Surface Water Management 

The following sections are brief descriptions of major statutes affecting surface water 
management in California. 
CVPIA 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of PL 102-575) made significant 
changes to the CVP's legislative authorization, amending the project's purposes to place fish and 
wildlife mitigation and restoration on a par with water supply, and to place fish and wildlife 
enhancement on a par with power generation. Major provisions of the act are summarized below. 

The act prohibits execution of new water supply contracts for purposes other than fish 
and wildlife (with a few limited exceptions) until all environmental restoration actions specified 
in the act have been completed. Existing long-term water supply contracts are to be renewed for a 
25-year term, with the possibility of subsequent 25-year renewals thereafter. Only interim 
contract renewals are allowed until the programmatic EIS required by the act is completed. 
Renewed contracts are to incorporate CVPIA's new requirements, such as Restoration Fund 
payments. 

The act allows transfers of project water to users outside of the CVP service area, under 
numerous specified conditions. The conditions include a right of first refusal to a proposed 
transfer by existing CVP water users (under the same terms and conditions specified in the 
proposed transfer), and a requirement that proposed transfers of more than 20 percent of a 
contracting agency's project water supply be subject to review and approval by the contracting 
agency. 

The act requires DOl to develop water conservation criteria, and to review conservation 
plans submitted by contracting agencies pursuant to Reclamation Reform Act requirements for 
conformance to the CVPIA criteria. Tiered pricing is to be included in CVP water supply 
contracts when they are renewed. Project water supply and repayment contractors' surface water 
delivery systems are to be equipped with water measurement devices. 

The act directs DOI to develop a program, by October 1995, to make all reasonable 
efforts to double, by 2002, natural producfion (based on 1967-1991 fishery populafion levels) of 

2A-I8 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



specified anadromous fish in the Central Valley, and to implement that program. [A portion of 
the San Joaquin River is exempted fi-om this provision.] The act dedicates 800 TAF of CVP yield 
to fish and wildlife purposes, and authorizes DOI to acquire supplemental water for meeting the 
fish doubling goal. The act further requires an annual Trinity River instream flow of at least 340 
TAF through 1996, with subsequent instream flow requirements to be determined by a USFWS 
instream flow study. 

The act requires DOI to provide, from CVP supplies, firm water supplies (i.e., deliver 
water corresponding to existirig non-firm supplies such as agricultural drainage) to specified 
federal, state, and private wildlife refuges in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. DOI is to 
acquire, from willing sellers, an additional increment of water supply for the wildlife areas, 
corresponding to their full habitat development needs. All of the supplemental water needs are to 
be met by 2002. 

The act requires DOI to implement numerous specified environmental restoration actions, 
such as constructing a temperature control device at Shasta Dam, remedying fish passage 
problems at Red Bluff Diversion Dam, replenishing spawning gravel, and assisting in screening 
non- federal diversions. Costs of some of these restoration actions are allocated in part to the State 
of California. DOI is required to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with California for the 
environmental restoration actions whose costs are allocated in part to California. 

The act requires DOI to prepare specified reports and studies, to implement a Central 
Valley fish and wildlife monitoring program, and to develop ecosystem and water operations 
models. Examples of reports to be prepared include a least-cost plan to replace the 800 TAF of 
project yield dedicated to environmental purposes, and an evaluation of water supply and 
development requirements for 120,000 acres of wetlands identified in a Central Valley Habitat 
Joint Venture report. DOI is also directed to prepare, by October 1995, a programmatic EIS 
analyzing impacts of CVPIA implementation. 

The act authorizes DOI to carry out a land retirement program, and specifies categories of 
land that may be acquired. San Joaquin Valley drainage-impaired lands are among the authorized 
categories. 

The act establishes a CVPIA Restoration Fund within the federal treasury, and directs 
DOI to collect mitigation and restoration payments from project water and power users. DOI is 

2A-19 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



authorized to use appropriations from the fund to carry out the environmental restoration 
measures required by the act. Payments are capped at $6 per acre-foot for agricultural water 
contractors and $12 per acre-foot for municipal and industrial water contractors (all amounts are 
in 1992 dollars). (An additional restoration payment is assessed against contractors in the Friant 
Division, in lieu of requiring Friant Dam releases for instream flows in the San Joaquin River 
between Gravelly Ford and the Mendota Pool.) 
Regional and Local Water Projects 

In general, there are two methods in the State of California for forming special districts 
which are concerned directly or incidentally with the development, control or distribution of 
water: (1) by enactment of a general act under which the districts may be formed in accordance 
with a procedure set forth in the act, and (2) by a special act creating the district and prescribing 
its powers. There are more than 40 different statutes under which local agencies may be 
organized and have, among their powers, the authority to distribute water. In addition, there are a 
number of special act districts, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 
DWR Bulletin 155-94, General Comparison of Water District Acts (March 1994), presents a 
comparison of various water district acts in California. 

In addition to public agencies, there are other entities that may provide water supply. 
Mutual water companies, for example, are private corporations that perform water supply and 
distribution functions similar to public water districts. Investor-owned utilities may also be 
involved in water supply activities, sometimes as an adjunct of hydroelectric power development. 
Water Use Efficiency 

Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution prohibits the waste, unreasonable use, 
unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water. It also declares that 
the conservation and use of water "shall be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial 
use thereof in the public interest and for the public welfare." Although provisions and 
requirements of the Constitution are self executing, the Constitution states that the Legislature 
may enact statutes to advance its policy. Water Code Section 275 directs DWR and the SWRCB 
to "take all appropriate proceedings or actions before executive, legislative, or judicial agencies 
to prevent waste or unreasonable use of water." SWRCB's Water Right Decision 1600, directing 
the Imperial Irrigation District to adopt a water conservation plan, is an example of an action 

2A-20 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



brought under Article X, Section 2. The board's authority to order preparation of such a plan was 

upheld in 1 990 by the courts in Imperial Irrigation District v. State Water Resources Control 

Board. 

Urban Water Management Planning Act 

Since 1983, this act has required urban water suppliers that serve more than 
3,000 customers or more than 3,000 acre-feet per year to prepare and adopt urban water 
conservation plans. The act authorizes the supplier to implement the water conservation program. 
The plans must contain several specified elements, including: estimates of water use, 
identification of existing conservation measures, identification of alternative conservation 
measures, a schedule of implementation of actions proposed by the plan, and identification of the 
frequency and magnitude of water shortages. In 1991, the act was amended in response to the 
drought to require water suppliers to estimate water supplies available at the end of one, two, and 
three years, and to develop contingency plans for severe shortages. The act also requires water 
suppliers to review and update their plans at least once every five years. 
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act 

The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act required the Department, with the assistance 
of an advisory task force, to adopt a model water-efficient landscape ordinance. The model 
ordinance was adopted in August 1992, and has been codified in Title 23 of the California Code 
of Regulations. It establishes methods of conserving water through water budgeting plans, plant 
use, efficient irrigation, auditing, and other methods. 

Cities and counties were required to review the model ordinance and adopt a water- 
efficient landscape ordinance by January 1, 1993, if they had not done so already. Alternatively, 
cities and counties could make a finding that such an ordinance is unnecessary due to climatic, 
geological, or topographic conditions, or water availability. If a city or coimty failed to adopt a 
water efficient landscape ordinance or make findings by January 31, 1993, the model ordinance 
became effective in that jurisdiction. 
Agricultural Water Management Planning Act 

Under this act, agricultural water suppliers supplying more than 50,000 af of water 
annually were required to submit a report to the Department indicating whether a significant 
opportunity exists to conserve water or reduce the quantity of highly saline or toxic drainage 

2A-21 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating 

and Managing Water Resources in California 



water through improved irrigation water management. The act provided that agricultural water 
suppliers, who indicated that they had an opportunity to conserve water or reduce the quantity of 
highly saline or toxic water, should to prepare a water management plan and submit it to the 
Department. The Department was required to review the plans and submit a report to the 
Legislature by January 1993. 
Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act 

The Agricultural Water Suppliers Efficient Management Practices Act, adopted in 1 990, 
required that the Department establish an advisory task force to review efficient agricultural 
water management practices. Under the act, the Department is required to offer assistance to 
agricultural water suppliers seeking to improve the efficiency of their water management 
practices. The committee developed a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the 
practices, which is currently being circulated for signature. 
Agricultural Water Conservation and Management Act of 1992 

This act gives any public agency that supplies water for agricultural use authority to 
institute water conservation or efficient management programs. The programs can include 
irrigation management services, providing information about crop water use, providing irrigation 
consulting services, improving the supplier's delivery system, providing technical and financial 
assistance to farmers, encouraging conservation through pricing of water, and monitoring. 
Water Recycling Act of 1991 

This act describes the environmental benefits and public safety of using recycled water as 
a reliable and cost-effective method of helping to meet California's water supply needs. It sets a 
statewide goal to recycle 700,000 af per year by the year 2000 and 1 maf by the year 2010. 



2A-22 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A Urban and Agncultural Water Pricing 



Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 

This appendix is provided as background material to respond to interest expressed by 
Bulletin 160-98 reviewers in water pricing information. Water prices in California vary widely, 
as discussed below. The more than 2,800 local agencies in California that provide water service 
establish their prices based on factors specific to their individual service areas, and those prices 
are generally reviewed by agencies' elected or appointed boards of directors, or by the California 
Public Utility Commission. 

Water Retail Pricing 

Many factors influence the water prices charged by water agencies. Some of the major 
factors include water acquisition and delivery costs, water supply availability, pricing policies, 
climatic conditions and the characteristics of the service area. 

There are many kinds of water agencies in the state, as shown in Table 4A-1 . For public 
water agencies, the types of charges levied depends upon the legislation under which they were 
created. Descriptions of the general powers of the public agencies shown in the table can be 
found in DWR's Bulletin 155-94, General Comparison of Water District Acts, published in 
March 1994. Investor-owned utilities water rates are set by the California Public Utilities 
Commission. Mutual water companies, which are privately owned, set their own rates for their 
members. 
Acquisition and Delivery Costs 

Foremost among acquisition costs are those associated with obtaining water from a 
source— which may vary greatly from one source to another. Many water agencies have not 
developed their own water sources. Instead, they purchase water wholesale from other suppliers. 
Other significant costs include transportation and local delivery charges and water treatment 
costs. Supplies delivered for urban use require treatment, which is becoming an increasingly 
greater component of total cost as more stringent drinking water quality regulations are put into 
place. Compliance with recent surface water filtration and information collection requirements of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, for example, is a substantial cost item for many water agencies. 



4A-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 4A Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 



Table 4A-1. Types of Local Water Agencies in California 



Type of Agency 



Ownership Number 



County Service Area 

Mutual Water Company 

Community Services District 

Investor-Owned Water Utility 

County Water District 

Water District 

Irrigation District 

Public Utility District 

Flood Control and Water Conservation District 

County Water Works District 

Municipal Water District 

Water Agency or Water Authority 

Water Conservation District 

Water Storage District 

Municipal Utility District 

Water Replenishment District 

Metropolitan Water District 



Public 


880 


Private 


801 


Public 


309 


Private 


195 


Public 


178 


Public 


157 


Public 


97 


Public 


52 


Public 


41 


Public 


40 


Public 


40 


Public 


31 


Public 


13 


Public 


8 


Public 


5 


Public 


2 


Public 


1 



Total 



2,850 



Source: Department of Health Services and State Controller's Office data, 1994-96. 

Some water agencies use water rates to fully recover the costs of acquiring, treating, and 
delivering supplies; others use a combination of water rates and local property taxes. Another 
important policy concerns whether a water agency sets its rates to reflect costs that will be 
incurred over the short-term (less than 5 years in the future) or over the long-term (greater than 5 
years). This is especially significant if a water agency's system is currently operating at (or 
above) capacity, and major system improvements or expansion are needed. If this is the case, the 
water agency may need to adjust its rates to reflect the higher marginal costs of future system 
expansion. 
Water Availability 

During droughts, the rates water agencies charge may vary depending on supply 
reliability and availability. For example, during the 1987-92 drought, many water agencies 
adopted higher rates to fund programs to encourage water conservation, and several implemented 
drought penalty rates designed to reduce water use drastically. These policies reduced water use; 
however, an unwanted consequence of reduced water use was reduced revenues to the water 
agencies, which still had to pay their system's fixed costs plus the costs of expanded conservation 
programs. To remain solvent, many water agencies had to increase rates several times during the 



4A-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 

drought. 

Characteristics of Service Area 

A water agency's costs also will be affected by the mix of residential, commercial, 
industrial, governmental and agricultural users within the service area, because the cost of service 
to these users is likely to be different. If a water agency serves a heavily populated area with 
many connections per square mile, the average fixed costs per customer will tend to be less. 
Conversely, if the purveyor serves a sparsely populated area, the average fixed costs of serving 
each customer normally will be high. Changes in elevation within a service are can also affect 
delivery costs, because of associated pumping costs. 
Rate Structure 

Water rates are the primary source of income for most water agencies. Although these 
rates can be structured numerous ways, typically they include some form of fixed charges, 
consumption-based charges, or a combination of both. 

Fixed charges typically recover some or all of the water agency's fixed costs, such as 
debt service incurred from project construction and administrative costs. These costs are incurred 
irrespective of the amount of water used. Fixed rates are typically used by water agencies that do 
not meter consumption. For metered urban water agencies, examples of fixed charges include 
billing and administrative charges (service charges); lifeline charges for a minimum level of 
service; "readiness to serve" charges; and fire protection charges. Agricultural fixed charges 
(often called water availability or standby charges) can be levied on a per acre or connection 
basis. Fixed charges which are levied on a per acre or parcel basis will likely be affected by the 
recent passage of Proposition 218, which is discussed in more detail in Chapters 2 and 6. 

Consumption-based charges typically are set on a per unit volume basis so the total 
charge varies with the user's consumption. These charges typically recover the variable costs of 
water deliveries (i.e., costs that vary with the amount of water delivery, such as water purchases, 
treatment, and pumping costs), although some fixed costs also may be recovered. 
Consumption-based charges are often used to help manage or allocate demand during periods of 
limited water supply capacity or availability. As with fixed rates, there are several forms of 
consumption-based rates. One form is the constant charge, which is the same unit price for all 
units of water that are consumed; another consumption-based rate are block rates, which either 

4A-3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 

decrease (declining block) or increase (increasing block) with water consumption. A declining 
block rate sets a reduced price per unit for increased usage. Increasing block rates set increasing 
prices per unit for increased usage, and as a result, are more likely to encourage water 
conservation. Constant and increasing block rates are the predominant urban rate structures 
currently used in the State. However, some forms of declining rates may still be used in urban 
areas, especially in communities wishing to use lower water rates as an incentive for industry to 
locate in their area. Some agencies use declining block rates and other incentives to encourage 
use of recycled water in lieu of potable supplies. Agricultural water agencies levy 
consumption-based charges based upon either the actual amount of water delivered or on the 
number of acres irrigated by the farmers with supplies from the agency (these charges may vary 
depending upon the crop type). 

Assessments 

The above charges typically account for most of a water agency's total revenues. 
However, revenues also can be obtained from assessments, or taxes, levied upon lands in accord 
with benefits received from an agency's actions or projects. Assessments recover a portion of an 
agency's fixed costs, and can be levied either on those lands which directly benefit from water 
deliveries (for example, land receiving irrigation water) or on lands which indirectly benefit from 
water deliveries (adjoining lands which may benefit from groundwater recharge resulting from 
the project). 

Cities may charge for sewer and sewage treatment based on water use. For some of these 
cities, the sewer charges are included in the monthly service charges and commodity rates paid 
by the water users. Other cities charge for sewers based on water use, but keep the sewer charges 
separate from the water charges. 

Urban Retail Water Costs 

Since 1990 there have been a few statewide surveys of urban retail water costs in 
California. One, conducted by the Department in 1991, included about 70 communities 
throughout the State. The results of this survey are described in publications California Water 
Plan Update (Bulletin 160-93, Volume 1, Chapter 6), and Urban Water Use in California 
(Bulletin 166-4, Appendix F). The California Department of Health Services conducted another 
survey in 1990, and three others were conducted by a private consulting firm in 1993, 1995, and 

4A-4 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 

1997. (Unfortunately, the 1993 - 1997 surveys were based on an assumed monthly consumption 
of 1 ,500 cubic feet of water per connection, an amount much lower than that used by many 
households.) At a statewide level of coverage, there are no recent retail pricing data based on 
actual water use amounts. 

In 1994, the accounting firm of Ernst & Young conducted a national water rates survey, 
which MWDSC summarized in its 1 995 Integrated Resources Plan. That survey showed that the 
national average for urban water supply costs was almost $600 per acre-foot. The MWDSC 
average was about $625/af, with San Francisco at about $560/af, and Oakland at almost $700/af. 
(For comparison, other urban areas had greater water supply costs. Indianapolis, Indiana costs 
were about $725/af; Houston, Texas was almost $900/af, and Nashville, Tennessee was more 
than$l,100/af.) 

Impacts of Retail Prices on Water Use 

Price elasticity studies are used to characterize price responsiveness—the degree that 
water users increase or decrease use in response to a change in water price. The interpretation of 
elasticity studies must be done with care because of the large number of critical factors that can 
influence elasticity estimates. 
Price Elasticity of Demand 

The price elasticity of demand is the ratio of the percentage change in quantity of water 
used to the percentage change in the price of water. 

When faced with a significant water price increase, urban residents may react in one of 
three ways: 

• They may use substantially less water. In this case, the water users are more sensitive to 
price changes, and demand is said to be elastic (absolute elasticity value equal to or 
greater than one). 

• They may use a little less water. In this case, the water users are less sensitive to price 
changes, and demand is said to be inelastic (absolute elasticity value less than one). 

• They may continue to use the same amount as before. In this case, the water users are 
completely insensitive to price changes, and demand is said to be perfectly inelastic 
(elasticity value equal to zero). 

In 1989, an East Bay Municipal Water District study estimated the price elasticity of 

4A-5 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 

demand for residential water to be a negative 0.202 from 1981 through 1987. This means that a 
water price increase of 10 percent could be expected to lower the amount of water use by about 2 
percent. In this case the demand for water is inelastic; residential water users were found to be 
relatively insensitive to price changes. This has been the case for most studies of residential 
water demand. 
Factors That Affect the Price Elasticity of Residential Water Demand 

Factors that can affect elasticity include climate, housing type, water users' income, 
percentage share of water bills in users' budgets, water rate structure, customer use of water 
conservation measures, water conservation education, and user preferences concerning water use 
(e.g., some users may prefer to irrigate large turf areas irrespective of costs). Elasticity estimates 
derived for one geographic area are not necessarily representative of another area, because of 
these many potential variables. 
Recent Studies of the Urban Price Elasticity of Demand 

Table 4A-2 provides a survey of recent literature from which the urban water price 
elasticities of demand were derived. These studies were made using statistical modeling which 
employed historical water use, water price, and other demographic and climatic data. The results 
developed from these studies are based on historical data specific to a particular set of 
circumstances. Using the results out of that context can lead to serious misinterpretations. 

The California Urban Water Conservation Council published comprehensive guidebooks 
in 1994 and 1997 on setting urban water rates. 



4A-6 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 4A Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 



Table 4A-2. Studies of Urban Water Demand Price Elasticity 



Author (s) 











Range of 


$/af 


Study 


Study 


Type of 


Estimated 


Study 


Equivalent 


Date 


Area 


Demand 


Elasticity 


Water 
Prices 


Prices 
($1995) 



Metzner' 



1989 



San 
Francisco 



Long-run 
residential 



-0.25 



$0.73 - $0,78 

/lOOcuft 

($1995) 



$318 -$340 



Metropolitan 
Water District 
of Southern 
California 



1990 



South 
Coast 
Region 



Long-run 
single- 
family 
residential 

Summer 

Winter 



0.29 to 
-0.36 
-0.03 to 
-0.16 



Not Available 



Not Available 



Nieswiadomy 
& Molina 



1989 



Denton, 
Texas 



Long-run 
residential 



-0.55 to 
-0.86 



$0.27- $0.56 
/1 000 gal 
($1967) 



$371 -$770 



Weber 



1989 



East Bay 
MUD 



Long-run 
residential 



-0.01 to 
-0.25 



$0.24 - $0.94 

/lOOcuft 

($1989) 



$123 -$483 



Schneider & 
Whitlach 



1991 



Columbus, 
Ohio 



Short-run 
residential 
Long-run 
residential 
Short-run 
total urban 
Long-run 
total urban 



-0.262 
-0.110 
-0.504 
-0.123 



Not Available 



Not Available 



Moncur 



1987 



Honolulu, 
Hawaii 



Short-run 
residential 
Long-run 
residential 



-0.265 
-0.345 



$0.22 - $0.36 
/1 000 gal 
($1983) 



$105 -$172 



Billmgs& 
Day 



1989 



Tucson, 
Arizona 



Long-run 
residential 



-0.72 



$6.60 - 
$11.20 
monthly bills 
1974- 1980 
($1974) 



$19 -$32 
monthly bills 



1 . Water rate data was unavailable from the study author. DWR retrieved the historical data and inflated 
the prices to 1995 levels for display purposes only. 



4A-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 



Agricultural Water Costs 

In December 1996, the Department mailed water cost surveys to more than 60 selected 
agricultural water agencies in California. This survey was conducted to determine the range of 
average agricultural retail water costs in the State and to obtain information on the types of water 
charges that were being used by the water agencies. Table 4A-3 summarizes the results of this 
survey by hydrologic region. The survey also collected information concerning the type of water 
rates used by the agencies. Many of the responding agencies used a combination of charges 
based upon the amount of water used and the number of acres irrigated. Given the large number 
of agricultural water suppliers in California, the results of this small sample cannot be considered 
to have any statistical significance. Rather, the information is presented here to illustrate the 
variability of prices based on local circumstances. 

Table 4A-3 . DWR Survey of 1996 Agricultural Surface Water Costs <^ ^' 



How Agencies Charge for 









1996 Costs ($/af) 




Water 








Number 


1996 












By 




of 


Total 












Acre 


Hydrologic 


Water 


Deliveries 


Weigtited 




By 


By Crop 


Byaf 


&af 


Region 


Agencies 


(taf) 


Average 


Max. Min. 


Acre 


&Acre 


Used 


Used 


North Coast 


3 


80 


10 


12 2 


2 





1 





Central Coast 


4 


37 


128 


533 87 








2 


2 


South Coast 


8 


92 


373 


604 131 








1 


7 


Sacramento River 


8 


1,275 


12 


32 2 


1 


4 


1 


2 


San Joaquin River 


7 


1,339 


22 


238 6 


2 





1 


4 


Tulare Lake 


11 


2,672 


42 


161 9 


1 





4 


6 


South Lahontan 


1 


18 


61 


61 61 








1 





Colorado River 


4 


3,403 


13 


14 8 


2 








2 


Statewide 


46 


8,916 


— 


8 


4 


11 


23 



( 1 ) Average retail costs to the farmer 

(2) No responses were received from the San Francisco Bay and North Lahontan Regions. 



4A-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A Urban and Agncullural Water Pncing 



Table 4A-4. Average Water Costs as a Percent of Total Production Costs for 
Selected Crops In the Tulare Lake Region 

Crop Water Costs as a Percent 

of Total Costs 



Irrigated pasture 36 

Alfalfa hay 19 

Safflower 1 1 

Barley 16 

Dry beans 14 

Wheat 14 

Cotton 12 

Sugar Beets 12 

Dry Onions 9 

Almonds 6 

Pistachios 6 

Processing tomatoes 6 

Wine grapes 5 



If surface water rates increase considerably, a farmer may switch to groundwater, at least 
over the short term. However, in areas such as the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, the 
groundwater quality is often inferior to that of surface water. Substitution of poorer-quality 
ground water for increasingly-costly surface water may require farmers to grow less profitable, 
salt-resistant crops, such as safflower. Over time, continued reliance upon groundwater may also 
result in declining groundwater levels, thereby increasing energy costs. Table 4A-4 provides an 
example of water costs as a percent of total production costs for some common crops in the 
Tulare Lake region. The data come from output of the Department's Central Valley Net Crop 
Revenue Model. 

Agricultural groundwater costs vary considerably throughout California. Many factors 
influence these costs, including depth to groundwater, water quality, well yields, and electricity 
rates. Many groundwater users are self-supplied, meaning that individual water users pump their 
own supplies rather than receiving them from a water agency. Bulletin 160-93 showed some 
very general ranges of agricultural groundwater production. The Department does not have 
sufficient new data to accurately update those general cost ranges for Bulletin 160-98. 



4A-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 



Impacts of Price on Agricultural Water Use 

Price elasticity of demand for agricultural water is a measure of farmers' responsiveness 
to changes in the price of water. Researchers have used a variety of models (programming and 
econometrics) to estimate the price elasticity of irrigation water demand in different regions of 
the country, and they have concluded that the demand for irrigation water is generally price 
inelastic, at least within price ranges typical for agricultural water users. In order to estimate the 
price elasticity of demand for water in California's Central Valley for this Bulletin, a 
mathematical programming model called Central Valley Production Model was used. CVPM 
price elasticity estimates for irrigation water demand are based on the level of production of 
various crops. CVPM also allows for changes in the cropping pattern as water becomes more 
scarce, more expensive, or both. 

To estimate the price elasticity of demand for surface water demand, the Central Valley 
was divided into three regions: Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare. Surface water prices were 
increased for this study by different increments while ground water costs increased as a result of 
changes in pumping depths. Both short- and long-run elasticities were estimated for these 
regions. In the short-run study, it was assumed that farmers did not have enough time to adjust to 
the increases in water costs, while in the long-run farmers could switch to more efficient 
irrigation technologies. Results of this modeling run are summarized in Table 4A-5. Demand is 
considered to be elastic if the elasticity value is greater than or equal to one. Demand is inelastic 
if the elasticity value is less than one. If the elasticity value is zero, demand would be perfectly 
inelastic. 

The values in the table are estimates of the farmer's ability to respond to water price 
changes. For example, if surface water prices increase by 1 percent in the Sacramento Valley, 
the demand for surface water will decline by 3.2 percent. As the estimates indicate, demand for 
irrigation water is "price inelastic," which means the percentage decline in quantity demanded is 
less than the percentage increase in price. Short-run elasticities were smaller than the long-run 
elasticities, implying that in the short-run water use will not change as much as in the long-run. 
Where groundwater is available in the Central Valley, farmers are likely to use more 
groundwater in response to increased surface water prices. Since groundwater was not included 
in the model, this implies that overall elasticities for irrigation water — within a price range 

4A-I0 DRAFT 



■0.32 


$20 - $240 


-0.3 


$20 - $240 


■0.24 


$20 - $240 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4A Urban and Agricultural Water Pncing 

typical for agricultural water users - are even smaller than those shown. 

Table 4A-5. Price Elasticities of Demand for Surface Water for Irrigation 

Region Short-run Elasticity Long-run Elasticity Range of Water 

Prices ($/af) 

Sacramento -0.24 

San Joaquin -0.2 

Tulare -0.18 

Comparing Agricultural and Urban Water Costs 

Direct comparisons between agricultural and urban water prices are misleading because 
of basic differences in the delivery systems providing agricultural and urban water supplies. 
Generally, the price of water is determined by the cost of water at the source (from a reservoir or 
at the Delta) plus the costs of using the facilities associated with conveying, storing, treating and 
delivering the water to the final users. 
Source and Reliability Costs 

Some contracts for agricultural supplies have allowed agricultural users to pay a lower 
price for water supplies in return for accepting supplies with a lower level of reliability. 
Typically this was achieved by deficiency provisions incorporated in the water supply contracts. 
Transportation Costs 

Both urban and agricultural water agencies must pay transportation costs incurred to 
bring the water supplies into their agencies. However, agricultural agencies are often closer to the 
surface water sources and in many cases are able to rely on gravity-operated conveyance and 
distribution systems, thereby avoiding energy costs associated with pressurized pipelines. Urban 
water supplies often travel through hundreds of miles of canals or pipelines, adding considerably 
to the transportation costs. For example, by the year 2000, power costs to deliver SWP water to 
the San Joaquin Valley service area are estimated to be at $15 per acre-foot; however, power 
costs to deliver the same acre-foot of SWP water to the South Bay, Central Coast, and Southern 
California service areas are estimated to be at $34, $78. and $87 per acre-foot, respectively. 
Delivery Costs 

Urban water systems ha\e additional delivery costs compared to agricultural systems. For 
example, urban water users must pay for the terminal storage and pressurization of water. 

4A-11 DRAFT 



Bulletin160-98 Public Review Draft .„„ ^ .. ,,, 

Appendix 4A. Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing 



Monitoring and treating water for public health protection is expensive, and costs are expected to 
increase as a result of more stringent drinking water standards. Most urban water systems also 
incur substantial costs to install and read meters, and to prepare billings. 



4A-12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 4B BMP Revisions 



Appendix 4B 
BMP Revisions 

Table 4B-1 provides a synopsis of revisions to urban water conservation BMPs, as 
adopted by CUWCC in September 1997. 



4B-1 DRAFT 



u 

ii o 



C/5 <— 
c « 
o — 



E u 



CO 


01 




c 


a 




o 


F 


•a 








(0 


^ 


e 








> 


E 


CB 


0) 


© 


c 


Q£ 


'c 


o 
U 


a. 


Q 


c 


m 


Cu 


F 




S 


u 


^^ 


CQ 


3 






O" 


OQ 


c 


ce: 



^ u -- 



01 


01 


Ml 


Q£ 


B 




m 




£ 




u 




■a 


■♦2 




c 


o 
a. 


S 


o 


Ol 






Q. 


3 


c*« 


O" 






.2 


Q£ 





-o g 


•a 
1 


o 












T3 (fl 

c to 


■g s 




















ra c 


Q. 












^ C 


qj Q. 


















^ ^rf 


u 2 
















u 2 
























































o c 


o. '5 


o 














Q. '-^ 


O _ 


















a. u 


— i2 

1 ;^ 


u 














1 ;E 




















^ i 

o .h 

■" 3 

c K 


00 

c 


3 
C 
C 

ta 
U 












H 

?-8 


















w o 


c 


U 












<^ o 


g^ 


















« 

u 


= 1 
g- o 


3 


O 












II 

aC 5 


3 U 

.2 X) 










































^ 
















^ o 




^ 




a. 










o 




o 














c 

01 

E 

0> 


£2 


5 


o 


a> 


o 
c3 


o 
3 




ll 


^ D. 

E^S 


•o 




3 












o .h 

*" 3 

c OS 


t- ex 


u 

E 
o 




flj 


>, 


E 






i2 u 


-H 


"cS 


E 




O 








'3 S 


^i 




e 

o 


o 




3 i 

CT- 00 


.i 3 


o 


•s 


•CJ 

c 


u 


o 








" •£ 


3 


■5 • 


-s 


3 


.E 


"5. 
E 


5> 


■S o 


l| 


u 


i 


>» 


c 


a. 


■d 






■C DH 


"5 o 


— 


3 — 


C 




-5 




c 


O in 


u 




;o 


■a 


B 






01 


1° 




!e 


i 


^2 


o 


OO 


t/5 nP 


^ g 


o 


'5 
a- 


1 


U 


3 


o 






o 

u 


a. — 


•T3 


a. u 


'3 


;o 


3 


-a 


^ 


C3 t-^ 


00 ^ 


o 


u 


"ob 


'e 


c 


1> 








cS -S 


U 




a 


§ 


^ 


t2 


(^5 


§ H 


o 


^ 


•i 


c2 


o 


re 






01 


c 




u 




















i 












"3 


.2^ 


o 


•£ 












^ 


j: 






o 












■D 
01 


ii 

a. rt 


1 

> 


00 ^ 












E -B 


IS 


_^ 


oi) 




00 


1 








M.2 


a. 


00 _2 












o- « 


a o 


1 


o 

D. 


"u 


> 
o 








^ c 


u o 


S 












_^ u 


O" — ' 


C 


jr 


> 


u 


c 








"q. 

S 


j^ — 


oa 






























-o "3 
c -o 
















a 00 


^1 

> a. 


1 


c 
'5 


-a 

u 


c 
o 
E 


i 










re 
T3 


^ 2 












oi -S 


Sc5^ 




1 


CL 


•S 












"o 




D. 

_o 

g OO 
S '^ 

2 -^ 

M c3 

.H E 

g-s 

00 " 

a OO 
w c 








D. 
O 






u 








^ 


t/) 




u 


c/i 0. 
CO 


c 

2:1 

" E 
SO 

-3 0. 

US 
CO 


o o 

i o 

U I) 

t- at) 

a _>> 

(2 s- 


5 

C 


'33 
o 

T3 

_o 
S 

o 

D. 

Cl 

a 


c 

o 

a. 

M 

1 


53 > 

S -a 

1 ° 

1 g 

rt 00 

E S 

3 Jf 

.1-5 
c cr 

1 Oi 


00 

o 

Cl 

1 

O 

1 
XJ 

cd 
■a 


■1 -o 

u '5 
E c 
jj ;g 

3 E 
cr i/i 


3 

E ^ 

2 o 

00 " 
S 3 

D. .a 

is 

3 ^ 

S u 

•3 ii 


o 
c 
o 

(S 
o 


c 

3 
O 

C 

o 

i 


3 
■CJ 

o 
a. 

00 

C 

o 
a. 
u 

s: 


E 

1 

'3 
o- 

u 

00 

o 
o 


to 
E 

3 
O 

C 
CO 

< 


•a 

o 

u 
E 
c 
o 

•5 


OJ T-i CO > CO 

'^ S - ^ o 

5 ^-g £ ° ^ 

= '5 e M 1 

< g>D.-5 g S 

CO a, J- (L) 
jj — CO t: 00 o 
•3 g- 00 '^ ^ 

llliil 

n.-o ^ ° CT- « 
§- 2 E 1 iS -S 




00 

c 


, 


!2 












iH 




















1 


c^ 


3 


c 












o 
























2 

T3 


■a 
































0. 






U v2 












.2 00 




















OQ 


< E 
ii ob 


E 
a 

u. 


S| 












c .E 






















M O 


J u 












5 - 

oi a. 




















0- ^ 






































^ E 


— 
















(-4 




















oa 3 






































z 







































u 



E u 



(0 


01 




c 


CL 




o 


F 


■o 








<n 


, 


c 








> 


c 


C5 


0) 


o 


C 


o: 


"e 


U 


n 


c 


^ 


S 




c 


CO 


a. 


F 




^ 


u 


• 


09 


•— 










DT 


O" 


m 


C 


<u 


^ 


tn 








0) 


u 


_c 


n 




p., 





Ol 


01 


(x: 










£ 




U 




■o 


/i 






o 


E 


o 


<u 






c 


3 






o 




i« 


Of 



01 

Is 

^ 1 

o .t 
c 02 


Requests similar types and 
amounts of information as 
is currently being collected 
by CUWCC annual reports 


Requests similar types and 
amounts of information as 
is currently being collected 
h> CUWCC annual reports 


E 
o .h 

c OS 

■c on 

o 
U 


on 
Z 




_4; 

•a 

2 t 
|.2 

j: c 

U ^ 

"5. 
E 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOU, whichever is later. 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOU. whichever is later. 
F.xtends date that coverage 
requirement must be met 
from September 1. 2001, to 
1 years from the date the 
BMP is revised or the date 
an agency signs the MOU, 
whichever is later 


c 

2:1 

1/1 'c 

= a 

ai 


Replaces requirement that 
agencies conduct a complete 
system audit every three 
years with requirement that 
agencies conduct annual pre- 
screen audits and conduct full 
sNstem audits only if 
indicated by the pre-screen 
audit. 


,\dds requirement that 
agencies assess feasibility of 
program to retrofit mixed-use 
metered accounts with 
dedicated irrigation meters. 


1 
09 


System Water 
.Audits. Leak 
Detection and Repair 


Metering with 
Commodity Rates 
for All New 
Connections and 
Retrofit of Existing 
Connections 


::^ E 


- 


■9- 



u. 
Q 



CQ 



tn 

c 
.2 

> 
a. 

S 
m 



m 



u 

_u O 



2 -o 



^ E 



•.s 


Qi 


.££ 


nr 






U 




o 


o 


j_ 


Q. 




Ol 


DD 


Q£ 






m 




JC 


c 


U 




■a 


.£ 



^ E 



0X1 

c 

o c 
a. 9> 

*" = 
a! '^ 
^^ 

CO 

u 


Requests data on the 
number of accounts with 
dedicated irrigation meters, 
and number of water 
budgets established during 
reporting period. 
Otherwise, requests similar 
types and amounts of 
information as is currently 
being collected by CUWCC 
annual reports. 




i 

a| 

= as 

C« a, 
f OD 

U £ 

u 
o 

o 


Removes requirement that 
agencies offer audits to 
100% of accounts with 3+ 
acres of landscape by 
September 1,2001. Adds 
requirement that agencies 
provide landscape audits to 
1 5% of mixed-use, non- 
residential accounts within 
1 years from date BMP 
implementation is to be 
under-way for agency. 
Adds requirement that 
agencies offer audits to not 
less than 20% of mixed-use, 
non-residential accounts 
each reporting period. 
Allows agencies to satisfy 
audit requirements by 
implementing a mixed-use 
meter retrofit program or a 
program to develop 
landscape water use budgets 
for accounts with mixed-use 
meters. 




"5 
•a 

V 

2 t^ 
^ c 
a .2 
= 1 

u 1 

"q. 
E 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOD. whichever is later. 
Allows agencies 10 years 
from date BMP 
implementation is to be 
underway to meet coverage 
requirement. Allows 
agencies four years to 
develop water use budgets 
for dedicated irrigation 
meter accounts. 




c 
0-2 

oa 


Adds requirement that 
agencies develop water use 
budgets for accounts with 
dedicated irrigation meters. 
Removes requirement to 
specifically target 
landscapes of 3+ acres for 
audits. Continues to require 
audits for customers without 
landscape water use budgets. 
Continues to require 
customer incentive programs. 
Allows agencies to develop 
targeting and marketing 
approaches tailored to their 
service areas. Requires 
agencies to develop database 
to track program. 


Adds requirement that 
agencies offer maximum 
cost-effective customer rebate 
for high-efficiency washing 
machine if energy service 
provider in service area is 
also offering rebates. 


01 

E 

t5 

z 

CO 


Large Landscape 
Conservation 
Programs and 
Incentives 


High-Efficiency 
Washing Machine 
Rebate Programs 


09 3 


.n 


5" 
Z 



c 
o 
w 
> 

a: 



m 



u 

5 ^ 









a. E 





ca 


■— 










DiC 


a* 


CQ 


_C 


01 








a> 


u 


c 


(0 







o " 

Q. E 



c 

a i 


3 .2 


■p 
u 

ou 
c 


C 
O 

a. 

c 
c 

U 




■o 
c 
n 

1 


C3 

c 
o 

to 


■s e 

_o a. 

CO 3 
■S 1 


o 
c -J 

00 o 


•J 



■5 


a- 
u 

u 


00 u 

2 E 

0. ^ 
c 0. 


urrently being 
ugh annual 
CUWCC 






a* cr 


1;! 


^ 




c 


c 


J3 . 


ca 


B > 


E 

c '~ 


..|5 






BJD ^ 


•'' "o 


u 




^' 


"c 


■S'U 


a ■^ 


■a 


S "^ 


E-g 


— *"*>» 






c ai 


11 


3 


U 




2i 


3 
O 
S 


11 

3 U 
.2 ^' 




"5. 

E 
p 


00 i 

a 3 


a a 

ca — c 
•£ S H 






















"O 














c 

E 

o .h 

*" 3 

= a£ 
















c 

-5' 

1 1 




c 
3 


c 
.E 
;; 3 

-- -a 

"3 "^ 


E c 
■- 
cj -a 


c •■« c 
g = § 

Si! 






■c ei 


w 








aj 












J2 '^ 






U « 


c 








00 






'J a3 





c ° 


3 1' 






o 
U 


O 








o 






|i 


1 


c. S 

'J 


ii 3 








Z 








Z 






iS s 


c 


S .E 


'J a* _c 






01 


^ 










V 




u 






t/i 






































3 

■o 


T3 


J= 


i> ij 






a 
■a 


^ u ^ 


c3 
■a 


11 


u tj 


(« 








Oi 


c u 




•= ■» 




c 






c w 




■S n 










^ 


.2 £ 




•-. cd 




o 


ji: 




S 






ca ca 








2 cJo 

M •= 


o 








O in — 







_. 


c 






5 " 


■o 


00 ■" 




c 


o 


1 5-g 


a 
F "-> 


T3 


00 ^. 


5 
- i 


u 
= 1 






o _ra 


1 






E 


> 


> >. ?; 

o u s 

!a ^ " 


gl 


1 


. > 

5 


i't 


Ti '3 






-C c 


a, oj 




o .y 




"5. 


"u 


a. u 






c ^ 






U i 


§ ^ 




00 £ 




E 




■- oolc 


i/i 3 




oil IS 


00 u 








E 


a. 


c , 




3 




a. 
2 


§5 

H 


E 


E 00 

OJ 

'J > 






o. 
E 




EC 


ta 2 




a 


•a 


U T3 


CO 








S :j? 




-S S 




2 




-S-S S 


S y 


^ 


-§s 


3 






e 
o 

ir 'E 

= Q 
■c 0. 
^^ 

oa 


11 

i| 

.- o 

3 O 

o- « 


3 
C 


•a 

! 

2 c 


c 

00 

o 

T3 

oij 
o 

D. 


00 

> 






E n 

II 
1- ^ 

■5 2 

3 — 

ra 






c 


E S 

^^ 



Is 

-5 -yi 

il 

F '= 
i ^ 


c 

a. — 
00 ■-' 
> ■£ 
u (2 


y. 
s -i 

^ E 5 
Si S E 


u 
u 
u 

u 


00 

c 

•5 


■a 

!l 

00 CQ 

■> '0 
ca t, 

ca y 

Sll 










1* 


3 






M ra 




E ,0 


^1 i 


c 




5 Sj 


> 






O 

Z 






■-> — 
2: s 


c 

00 


> 00 




^5 §- 

2 ■> "S 




o 








c 




















V 






























E 
« 
z 


3. 








3 






■p 


_■ 


-0 
S-5 










D. 
2 










i 




t 1 


S 


_- c 

.2 .2 


c 








oa 


(J rt 








"o 


£ 






E 


7, ^ 


3 
< 


















o 

I/) 


00 

g 




£ 00 

s 

U 0- 


E 



3 S 

c c 








£: -S 






























^. E 


r~ 








00 






CT< 














tt 3 






























Y. 































Li- 

Q 



u 

_4J O 





C/3 <- 




= ® 




o — 








2 5 




£ u 


(/) 




c 


■5.-S 


o 


E -o 


(A 


, c 






> 


B 2 


0) 


.S = 


Q£ 


■2 ® 

5 U 


n 


C v> 


S 


a g 


m 


Q. E 




2 S 


^ 


CQ -5 


1 


OX) O" 


m 


■£^ 


^ 






o 


uS.s 




2 fe 








ex) d 




e 




« -o 




x: = 




U '^ 




•o .2 



.£ OS 



C 

u 


Requires additional 
reporting by whole.sale 
agencies over what is 
currently being collected 
through annual reports by 
the CUWCC. 


Requests similar types and 
amounts of information as 
is currently being collected 
by CUWCC annual reports 


Requests similar types and 
amounts of information as 
is currently being collected 
by CUWCC annual reports. 


c 

1 

o .h 
■" s 
2 '^ 

u « 

>• 
o 

U 


Requires wholesalers to 
justify financial, technical, 
and programmatic support 
levels. 


00 

o 
Z. 


00 

o 
Z 


"3 
•a 

Is 

R ,2 

5 1 

o. 
E 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOU, whichever is later. 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOU, whichever is later. 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOU, whichever is later. 


c 

o 

2 '^ 

<n 'c 
OB "^ 

SO 

us 

oa 


Defines wholesale agency 
support roles in terms of 
financial, technical, and 
programmatic assistance to 
retail agencies implementing 
BMPs. 


Retains current definitions of 
non-conserving and con- 
serving rate structures. Adds 
requirement that CUWCC 
undertake a study to 
empirically assess the affect 
of rate structure on customer 
water use patterns and 
quantities, and to 
specifically examine the 
relationship between 
customer demand and the 
proportion of agency revenue 
requirement recovered 
through commodity charges, 
fixed charges, and other 
service charges. 


oo 
ta 
o 
u 

c 

.c 

3 

O 
Z 


E 
« 

oa 


>, 1 
g ^ 

an £ 

< 0- 

S 2 
o .2 


00 

c 

'C 

CL 
C 

o 

> 

c 
o 

U 


c 
■S 2 

a to 
> c 

u '-B 
c o 

o o 

U U 


z 




= 





u 



B Q 



in 


*• - 


c 


0..5 


o 


E -o 






(0 


, c 






> 


e 2 


0) 


.2 = 


Qc: 


= U 


Q. 




m 


a. E 




% V 




oa -5 




6X) T 




•3 M 


0) 


w -S 


Xi 


o h 


(0 

1- 






OJDOS 



S. E 
o u 

a. -3 



9£ 

e 

§.£ 

OS 1 

o .h 

s OS 

R 

U 


Requests similar types and 
amounts of information as 
is currently being collected 
by CUWCC annual reports. 




c 

i 

o .t 

■" 3 

c OS 

U « 

o 

o 


o 
Z 




"5 
•o 

•r: C 

a. 2 

^ i 

a. 
J 


Makes implementation 
schedule relative to the date 
the BMP is revised or the 
date an agency signs the 
MOIJ, whichever is later. 
Allows agency 10 years 
from date implementation is 
to commence to meet 
coverage requirement. 




c 

2:1 

VI 'c 
&•= 

SO 

-c a. 


Removes reference to Cll 
ULFT replacement 
requirements; otherwise no 
substantive change. 




1 
s 
Z 

m 


Residential HUT 

Replacement 

Programs 




^ s 

BQ 3 

z 


13 
(formerl) 
BMP 16) 





Q 



m 
-* 



I 
I 
I 
i 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 6A Estimating a Water Management Options Cost Per Acre-Foot 



Appendix 6A. 

Estimating a Water Management Option's 

Cost Per Acre-Foot 

A key consideration in the options evaluation process is the appraisal of costs, both 
financial and economic. Financial costs are the actual yearly dollar expenditures that are required 
to repay debt (with interest) incurred to finance the capital costs of a project and to meet 
operations, maintenance and replacement costs. Generally, financial costs are spread over a 
shorter time period than the life of the project (often 20 to 30 years). In comparison, economic 
costs reflect the costs of resources committed to the construction and operation of a project over 
its life, which can be 50 years or more for many water resources options. It is possible for options 
to be economically feasible and financially infeasible, or vice versa. 

This appendix focuses upon economic costs. Although economic costs can be expressed 
in many different ways, a useful statistic is the economic cost per acre-foot of option delivery 
(cost/af). The mathematical computation of cost/af is not necessarily difficult, but there are a 
number of significant issues which complicate the process. Some of these issues apply to all of 
the options (for example, data availability), whereas others are specific to particular types of 
options (for example, reservoir operational characteristics). 
Common Cost Issues 

Cost issues common to all options include data availability and method of analysis: 
Data Availability. The cost/af estimate requires extensive data on the option's costs as 
well as its performance given assumptions concerning hydrology and how the option will be 
operated. 

• Costs, Costs include capital and annual operations, maintenance and replacement costs. 

Capital costs are associated with the construction and implementation of the option 
(including any needed transportation and treatment facilities). Examples of capital costs 
include expenditures for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction as well as 
allowances for environmental mitigation costs. Capital costs also include activation costs 
(operation and maintenance expenditures prior to operations) and filling costs. OM&R 
costs (which begin when construction is completed and project operations begin) include 
annual operation and maintenance costs (such as administration, maintenance, energy. 



6A-1 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 6A. Estimating a Water Management Option's Cost Per Acre-Foot 

water purchases, treatment, etc.) and replacement costs incurred during the normal course 
of project operations. Capital and OM&R costs must be identified down to the user level, 
which can include costs associated with storage, transportation, treatment and distribution 
and costs incurred by the users themselves. 

• Hydrology. For many options (such as surface water reservoirs and 
groundwater/conjunctive use projects), hydrology is key to understanding the option's 
performance given certain operating assumptions. Some options are expected to be 
operated to provide maximum deliveries during non-shortage years but minimal 
deliveries during shortage years (such as some surface water reservoirs); others are 
designed to provide maximum deliveries during shortage years with minimal deliveries 
during non-shortage years (such as some ground water/conjunctive use projects); and 
others can provide a relative constant supply regardless of type of year (for example, 
water recycling). 

Because much of the focus of this Bulletin is upon local options, the cost/af estimates are 
dependent upon cost and hydrology data available in existing reports and other documents 
prepared by water agencies. Some of the difficulties that arise in using this information include: 

• Data are inconsistent among the agencies (for example, different hydrologic time periods 
are used); 

• Data are either missing or incomplete (sometimes capital costs are reported, but not 
operating costs); 

• Data may be available, but it is uncertain what it means (for example, do reported total 
capital costs include environmental mitigation costs?); 

• Data were developed at different times (information on some options is relatively new, 
while other data may be 30 years or more old); and 

• Data were developed at different levels of study (appraisal level data is being compared 
to feasibility level information). 

Since our intent is to examine options from a statewide perspective at an appraisal level 
of detail, our approach has been to acknowledge that these difficulties exist, but to use the 
available information. The scope of this Bulletin does not permit us to develop new information 
for all of the literally hundreds of options for which data were collected. We have focused our 



6A-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 6A Estimating a Water Management Option's Cost Per Acre-Foot 

efforts on normalizing costs of the statewide options and larger local options. 

Assumptions. Cost/af estimates will vary depending upon the assumptions used in the 
calculation. For this Bulletin, the following assumptions are used in developing the cost/af 
estimates: 

• Period of analysis. Two analysis periods are used: a 50 year period is used for capital- 
intensive options (such as dams, reservoirs, water treatment plants, desalination plants, 
and conjunctive use) and a 25 year period is used less capital-intensive options (such as 
demand management). 

• Inflation and cost escalation. The analysis uses constant dollars (i.e., it excludes price 
changes occurring as a result of inflation). Real price changes (net price changes after 
accounting for inflation) are used if significant. For example, if energy prices are 
projected to differ substantially from general price level changes (and if the option is 
energy-intensive) then it would be appropriate to account for this energy price 
differential. 

• Discount rate. This interest rate is used to reflect the time value of money. Even if 
inflation is not expected to be present, a dollar received today is worth more than a dollar 
expected in the future, because a dollar received today can be put to immediate use. The 
discount rate adjusts the dollar values received or spent over a period of time to their 
"present value" equivalent. This Bulletin uses a 6 percent discount rate. 

• Base year. All dollar values are converted to constant 1995 dollars using the USBR cost 
index or other cost indices as appropriate. 

• Probabilities. Assumed probabilities for the occurrence of shortage (dry or critical years) 
and non-shortage (below average or wetter) years statewide are 80 and 20 percent, 
respectively. However, if regional information is available, it may be used instead of 
these values. 

Method of Analysis. For this Bulletin, a spreadsheet was developed to do the cost/af 
computation. This spreadsheet was designed to be as flexible as possible given data availability 
problems. Table A-1 shows the results of an example cost/af analysis for four hypothetical water 
management options using this spreadsheet: a groundwater recharge/conjunctive use project, a 
surface water reservoir, a water recycling project and a contingency shortage measure. The 



6A-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 6A Estimating a Water Management Option's Cost Per Acre-Foot 



groundwater recharge/conjunctive use project is assumed to deliver about 1 5,000 acre-feet during 
shortage years, but none during non-shortage years. The surface water reservoir is assumed to 
deliver about 10,000 acre-feet in non-shortage years, but only 3,000 acre-feet in a shortage year. 
In comparison, the water recycling project is expected to deliver about 3,000 acre-feet for all 
types of years. About 2,000 acre-feet of water is assumed to be available through water transfers 
during shortage years. With the capital and annual variable operating costs assumed in the table, 
the cost/af estimates for the groundwater recharge/conjunctive use, water transfers, water 
recycling project and surface water reservoir are estimated to be about $150, $250, $710, and 
$800 respectively. 

Table 6A-1. Economic Cost/af Examples (1) 



Option 


Option Delivery 
(1000 af) 


Probabilities (%) 


Capital 
Costs 


Annual Variable 
Costs ($Mill) 


Cost/af 




Shortage 
Year(2) 


Non- 
Shortage 
Year (2) 


Shortage 
Year(2) 


Non- 
Shortage 
Year (2) 


($Mill) 


Shortage 
Year(2) 


Non- 
Shortage 
Year (2) 


1 
1 




(a) 


(b) 


(c) 


(d) 


(e) 




(9) 


(h) ' 


Groundwater 


15.0 


0.0 


20.0% 


80.0% 


$4.0 


$0.6 


$0.1 


$150 


Recharge/Conjunctive Use 


















Water Transfers (3) 


2,0 


0.0 


20.0% 


80.0% 


$0.0 


$0.5 


$0.0 


$250 


Water Recycling 


3.0 


3.0 


20.0% 


80.0% 


$24.0 


$0.6 


$0.6 


$710 


Surface Water Reservoir 


3.0 


10.0 


20.0% 


80.0% 


$80.0 


$2.0 


$1.0 


$800 


(1) 50 years; 6% discount rate. 
















(2) Shortage years include dry or c 


ritical years, no 


1-shortage years 


nclude below 


iverage or wetter 


years. 






(3) Using existing facilities. 














1 



Option-Specific Cost Issues 

Many options have cost calculation issues that are specific to the option type. 

Conservation. In addition to quantifying the amount of demand reduction that can be 
achieved by conservation measures, another issue is costs, especially from the water user 
perspective. In order to achieve savings from many of the conservation options (such as 
landscaping, toilet retrofits, or installation of drip irrigations systems), water users, rather than 
water districts, must purchase additional equipment. Because of the substantial user costs of 
some conservation options, they must be addressed in the cost/af estimate. For example, a 
landscaping option could require installation of low- water using plants, which would include 



6A-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 6A Estimating a Water Management Options Cost Per Acre-Foot 

costs of the plants, their installation, and possibly the removal of existing landscaping. Since our 
options evaluation process is focused on costs from the water agency perspective, we are 
assuming that conservation programs requiring substantial user investments will be implemented 
only to the extent that the programs are financed by water agencies, and that the programs' costs 
include reimbursement of users' expenditures. 

Water Recycling. Although water quality is important for all options, it is especially 
critical for water recycling. With water recycling, the final use of the recycled water is dependent 
upon the level of treatment it receives, which in turn directly affects the cost of the recycled 
water. Costs are associated with the treatment facilities as well as with distribution, which can be 
substantial since a separate set of plumbing is required and the treatment plant may be a 
considerable distance from the final place of use. As with conservation options, supplies 
developed through water recycling should not be significantly affected by hydrology. 

Groundwater/Conjunctive Use. Because groimdwater/conjunctive use projects often 
involve many types of facilities, and are operated according to changes in hydrology, computing 
cost/af estimates can be more complex than for other types of options. Typically a 
groundwater/conjunctive use project requires a water source, either from a local surface supply, 
water treatment facility, or imported water. A conveyance facility is required to transport the 
water to the recharge facility, which might include recharge ponds and/or injection wells. 
Extraction wells are required to recover the recharged supplies, and conveyance facilities are 
required to deliver the supplies back into the water agency's existing system. Hydrology is key to 
the operation of many groundwater/conjunctive use projects, because typically the recharge 
portion of the project is operated in non-shortage years, whereas the extraction portion is 
operated in shortage years. Facilities may not be operated during years where there is not enough 
water for recharge, or when conditions are not dry enough to warrant extractions. Although the 
capital costs of a groundwater/conjunctive use project are not significantly influenced by 
hydrology, the annual operating and maintenance costs are especially sensitive to it because of 
pumping costs. The cost/af estimate can be further complicated because these types of projects 
are often operated in conjunction with other facilities (typically surface water reservoirs), hence 
affecting the costs of those facilities as well. 

Surface Water Reservoirs. A critical issue with reservoirs concerns how they will be 

6A5 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 6A. Estimating a Water Management Option's Cost Per Acre-Foot 

operated. Some reservoirs are operated to maximize water supplies during average years, 
whereas others are operated for drought shortage years or emergency storage purposes 
(MWDSC's Eastside Reservoir, for example). Although the capital cost to construct a reservoir 
may be the same regardless of the method of its operation, the cost/af estimate will differ 
substantially among these operational modes. A reservoir's operating and maintenance can be 
expected to vary significantly depending upon whether it provides on-stream or off-stream 
storage (the latter type will likely have substantial energy costs associated with reservoir filling). 
Of all the supply augmentation options, reservoirs are the most likely to provide substantial 
benefits other than water supply (such as recreation, flood control and power generation). 
However, as long as the primary purpose of the reservoir is water supply, no attempt is made in 
this Bulletin to separate the costs of the different purposes. 

Water Transfers. Because water transfers (both short and long-term) often involve the 
movement of water from one region to another, costs can be identified for both the exporting and 
importing regions. Costs in the exporting region will be influenced by the source of the water, 
from agricultural land fallowing, crop shifts, water conservation, groundwater substitution, 
groundwater development, and/or surface water withdrawals. All of these sources not only have 
the potential for the direct loss of economic activity that could have otherwise been supported by 
the transferred water, but also indirect economic effects (third party impacts). For the importing 
regions, water transfers not only include the water purchase and transportation costs but also may 
require the payment of option fees. Option fees are paid by a contracting agency to a selling 
agency to maintain the right of the contracting agency to buy water whenever needed. Although 
the water may not be purchased every year, the fee is usually paid every year. Other issues which 
can affect the costs of water transfers to the importing region include the availability of 
conveyance capacity and (for north-south transfers) the difficulties associated with routing the 
transferred water through the Delta. 



6A-6 



DRAFT 



I 
I 
I 
I 
I 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 6B. Ratings of Alternative Soutti-of-Delta Reservoir Sites 



Appendix 6B. 
Ratings of Alternative South-of-Delta Reservoir Sites 





Potential Range 


Unit Cost 


Cost Rating 


Environmental 


Combined 
Total 


Dam Site 


of Storage 
Volume 


of Storage 




Sensitivity Rating 


Rating 




(1,000 Acre-Feet) 


{$ per acre-foot) 


(0-100) 


(0-100) 


(0-100) 



Very Large Reservoirs (1.0 to 2.0 MAP Storage Volume) 

LBG/ Los Bancs Creek (Dam 181) 1,000-2,000 730 - 550 76 - 82 

Garzas Creek (Dam 104) 1,000-1,750 1,600-1,310 47 - 56 

Panoctie/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 1,000-2,000 1,370-1,210 54 - 60 

Orestimba Creek (Dam 171) 1,000-1,140 1,670-1,600 44 - 47 

Large Reservoirs (0.5 to 1.0 MAP Storage Volume) 

LBG /Los Bancs Creek (Dam 181) 500 -1,000 1,000- 730 

Pancctie/Silver Creek (Dam 112) 500 -1,000 1,620-1,320 

Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 500 -1,000 1,830-1,370 

Ingram Canyon (Dam 37) 500 - 980 1,950-1,400 

Orestimba Creek (Dam 170) 500 - 900 1,890-1,410 

Garzas Creek (Dam 104) 500 -1,000 2,090-1,600 

Garzas Creek (Dam 105) 500 - 630 1,910-1,660 

Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 45) 500 - 990 2,300 - 1,920 

Garzas Creek (Dam 109) 500 - 940 2,250-1,730 

Orestimba Creek (Dam 171) 500 - 1,000 1,930 - 1,670 



Medium Reservoirs (0.25 to 0.5 MAP Storage Volume) 

LBG /Los Bancs Creek (Dam 181) 250 - 500 1,660-1,000 

Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 1 1 2) 250 - 500 2,250 - 1 ,620 

Sunflower Valley (Dam 1 77) 250 - 500 2,490-1,460 

Garzas Creek (Dam 106) 250 - 310 2,050-1,820 

Garzas Creek (Dam 105) 290 - 500 2,400-1,910 

Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 250 - 500 2,050- 1,830 

Orestimba Creek (Dam 170) 250 - 500 2,630-1,890 

Garzas Creek (Dam 104) 250 - 500 2,950-2,090 

Orestimba Creek (Dam 171) 250 - 500 3,000-1,930 

Ingram Canyon (Dam 37) 250 - 500 3,120-1,950 

Small Reservoirs (0.10 to 0.25 MAP Storage Volume) 

Kettleman Plain (Dam 99) 100 - 250 2,990-1,620 

Garzas Creek (Dam 106) 100 - 250 3,300-2,050 

Garzas Creek (Dam 1 07) 100 - 250 3,300-2,020 

Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 111) 100 - 240 3,480-2,020 

LBG /Los Bancs Creek (Dam 181) 100 - 250 3,350-1,660 

Panoche/Silver Creek (Dam 114) 100 - 250 3,560-2,050 

Little Salado/Crow Creek (Dam 63) 100 - 130 2,810-2,310 

Quinto Creek (Dam 54) 110 - 250 3,120 - 2,370 

Romero Creek (Dam 56) 100 - 180 3,410-2,560 

Garzas Creek (Dam 108) 100 - 250 4,010-2,870 



67 
46 
39 
35 
37 
30 
36 
23 
25 
36 

45 
25 
17 
32 
20 
32 
12 
2 

N/A 


N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

6 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 



76 
56 
54 
53 
53 
47 
45 
36 
42 
44 

67 
46 
51 
39 
36 
39 
37 
30 
36 
35 

46 
32 
33 
33 
45 
32 
23 
21 
15 
4 



33 

49 
48 
48 
49 
54 
54 
59 
54 
48 

35 
49 
46 
54 
54 
49 
50 
55 
49 
49 

61 
56 
56 
51 
37 
51 
49 
50 
53 
56 



31 
52 
45 
46 

31 
47 
47 
48 
46 
53 
54 
57 
52 
46 

33 
49 
44 
54 
54 
48 
49 
54 
48 
48 

59 
54 
54 
49 
35 
49 
48 
49 
53 
55 



53 


56 


50 


54 


51 


52 


45 


46 


50 


53 


48 


52 


44 


51 


42 


51 


43 


50 


42 


50 


45 


49 


41 


47 


40 


47 


42 


45 


40 


50 


37 


48 


31 


48 


43 


47 


37 


45 


40 


44 


31 - 


43 


28 - 


42 


24 - 


42 


N/A - 


42 


30 - 


53 


N/A - 


43 


N/A - 


43 


N/A - 


41 


N/A - 


40 


N/A - 


40 


28 - 


36 


N/A - 


35 


N/A - 


34 


N/A - 


30 



6B- 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 7A. 

Appendix 7A 

Table 7A-1 . Options Evaluation North Coast Region 7A-2 

Table 7A-2. Options Evaluation San Francisco Bay Region 7A-3 

Table 7A-3. Options Evaluation Central Coast Region 7A-6 

Table 7A-4. Options Evaluation South Coast Region 7A-8 



7A-1 



DRAFT 



S -J S -J 



-1 s s 



X s 



s s 



m O 



vo — •* — 



o vo m 



00 ro 



V) »s 



O W 
CQ 



o o o o o 



o o 



5-S 

CO s 



m m 



_o 

(0 

= c 

(0 o 

.2 v> 

*-> (0 

a o 

O O 



•i: C 

^k 0) 



— (N fN 



•^ m 



— t 



— (N — 



■* — 



Xi 

m 



s -s 



U — ; 



(§■ 



Is ^ 
! I C u 

§^ .2 



CQ 

(D 

I § ^ n 



^ I 



E ^ 



S 5 



= a 



■^ :3 6- 



c 
(0 o 

^& 

Ui >, 

c 
o 



Q. 

O 
csi 
< 

o 

n 



CD 

O 
O 
w 

o 

c 
n 



2 S 
O ^ 



* ■? 

^ 0) 

O «> 






9 Q) 



III ^ 



(^ 



S -J S J s 



VO X ro -• ^ 



SSS SSSKE 



-J s 



— <N — 



— (N — (N 



— (N (N m 



<N — <N — 



(^ f^ <N <N (N 



g g" 
6 I 



Q i 



3 D a 

> > = 

^ ^ U 

O O Jr 

o o .2 



3: V) 



r^ (S (*1 



<N CM m 



fvl <S r*-i 



(N <N (N 



— rn f<l 



D. Z £: £ 



a ^ = = 

M _j 03 03 
.5 u a> u 



X t: -= 



I? 



I £ 



S 



fN — _ 



X > 



<i* 



UJUJUjQOl^Q^LLlSa: 



t := ^ J 



U Q uj Z U 



u 

> 

a. 
3 



S S J s s s s 



= s s 



1/1 ■» — •» •t •* ^ 



r- ^ ■<»• 






m (N <N (N — m 






<N r^ — 



fN (N m 



o 
o 



rri ^- ^- 









CCS 3 3 2 Q Q 



§ 5 

N i: 



w ^ a 



• ^ l1 U 






^ = 









M O O U 



cs o o o 



^ ^ 



'S ^ — 



w » 



g U K .S 



^ ^ 






E > 






.2=a_ 






5 T3 




s 








7j 




00 


|<c 




2 


> 'J^ 




a. 


5 ^ 




S 


u. rf 




13 






Q 


rt ■ — 






^ S 




>. 


u CD 


c/l 


« 




B 


ffl 


I'! 


O 


Q 


3 U 
^ ■- 


D. 
O 


OJ 

u. 


S u 


_1 


a >^ 


V 


< 


z £^ 


■o 


u 



S S J I s 



^ r^ — 00 «s 



— r^ O — <N 



<N rvi m fN 



fN <N <N "«• fN 



Q 



c 
o 
o 

I 

< 

« 

.(0 



m r<^ (N r--i (N 



■^ r^ (N -^ m 



.s ^ 



E g S 

£ < ^ 

CL D- 0. 

^ ^ ^ 

C/5 C/i C/2 



E S 2 






S J J 



a: a S S 



S - 



J S S J S S S 



c 

|i 

(0 — 

> O)^ 

LLI a> 

I 18 

o 
o 



(0 



a 
O 

CO 

< = 

r^ 0) 

(0 





u 


o 


to 




<0 






Q) 


•c 




0) 


^ ) 


lb 




OQ 



."» 


a 


8 


V 


CO 


•c 




h- 


^ 




IB 




c 




p 


n 




o 




0) 



o j2 



§ 



vo — — 



o o o o 



m — — 



ro — fN 



■*■*■* 



(N — — 



rn r*^ (N 



D D a 



^ ^ 



L ^ 






t 2 

in u 

OS I 

z 



ti ti ^ 



^ 



S = 



<N (N r-l 



<N CM (N <N (N 






rn <N (N 



^- <N <N ^- m CN (N 



III 

-J M 00 



ai — ^ — 

;« O O 

« u m 
OS 

Z 



s 5 > 



u .^ u 



a u. u > 






£ £ 



Qi a; = 



S -1 



^ ? 



* = 



a 






59 .^ 



-J 


o 

a 


<2 


LL. 

C 


00 


i 


e 

CI 


[£ 


^ 


u 


L. 


a. 


"o 


tj 


H 


> 


U 


S 


u 


U 



1^ vO ^ 






^^ r^l r^ 



S J 



o o 



m fN 



o 






* S 



5 S -J S 



ui \o — «s 



•<t — O fN 



fNI <N fN <N 





2 


Q 


^ 




in 


Q 


O 


C 


1 


a 


^ 


t/2 


e 


2 


_o 


a 

CD 


E 




^ 






"H. 


j: 


a. 
O 


Q 
_1 


C 


D. 

3 
C/1 


0£ 


(U 


cu 


a. 


J 


■o 


< 


» 


> 


c 


■? 


O 


(/5 


on 


u 



Q 



S -I S -1 



X S 



S = 



X s s 



c 
o 

'•is 

re 

= c 

re o 

(A Q£ 

5 - 

o <n 

'<s re 

Q. O 

o o 



o 
re 



(O 






O » 

OQ 



•So: 

o ^ 
CO -2 



c _ 

.2 « 

■£ -J 

V) 



5a 

•h: C 
III ^ 



§ 



ve — rO — 






u VJ. _^ 



3 3 u u 

1_ L, P3 « 

^ ^ n n 



3 3^^ 
O O £ £ 



{-■ <u u u 



U Qi 



r § 



a 



o t;:; -— • 



^_ 


^ 




1 


■* 


•o 

c 


li 




C 


5 


o 


< 


o 




U 




o 


r^ 


y 




Q 




U 


■^ 


U 


o 


s 



s < 



r«^ r*^ m 



— <N m 



o 
o 

i 

< 

n 



S S -J -^ -J -3 



I-. ^o — o o o 



o o o o 






m m (N 



rM fN (N 



— O O (N 



< U. 



o _ 



it ^ o 



.5 « 

R BO 



CO S ei Di cd 



S S = J X S 



W VO t^ — 00 «s 



^ ^- f^ O — (^J 



m CN (N r*-i (N 



*N m m (N m (N 



2 Q .£ ^ 



Ji « ^ 



o ^ 



c s. a. 

^ =i ^ 

c/; y; y; 



Q 



I 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 8A. Interior Regions 



Appendix 8A. Interior Regions 

Table 8A-1. Options Evaluation Sacramento River Region 8A-2 

Table 8A-2. Options Evaluation San Joaquin River Region 8A-4 

Table 8A-3. Options Evaluation Tulare Lake Region 8A-5 



8A-1 



c 
o 

3.2 

« S' 
^ Qi 

(0 o 

H 

S s 

s S 



6 <^ 



0) "? 



O o 






•2 <B 



III c 



§ 



J^SS-iSxSS-i 



— f»i«ni/i — \ooOMr»o 



— o o 



rn r*^ r*^ f*^ 



f*^ (N (N CN 



rSfN(N<NmcNfN<N 



<^^<NfNtN<Nr<^<N^^I<N 



fN (N — fN 



r4 fN — 



r^ <N (^ -^ rn (^ 



^ ^^ 



2 C O (_) 



E -S b 



h t 



c^ " o^ -^ 



^ CD f- 



— 


1> 


Q 


CJ 


s 


< 


Q 


a 


"(5 


a. 






E 


Q 


1 


f- 


C/5 


a 


< 



X s 




E-5 

s s 



.2 ^ .£; 

■S oi Q 
(-1 y o U 






^ > > 

J^ S § 



3 


c ■=« 


3 


1 

CJ 


•a 


s 




C/5 








nj 


3 


z 


c/; >■ 


z 


O) 


u. 



I- 



< 
a: 

Q 



r^ IT, 



C 

o 

'■^ 
(Q 

3 

re 
> 
LU 
Ui 

c 
S- o 

si 

^ (/} 
re 



o I 



Q 
I E 



-J 


O) 


CB 


0) 


> 


n' 


LU 


^ 


(A 


0) 


C 

o 


> 


4-> 




Q. 


c 


o 


3 




o- 


t>l 


re 


< 

00 


o 

-> 


0) 


c 
re 


Ji 


(0 


re 





CO 



UJ 



6 t^ 






.^1 



c ^ 

.a « 



.fi E 



§ 



SSI 



fS r«^ m 



*J OJj u 



3 


^ 














W 


"y. 


en 


iZ 



= s s s J J 



r- ir^ r^ rs o o 



m r^ rn fN f^J 



«•-.;; 



op (3 I 



S > 2 D 



S S S 



in »sO itj 



(N r«-i r^ 



r-1 <N rn 



Q < 



^ < u 



U- 



I 



c 
o 



re 

= c 

™ o ^ 

^ ^ ^ 

c "■ 

o o 

•— ^ 

Q. « 

o -• 

«? re 

< "5 

00 J_ 

re 



6 t^ 



O «> 



2 t 
o ^ 



c ^ 
9 w 

9 O 



|C E 



§ 



= S 



B B 



£ £ 



t= ■= o 



0£ Oij 

E E 






S S S J 



^O NO l/i \o — 



'^ Tt (N m (N 



rf ^- r«^ 



^ m Tf <N 






>^ ^ ^ 






02 






CQ CQ 



g g '^ □ ^ 

■S S 2 j: _ 

'J cj u -e 2 

ai °i Q o = 



o — 



■o ti d 



I » ^ 



-1 5- o- oo 

< ^ ^ 

U c/: v: a. 



X S S 



00 r^ 1/1 



u_ 



m n en 



■^ m ■* 



OD ojj "^ 
O — 



I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 9A. 

Appendix 9A. 

Table 9A-1 . Options Evaluation North Lahontan Region 9A-2 

Table 9A-2. Options Evaluation South Lahontan Region 9A-3 

Table 9A-3. Options Evaluation Colorado River Region 9A-4 



9A-1 



O O) 

■ « q: 

< re re 



w > ♦; 

o liJ = 

^ (/) 

re c re 

I- o 



o? 



6 «^ 



O 0) 



it 

o 
to 



O (0 
2 ^ 





01 


OJ 




3 




c 


V 


T3 


o 


_> 


c 






3 


1 


e 

3 


O 

a 



U 3 



. re a: 

< « « 

o^ o 

5 « " 



c re 
o -I 



Q.t3 



6 t^ 



O Q> 
QQ 



.2 ij 



c ^ 
■2 a, 



■& E 



5 1-^5; 



I/-, ^ C^ — N 



•<3- — m O 



f^ r^ (N (N 



r^ r*^ rN fN 



o :^ 
< 



.2, a. 



E 
< 

_ CL _ 

^ S: ^ 



ts u t/; c/! </2 tu 



c 
c o 
.2 o) 

< "J5 0) 
o> > > 

-Q w - 
•- .2 ^ 

O o 
o 



c 






o « 

OQ 



o P 

"I 

re 

c _ 
.2 « 

■£ -J 

V) 



§ 



^ 


^ 


2 


S 


S 


-3 




X 


s 


2 


^ 


S 


S 




S 


§ 




X 


X 


vO 


"" 


sO 


rO 


rn 


"" 




00 


•» 


f^ 


fS 


-■ 


vo 




o 


vC 




o 


o\ 


rn 


- 


^ 


^ 


<N 


- 




m 


o, 


^ 


rn 


ro 


(^ 




r^ 


fN 




'S- 


TS- 


m 


- 


^ 


^ 


(N 


<N 




■a- 


rO 


m 


n-i 


^ 


rn 




O 


m 




<N 


(N 


-* 


^ 


t 


•* 


■q- 


-* 




., 


^ 


^ 


<N 


<N 


(N 




^ 


•^ 




^ 


■* 


<N 


- 


(N 


rj 


<N 


- 




■* 


m 


(N 


O 


O 


•* 




r^ 


m 




r^ 


^ 


rn 


c 

1 

Q 


r^ 


ri 


<N 


rj 




rf 


m 


m 


m 


^ 


^ 




CM 


m 




2 


m 


„ 












^ 


^ 


? 
















.i! 




c 


oa 












^O 


00 


o 
















b. 




u 


c 


T3 


■o 








r- 


r- 


» 




















E 
a. 


X 


Q. 
M 

O 


o. 










c 


c 








S". 








^ 





0^ 


LU 


r- 


o 




















M 










> 
Q 
g 

5? 


T3 


« 


So 








E 
u 


E 

5J 


i 








e 




s 




■5 
c 

K) 

c 

1 

< 

< 


ja 


3 

M 
O 

o 


3 

o 

o 


(N 


^ 

3 




> 
o 

Q. 

E 
>, 

c 


> 
O 

o. 
E 
>> 

c 


> 

2 
o. 
E 
>, 

c 
u 


Q 


00 

■a 


> 


u 

e 
IS 


00 


2 
ob 

o 

a. 

c 





U 


00 
c 


1 


1 


-a 
c 




1 


1 




£ 


e 


s 




00 


o 




CO 


1 


e 
o 




o 


1 
o 


^2 


C 


U 


U 


^2 

3 

"a 


LU 
O 


UJ 

o 


c 
o 


'E 


^ 


~3i 






a. 
O 


15 
c 

^0 


o 

3 


o 
■a 

3 

O 


3 
eS 




o 


o 




c3 

00 

t 


00 


3 

E 




f5 


B 


•a 
c 
to 

-J 




00 

c 


•5 

< 














en 














u 






u 


















< 














4i 

1 






o 







O rn r-i f^* 



o :2 a. 



■S "a iS 
^ — ™ 



E 5 sa 



yj t/; lil 



a 2 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Appendix lOA. Water Budgets 

The following tables show the water budgets for each of the State's ten hydrologic regions, first 
with no future water management options, and then with implementation of future options. 

Table lOA-1: North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-2: San Francisco Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-3: Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-4: South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-5: Sacramento R. Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-6: San Joaquin R. Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-7: Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-8: North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-9: South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
Table lOA-10: Colorado R. Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

Table lOA-1 1 : North Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-12: San Francisco Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-13: Central Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-14: South Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-15: Sacramento R. Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-16: San Joaquin R. Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-17: Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table 10A-I8: North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-19: South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
Table lOA-20: Colorado R. Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 



lOA- 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A. Water Budgets 



Table 10A-1. 
North Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.169 

0.894 

19.544 

20,61 



0.177 
0.973 
9.518 
10.67 



0.201 
0.927 
19.545 
20.67 



0.212 
1.011 
9.518 
10.74 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



20.331 
0.263 
0.013 

20.61 



10.183 
0.294 
0.014 
10.49 



20.371 
0.288 
0.013 
20.67 



10.212 
0.321 
0.014 
10.55 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.18 



0.00 



0.19 



Table 10A-2. 
San Francisco Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



1.255 
0.098 

5.762 
7.12 



1.358 

0.108 

4.294 

5.76 



1.317 
0.098 

5.762 
7.18 



1.428 

0.108 

4.294 

5.83 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



7.011 


5.285 


7.067 


5.328 


0.068 


0.092 


0.074 


0.091 


0.035 


0.035 


0.035 


0.035 



7.12 



5.41 



7.18 



5.45 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.35 



0.00 



0.38 



lOA-2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Table 10A-3. 
Central Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.286 


0.294 


0.379 


0.391 


1.192 


1.279 


1.127 


1.223 


0.108 


0.027 


0.108 


0.027 



.58 



.60 



1.61 



1.64 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



0.308 


0.150 


0.367 


0.183 


1.045 


1,142 


1.029 


1.145 


0.018 


0.026 


0.042 


0.042 



1.37 



.32 



1.44 



1.37 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.21 



0.28 



0.17 



0.27 



Table 10A-4. 
South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



4.340 


4.382 


5.519 


5.612 


0.784 


0.820 


0.462 


0.484 


0.031 


0.031 


0.035 


0.035 



5.15 



6.02 



6.13 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



3.770 


3.085 


3.764 


3.084 


1.177 


1.371 


1.196 


1.422 


0.207 


0.207 


0.328 


0.328 



5.15 



4.66 



5.29 



4.83 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.57 



0.73 



1.30 



lOA-3 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A. Water Budgets 



Table 10A-5. 
Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(ma^ 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.766 
8.065 

5.825 
14.66 



0.830 
9.054 

4.222 
14.11 



1.139 
7.939 
5.951 
15.03 



1.236 
8.822 

4.344 
14.40 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



11.873 
2.672 
0.000 
14.55 



10.021 
3.218 
0.000 

13.24 



2.636 
0.000 
14.82 



10.011 
3.281 
0.000 
13.29 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.11 



0.87 



0.21 



1.11 



Table 10A-6. 
San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


0.574 


0.583 


0.954 


0.970 


7.027 


7.244 


6.450 


6.719 


2.302 


1.420 


3.087 


2.205 


9.90 


9.25 


10.49 


9.89 


7.468 


5.559 


7.364 


5.502 


2.195 


2.900 


2.323 


2.912 


0.000 


0.000 


0.000 


0.000 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



Supplies 



Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



9.66 



8.46 



9.69 



8.41 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.24 



0.79 



0.80 



.48 



lOA-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Table 10A-7. 
Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.690 

10.736 

1.752 

13.18 



0.690 

10.026 

0.827 

I 1 .54 



1.099 

10.123 

1.771 

12.99 



1.099 
9.532 
0.846 
11.48 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



7.968 
4.340 
0.000 



3.711 

5.970 

0.000 

9.68 



7.871 
4.386 
0.000 
12.26 



3.611 

5.999 

0.000 

9.61 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.87 



0.73 



1.87 



Table 10A-8. 
North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.039 

0.530 

0.635 

1.20 



0.040 

0.584 

0.341 

0.97 



0.050 
0.536 
0.635 



0.051 

0.594 

0.341 

0.99 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



1.038 


0.642 


1.020 


0.642 


0.157 


0.187 


0.183 


0.208 


0.008 


0.008 


0.008 


0.008 


1.20 


0.84 


1.21 


0.86 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.13 



0.01 



0.13 



lOA-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A. Water Budgets 



Table 10A-9. 
South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.238 

0.332 

0.107 

0.68 



0.238 

0.332 

0.081 

0.65 



0.619 

0.257 

0.107 

0.98 



0.619 

0.257 

0.081 

0.96 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desa! 
Total Supplies 



0.322 

0.239 

0.027 

0.59 



0.259 

0.273 

0.027 

0.56 



0.545 

0.227 

0.027 

0.80 



0.441 

0.279 

0.027 

0.75 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.09 



0.09 



0.18 



0.21 



Table 10A-10. 
Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities & Programs 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Total Demands 



0.418 

4.118 

0.039 

4.58 



0.418 
4.118 
0.038 

4.57 



0.740 
3.583 
0.044 

4.37 



0.740 
3.583 
0.043 

4.37 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Total Supplies 



4.154 


4.128 


4.023 


4.013 


0.337 


0.337 


0.251 


0.250 


0.015 


0.015 


0.015 


0.015 



4.51 



4.48 



4.29 



4.28 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.07 



0.09 



0.08 



0.09 



lOA-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Table 10A-11. 
North Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 

Total Demands 



0.169 


0.177 


0.201 


0.212 


0.894 


0.973 


0.927 


1.011 


19.544 


9.518 


19.545 


9.518 







(-0.000) 


(-0.004) 


20.61 


10.67 


20,67 


10.74 


20.331 


10.183 


20.371 


10.212 


0.263 


0.294 


0.288 


0.321 


0.013 


0.014 


0.013 


0.014 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



20.61 



10.49 



20.67 



10.55 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.00 



0.19 



Table 10A-12. 
San Francisco Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 

Total Demands 



1.255 


1.358 


1.317 


1.428 


0.098 


0.108 


0.098 


0.108 


5.762 


4.294 


5.762 


4.294 


— 


.... 




(-0.032) 


7.12 


5.76 


7.18 


5.80 


7.011 


5.285 


7.067 


5.328 


0.068 


0.092 


0.074 


0.091 


0.035 


0.035 


0.035 


0.035 


.... 


.... 




0.273 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



5.41 



7.18 



5.73 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.35 



0.00 



0.07 



IOA-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A. Water Budgets 



Table 10A-13. 
Central Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



0.286 
1.192 
0.108 



0.294 
1.279 
0.027 



1.58 



1.60 



0.379 

1.127 

0.108 

r-0.010) 

1.60 



0.391 

1.223 

0.027 

(-O.OIO) 

1.63 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



0.308 
1.045 
0.018 



0.150 
1.142 
0.026 



.37 



.32 



0.367 
1.029 
0.042 
0.133 
1.57 



0.183 
1.145 
0.042 
0.093 
1.46 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.21 



0.28 



0.03 



0.17 



Table 10A-14. 
South Coast Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



4.340 
0.784 
0.031 

5.15 



4.382 
0.820 
0.031 

5.23 



5.519 

0.462 

0.035 

(-0.090) 

5.93 



5.612 

0.484 

0.035 

(-0.090) 

6.04 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



3.770 
1.177 
0.207 



3.085 
1.371 
0.207 



5.15 



4.66 



3.764 
1.196 
0.328 
0.638 
5.93 



3.084 
1.422 
0.328 
1.180 
6.01 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.57 



0.00 



0.03 



lOA-8 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Table10A-15 
Sacramento River Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



0.766 


0,830 


1.139 


1.236 


8.065 


9.054 


7.939 


8.822 


5.825 


4.222 


5.951 


4.344 



14.66 



15.03 



14.40 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 
Total Supplies 



11.873 


10.021 


12.188 


10.011 


2.672 


3.218 


2.636 


3.281 


0.000 


0.000 


0.000 


0.000 






0.206 


0.329 


14.55 


13.24 


15.03 


13.62 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.87 



0.00 



0.78 



Table 10A-16. 
San Joaquin River Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 

(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



0.574 


0.583 


0.954 


0.970 


7.027 


7.244 


6.450 


6.719 


2.302 


1.420 


3.087 


2.205 






(-0.002) 


(-0.002) 


'■)»() 


9.25 


10.49 


9.89 


7.468 


5.559 


7.364 


5.502 


2.195 


2.900 


2.323 


2.912 


0.000 


0.000 


0.000 


0.000 






0.035 


0.110 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



9.66 



8.46 



9.72 



8.52 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.24 



0.79 



0.77 



.37 



lOA-9 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Table 10A-17. 
Tulare Lake Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



0.690 

10.736 

1.752 



0.690 
10.026 
0.827 



13.18 



11.54 



1.099 
10.123 

1.771 

(-0.075) 

12.92 



1.099 
9.532 
0.846 
(-0.075) 
11.40 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



7.968 

4.340 
0.000 



3.711 
5.970 
0.000 



12.31 



9.68 



7.871 
4.386 
0.000 
0.251 
12.51 



3.611 
5.999 
0.000 
0.76 
10.37 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.87 



0.41 



1.03 



Table 10A-18. 
North Lahontan Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average 


Drought 


Average 


Drought 


0.039 


0.040 


0.050 


0.051 


0.530 


0.584 


0.536 


0.594 


0.635 


0.341 


0.635 


0.341 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



1.20 



0.97 



0.99 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 
Total Supplies 



1.038 


0.642 


1.020 


0.642 


0.157 


0.187 


0.183 


0.208 


0.008 


0.008 


0.008 


0.008 



1.20 



0.84 



1.21 



0.86 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.00 



0.13 



0.01 



0.13 



IOA-10 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Appendix 10A Water Budgets 



Table 10A-19. 
South Lahontan Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 
Total Demands 



0.238 


0.238 


0.619 


0.619 


0.332 


0.332 


0.257 


0.257 


0.107 


0.081 


0.107 


0.081 



0.68 



0.65 



0.98 



0.96 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



0.322 
0.239 
0.027 



0.59 



0.259 


0.545 


0.441 


0.273 


0.227 


0.279 


0.027 


0.027 


0.027 




0.025 


0.030 


0.56 


0.82 


0.78 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.09 



0.09 



0.16 



0.18 



Table 10A-20. 
Colorado River Region Water Budget with Recommended Options 
(maf) 



Demands & Supplies 



1995 



2020 



Average Drought Average Drought 



Demands 

Urban 
Agriculture 
Environmental 
Management Options 

Total Demands 



0.418 
4.118 
0.039 



4.5J 



0.418 


0.740 


0.740 


4.118 


3.583 


3.583 


0.038 


0.044 


0.043 




(-0.326) 


(-0.326) 


4.57 


4.04 


4.04 


4.128 


4.023 


4.013 


0.337 


0.251 


0.250 


0.015 


0.015 


0.015 




(-0.247)0 


(-0.238) (**) 


4.48 


4,04 


4.04 



Supplies 

Surface Water 
Groundwater 
Recycled & Desal 
Augmentation Options 

Total Supplies 



4.154 
0.337 
0.015 



4.51 



Demands minus Supplies (Shortage) 



0.07 



0.09 



0.00 



0.00 



(*) 252 laf of Colorado River supplies would be transferred to the South Coast Region in average years as part 
of the Colorado River 4.4 Plan. 

(**) 343 taf of Colorado River supplies would be transferred to the South Coast Region in drought years as 
part of the Colorado River 4 4 Plan. (The 4.4 Plan also includes 50 taf of banked water from Arizona in 
drought years, for a total transfer to the South Coast Region of 393 taf per vear.) 



lOA-11 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Appendix 10A. Water Budgets 



I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
■ 

■ 



lOA- 12 DRAFT 



i 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AB Assembly Bill 

AAC All American Canal 

ACFC«&WCD Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 

ACID Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 

ACWD Alameda County Water District 

AD Allowable Depletion 

ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources 

AEWSD Arvin-Edison Water Storage District 

af acre-feet 

AFRP Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (or Plan) 

AFSP Anadromous Fish Screening Program 

AMD acid mine drainage 

AOP advanced oxidation process 

ARP aquifer reclamation project 

ASR aquifer storage and recovery 

AVEK Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency 

AVWG Antelope Valley Water Group 

AW applied water 

AWRI American River water resources investigation 

BARWRP Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program 

ABB-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BAT best available technology 

BBID Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 

BDAC Bay-Delta Advisory Council 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BVWSD Buena Vista Water Storage District 

BWD Bard Water District 

BWRDF Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility 

Cal-Am California-American Water Company 

CALFED State (CAL) and federal (FED) agencies participating in Bay-Delta Accord 

CAP Central Arizona Project 

CCMP Comprehensive Consevation and Management Plan 

CCRWR Central California Regional Water Recycling Project 

CCWD Contra Costa Water District 

GDI captive deionization 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CESA California Endangered Species Act 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional 

CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System 

COA Coordinated Operation Agreement 

COG Council of Governments 

ABB-2 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

CMO Crop Market Outlook 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

CRA Colorado River Aqueduct 

CRB Colorado River Board 

CRIT Colorado River Indian Tribes 

CSD Community Services District 

CSIP/SVRP Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project/Salinas Valley Reclamation Project 

CSJWCD Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District 

CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council 

CVHJV Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture 

CVP Central Valley Project 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

CVPM Central Valley Production Model 

CVWD Coachella Valley Water District 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWSC California Water Service Company 

D-1485 State Water Resources Control Board Water Right Decision 1 485 

DAU detailed analysis unit 

DBCP dibromochloropropane 

DBP disinfection byproduct 

D/DBP disinfectant/disinfection by-product 

DFA California Department of Food and Agriculture 

ABB-3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Abbreviations and Acronyms 



DFG California Department of Fish and Game 

DHS California Department of Health Services 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOF California Department of Finance 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU distribution uniformity 

DWA Desert Water Agency 

DWB Drought Water Bank 

DWD Diablo Water District 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

DWRSIM DWR's operations model for SWP/CVP system 

DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 



EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District 

ECCID East Contra Costa Irrigation District 

ECWMA East County Water Management Association 

ED electrodialysis 

EDB ethylene dibromide 

EDCWA El Dorado County Water Agency 

EDF Environmental Defense Fund 

EDR electrodialysis reversal 

EID EI Dorado Irrigation District 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

ABB-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Abbreviations and Acronyms 



EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPP Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

ET evapotranspiration 

ETo reference evapotranspiration 

ETAW evapotranspiration of applied water 

EWMP Efficient Water Management Practice 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAC Granular Activated Carbon 

GBUAPCD Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 

GCID Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 

GDPUD Georgetown Divide Public Utility District 

GO general obligation 

gpcd gallons per capita daily 

GPF gallons per flush 



ABB-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Abbreviations and Acronyms 



HLWA Honey Lake Wildlife Area 
HR Hydrologic region 



IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission 
ID irrigation district or improvement district 

irrigation efficiency 

Interagency Ecological Program 

Imperial Irrigation District 

intake opportunity time 



IE 
lEP 
IID 
lOT 



IRP integrated resources planning 

ISDP Interim South Delta Program 



JPA 



Joint Powers Authority 



KCWA Kern County Water Agency 
KPOP Klamath Project Operations Plan 
KWB Kern Water Bank 



LAA Los Angeles Aqueduct 

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

LBG Los Banos Grandes 

LCRMSCP Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program 

ABB-6 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

LEPA low-energy precision application 

LRWQCB Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 

LTBMU Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

maf million acre-feet 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MCWD Marina Coast Water District or Mammoth Community Water District 

MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency 

MF microfiltration 

mgd million gallons per day 

M«&I municipal & industrial 

MID Merced Irrigation District or Modesto Irrigation District 

MMWC McFarland Mutual Water Company 

MMWD Marin Municipal Water District 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 

MRWPCA Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency 

MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether 

MWA Mojave Water Agency 

MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County 

MWDSC Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

ABB-7 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

NCFC«&WDC Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 

NCMWC Natomas-Central Mutual Water Company 

NED National Economic Development 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF nanofiltration 

NGO non-governmental organizations 

NID Nevada Irrigation District 

NISA National Invasive Species Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOP notice of preparation 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPDRW national primary drinking water regulations 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OCWD Orange County Water District 

OID Oakdale Irrigation District 

PAC powdered activated carbon 

PCE perchlorethylene 

PCWA Placer County Water Agency 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PG«&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

ABB-8 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

PGVMWC Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company 

P.L. Public Law 

ppb parts per billion 

PROSIM USSR's operations model for the CVP/SWP 

PSA planning subarea 

PUC public utility commission 

PUD public utility district 

PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District or Pleasant Valley Irrigation District 

PVWMA Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency 

PWD Palmdale Water District 

RBDD Red Bluff Diversion Dam 

RCD resource conservation district 

RD reclamation district 

RDI regulated deficit irrigation 

RO reverse osmosis 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SAE seasonal application efficiency 

SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project 

SB Senate Bill 

SBCFCWCD Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 

ABB-9 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 

SCCWRRS Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study 

SCE Southern California Edison 

SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District 

SCWA Solano County Water Agency or Sonoma County Water Agency 

SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority 

SDWA South Delta Water Agency or Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SEWD Stockton East Water District 

SFAR South Fork American River (project) 

SFBJV San Francisco Bay Joint Venture 

SEEP San Francisco Estuary Project 

SFPUC San Francisco Public Utility Commission 

SFWD San Francisco Water District 

SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 

SID Solano Irrigation District 

SJR San Joaquin River 

SJRMP San Joaquin River Management Plan (or Program) 

SJRIODAY San Joaquin River Input-Output Model, adapted to a daily time-step 

SJVDP San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 

SLC San Luis Canal 

SLD San Luis Drain |H 

SLDMWA San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 



m 

ABB 10 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

SLOCFC«&WCD San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 

SMBRP Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project 

SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority 

SOC synthetic organic chemical 

SRF state revolving fund 

SRFCP Sacramento River Flood Control Project 

SRI Sacramento River Index 

SRWP Sacramento River Watershed Program 

SSA Salton Sea Authority 

SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District 

SSWD South Sutter Water District 

STPUD South Tahoe Public Utility District 

SVGMD Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District 

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound 

SWF Sacramento Water Forum 

SWF State Water Project 

SWPP source water protection program, or supplemental water purchase program 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board 

SWSD Semitropic Water Storage District 

taf thousand acre-feet 

TCC Tehama-Colusa Canal 

TCD temperature control device 

ABB-ii DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft 



Abbreviations and Acronyms 



TCE trichlorethylene 

TDS total dissolved solids 

THM trihalomethane 

TID-MID Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District 

TROA Truckee River Operating Agreement 

TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

UCD University of California at Davis 

UF ultrafiltration 

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UVOX ultraviolet/hydrogen peroxide 



voc 



volatile organic compound 



W&S Wild and Scenic 

WCB Wildlife Conservation Board 

WMI Watershed Management Initative 

WMA state wildlife management area 

WQA Water Quality Authority 



ABB-I2 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Abbreviations and Acronyms 

WQCP water quality control plan 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WRID Walker River Irrigation District 

WSD water storage district 

WSMP water storage management plan (or program) 

WWD Westlands Water District 

WWTP waste water treatment plant 

WWW Worldwide Web 

YCFCWCD Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 
YCWA Yuba County Water Agency 



ABB- 13 



DRAFT 



p 

I 
I 
I 
■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 



Glossary 

active storage capacity the total usable reservoir capacity available for seasonal or cyclic water 
storage. It is gross reservoir capacity minus inactive storage capacity. 

afterbay a reservoir that regulates fluctuating discharges from a hydroelectric power plant or a 
pumping plant. 

agricultural drainage (1 ) the process of directing excess water away from root zones by natural 
or artificial means, such as by using a system of pipes and drains placed below ground surface 
level; also called subsurface drainage; (2) the water drained away from irrigated farmland. 

alluvium unconsolidated soil strata deposited by flowing water. 

anadromous fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to freshwater streams to 
spawn. 

applied water demand the quantity of water delivered to the intake of a city's water system or 
factory, the farm headgate or other point of measurement, or a marsh or other wetland, either 
directly or by incidental drainage flows. For instream use. it is the portion of the stream flow 
dedicated to instream use or reserved under the federal or State Wild and Scenic Rivers acts. 

aquifer a geologic formation that stores water and yields significant quantities of water to wells 
or springs. 

arid a term describing a climate or region in which precipitation is so deficient in quantity or 
occurs so infrequently that intensive agricultural production is not possible without irrigation. 

artificial recharge addition of surface water to a groundwater reservoir by human activity, such 
as putting surface water into spreading basins. See also groumiwater recharge, recharge basin. 

GL-1 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

average annual runoff for a specified area is the average value of annual runoff volume 
calculated for a selected period of record, at a specified location, such as a dam or stream gage. 

average year water demand demand for water under average hydrologic conditions for a defined 
level of development. 

best management practice (BMP) a generally accepted practice for some aspect of natural 
resources management, such as water conservation measures, drainage management measures, or 
erosion control measures. Most frequently used in this Bulletin to refer to water conservation 
measures adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Coalition. 

biota all living organisms of a region, as in a stream or other body of water. 

brackish water water containing dissolved minerals in amounts that exceed normally acceptable 
standards for municipal, domestic, and irrigation uses. Considerably less saline than sea water. 

bromide a salt which naturally occurs in small quantities in sea water; a compound of bromine. 



chaparral a major vegetation type in California characterized by dense evergreen shrubs with 
thick, hardened leaves. 

closed basin a basin whose topography prevents surface outflow of water. 

confined aquifer a water-bearing subsurface stratum that is bounded above and below by 
formations of impermeable, or relatively impermeable, soil or rock. 

conjunctive use the operation of a groundwater basin in combination with a surface water 
storage and conveyance system. Water is stored in the groundwater basin for later use by 
intentionally recharging the basin during years of above-average water supply. 



GL-2 



DRAFT 



P 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 



Decision 1485 operating criteria standards for operating the CVP and SWP under Water Right 
Decision 1485 for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Deha and Suisun Marsh, adopted by the State 
Water Resources Control Board in August 1978. 

Decision 1631 a water right decision specifying required Mono Lake levels, adopted by the State 
Water Resources Control Board in 1994. 

deep percolation the percolation of water through the ground and beyond the lower limit of the 
root zone of plants into groundwater. 

demand management alternatives water management programs-such as water conservation or 
drought rationing that reduce demand for water. 

dependable supply the average annual quantity of water that can be delivered during a drought 
period. 

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 ET losses. For instream use, it is the amount of 
dedicated flow that reaches a salt sink. 

desalination a process to reduce the salt concentration of sea water or brackish water; also called 
desalting. 

detailed analysis unit (DAU) the smallest study area used by Department of Water Resources for 
analyses of water demand and supply. Generally defined by hydrologic features or boundaries of 



GL-3 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

organized water service agencies. In the major agricultural areas, a DAU typically includes 
100,000 to 300,000 acres. 

discount rate the interest rate used to calculate the present value of future benefits and future 
costs or to convert benefits and costs to a common time basis. 

dissolved organic compounds carbon-based substances dissolved in water. 

dissolved oxygen (DO) the amount of oxygen dissolved in water or wastewater, usually 
expressed in milligrams per liter, parts per million, or percent of saturation. 

distribution uniformity (DU) A measure of the variation in the amount of water applied to the 
soil surface throughout an irrigated area, expressed as a percent. 

drainage basin the area of land from which water drains into a river; for example, the 
Sacramento River Basin, in which all land area drains into the Sacramento River. Also called, 
"catchment area", "watershed", or "river basin". 

drought condition hydrologic conditions during a defined period when rainfall and runoff are 
much less than average. 

drought year supply the average annual supply of a water development system during a defined 
drought period. 

efficient water management practice (EWMP) an agricultural water conservation measure, such 
as those adopted under the 1996 MOU regarding agricultural water conservation. 

effluent wastewater or other liquid, treated or in its natural state, flowing from a treatment plant 
or process. 






GL-4 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 



environmental water the water for wetlands, for the instream flow in a major river or in the Bay- 
Deha, or for a designated wild and scenic river 

estuary the lower course of a river entering the sea where the tides meet river current. 

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 (ETAW) the portion of the total evapotranspiration which is 
provided by irrigation and landscape watering. 

firm yield the maximum annual supply from of a water development project under drought 
conditions, for some specified level of demands. 

forebay a reservoir at the intake of a pumping plant or power plant to stabilize water levels; also 
a storage basin for regulating water for percolation into groundwater basins. 

fry a recently hatched fish. 

gray water waste water from a household or small commercial establishment. Gray water does 
not include water from a toilet, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washing machine, or water used for 
washing diapers, etc. 

gross reservoir capacity the total storage capacity available in a reservoir for all purposes, from 
the streambed to the normal maximum operating level. Includes dead (or inactive) storage, but 
excludes surcharge (water temporarily stored above the elevation of the top of the spillway). 

groundwater water that occurs beneath the land surface and fills the pore spaces of the alluvium, 
soil, or rock formation in which it is situated. 



GL-5 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

groundwater basin a groundwater reservoir, defined by an overlying land surface and the 
underlying aquifers that contain water stored in the reservoir. In some cases, the boundaries of 
successively deeper aquifers may differ and make it difficult to define the limits of the basin. 

groundwater overdraft the condition of a groundwater basin in which the amount of water 
withdrawn by pumping exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin over a period of 
years during which water supply conditions approximate average conditions. 

groundwater recharge increases in groundwater storage by natural conditions or by human 
activity. See also artificial recharge. 

groundwater storage capacity volume of void space that can be occupied by water in a given 
volume of a formation, aquifer, or groundwater basin. 

groundwater table the upper surface of the zone of saturation, in an unconfined aquifer. 

hardpan a layer of nearly impermeable soil beneath a more permeable soil, formed by natural 
chemical cementation of the soil particles. 

head ditch the water supply ditch at the head of an irrigated field. 

hydraulic barrier a barrier developed in an estuary by release of fresh water from upstream 
reservoirs to prevent intrusion of a sea water into the body of fresh water. Also, a barrier created 
by injecting fresh water to control seawater intrusion in an aquifer, or created by water injection 
to control migration of contaminants in an aquifer. 

hydrologic balance an accounting of all water inflow to, water outflow from, and changes in 
water storage within a hydrologic unit over a specified period of time. 

hydrologic basin the drainage area upstream from a given point on a stream. 

GL-6 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

hydrologic region a study area, consisting of one or more planning subareas. California is 
divided into 10 hydrologic regions. 



instream use use of water within its natural watercourse as specified in an agreement, water 
rights permit, etc. For example, the use of water for navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, 
aesthetics, and scenic enjoyment. 

irrecoverable losses the water lost to a salt sink or lost by evaporation or evapotranspiration from 
a conveyance facility or drainage canal, or in fringe areas of cultivated fields. 

irrigated acreage land area that is irrigated, which is equivalent to total irrigated crop acreage 
minus the amount of acreage that was multiple-cropped. 

irrigation efficiency the efficiency of water application and use. Computed by dividing 
evapotranspiration of applied water by applied water and converting the result to a percentage. 
Efficiency can be computed at three levels: farm, district, or basin. 

irrigation return flow applied water that is not transpired, evaporated, or infiltrated into a 
groundwater basin but that returns to a surface water body. 

land retirement (as used in this report) taking land out of irrigated agricultural use as part of a 
managed incentive program. 

land subsidence the lowering of the natural land surface due to groundwater (or oil and gas) 
extraction. 

laser land leveling precision leveling of cultivated fields to improve irrigation efficiency. 



GL-7 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

laterals the part of an irrigation districts's delivery system that conveys water from the district's 
main canals to turnouts for farmers' fields 

leaching the flushing of salts from the soil by the downward percolation of applied water. 

leaching requirement the theoretical amount of irrigation water that must pass (leach) through 
the soil beyond the root zone to keep soil salinity within acceptable levels for sustained crop 
growth. 

level of development in a planning study, the practice of holding water demands constant at some 
specified level so that hydrologic variability can be studied. 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) the highest concentration of a contaminant in drinking 
water permitted under federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. 

moisture stress a condition of physiological stress in a plant caused by lack of water. 

multipurpose project a project, usually a reservoir, designed to serve more than one purpose. 
For example, one that provides water supply and also provides flood control or generates 
hydroelectricity. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) a provision of Section 402 of the 
federal Clean Water Act that established a permitting system for discharges of waste materials to 
water courses. 

natural flow the flow past a specified point on a natural stream that is unaffected by stream 
diversion, storage, import, export, return flow, or change in use caused by modifications in land 
use. 



GL-8 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

net water demand (net water use) the amount of water needed in a water service area to meet all 
requirements. It is the sum of evapotranspiration of applied water in an area, the irrecoverable 
losses from the distribution system, and the outflow leaving the service area; does not include 
reuse of water within a service area. 

nonpoint source waste water discharge other than from point sources. See also point source. 

nonreimbursable costs the part of project costs allocated to general statewide or national 
beneficial purposes and fiinded from general revenues, rather than to water users. 

normalized demand the process of adjusting actual water use in a given year to account for 
unusual events such as dry weather conditions, government price support programs for 
agriculture, rationing programs, or other unusual conditions. 

overdraft See groumhvater overdraft. 

pathogens viruses, bacteria, or fungi that cause disease. 

perched groundwater groundwater supported by a zone of material of low permeability located 
above an underlying main body of groundwater. 

per capita water use the water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier 
divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day 
(gpcd). 

perennial yield the maximum quantity of water that can be annually withdrawn from a 
groundwater basin over a long period of time (during which water supph' conditions approximate 
average conditions) without developing an overdraft condition. 



GL-9 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

permeability the capability of soil or other geologic formations to transmit water. 

phytoplankton minute plants, such as algae, that live suspended in bodies of water. 

planning subarea (PSA) an intermediately-sized study area used by the Department, consisting 
of multiple detailed analysis units. 

point source a specific site from which wastewater or polluted water is discharged into a water 
body. 

pollution (of water) the alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of water by 
the introduction of any substance into water that adversely affects any beneficial use of water. 

project yield the water supply attributed to all features of a project, including integrated operation 
of units that could be operated individually. 

pump lift the distance between the groundwater table and the overlying land surface. 

pumped storage project a hydroelectric powerplant and reservoir system using an arrangement 
whereby water released for generating energy during peak load periods is stored and pumped 
back into the upper reservoir, usually during periods of reduced power demand. 

pumping-generating plant a plant at which the turbine-driven generators can also be used as 
motor-driven pumps. 

recharge basin a surface facility constructed to provide to infiltrate surface water into a 
groundwater basin. 

recycled water urban wastewater that becomes suitable, as a result of treatment, for a specific 
beneficial use. Also called reclaimed water. See also water recycling. 



GL-IO 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

return flow the portion of withdrawn water not consumed by evapotranspiration or system losses 
which returns to its source or to another body of water. 

reuse the additional use of previously used water. As used in this report, it is not water that has 
been recycled for beneficial use at a treatment plant. 

reverse osmosis is a method to remove salts from water by forcing water through membranes. 

riparian located on the banks of a stream or other body of water. Riparian water rights are rights 
held by landowners adjacent to a natural waterbody. 

runoff {he volume of surface flow from an area. 

salinity generally, the concentration of mineral salts dissolved in water. Salinity may be 
expressed in terms of a concentration or as an electrical conductivity. When describing salinity 
influenced by seawater, salinity often refers to the concentration of chlorides in the water. See 
also total dissolved solids. 

salinity intrusion the movement of salt water into a body of fresh water. It can occur in either 
surface water or groundwater bodies. 

salt sink a saline body of water, such as the ocean. 

salt-water barrier a physical facility or method of operation designed to prevent the intrusion of 
salt water into a body of fresh water (see hydraulic barrier). 

seepage the gradual movement of a fluid into, through, or from a porous medium. 

self-produced water a water supply (often from wells) developed and used by an individual or 
entity. Also called "self-supplied water." 



GL-11 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

service area the geographic area served by a water agency. 

soluble minerals naturally occurring substances capable of being dissolved. 

spreading basin See recharge basin. 

spreading grounds See recharge basin. 

supply augmentation alternatives water management programs — such as reservoir construction 
or groundwater extraction — that increase supply. 

surface supply water supply from streams, lakes, and reservoirs. 



tailwater applied irrigation water that runs off the end of a field. Tail water is not necessarily 
lost; it can be collected and reused on the same or adjacent fields. 

tertiary treatment in wastewater treatment, the additional treatment of effluent beyond that of 
secondary treatment to obtain higher quality of effluent for reuse. 

total dissolved solids a quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that 
remain after evaporation of a solution. Usually expressed in milligrams per liter. Abbreviation: 
TDS. See also salinity. 

transpiration an essential physiological process in which plant tissues give off water vapor to the 
atmosphere. 

trihalomethane (THM) a chlorinated halogen compound such as chloroform, carbon 
tetrachloride or bromoform. 



GL-12 DRAFT 



Bulletin 160-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 

wastewater domestic or municipal sewage or effluent from an industrial process. 

water conservation reduction in applied water due to more efficient water use such as 
implementation of urban best management practices or agricultural efficient water management 
practices. The extent to which these actions actually create a savings in water supply depends on 
how they affect net water use and depletion. 

water quality used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, 
usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use. 

water recycling the treatment of urban wastewater to a level rendering it suitable for a specific 
beneficial use. 

water service reliability the degree to which a water service system can successfully manage 
water shortages. 

watershed See drainage basin. 

water table See groundwater table. 

water transfers the permanent sale of a water right by the water right holder; a lease of the right 
to use water from the water right holder; the sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. 

water year a continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and 
summarized. Different agencies may use different calendar periods for their water years. 



GL-13 



DRAFT 



Bulletin 1 60-98 Public Review Draft Glossary 



GL-14 



DRAFT 



f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS 

I II |l! 



3 1175 02347 7782 



THIS BOOK IS DUE. ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 



k 1 4yi999 

JAW -pJm m 

RECEIVED 

JAN 1 2000 
Physical Scienc:c L!::^ 



DEC 1 2006 



APR 1 3 20)0 

RECEIVED 

MAR 2 9 200li 
Physical Sciences Li sraiy 

KG 6iW^ 

LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
http://libnte.ucdavis.edu/PatronRenew.html 
Automated Phone RenevKal (24-hour): (530) 752-1132 
D4613(4/99)M 



DAVIS I 




Pete Wilson 

Governor 

State of California 



David N. Kennedy 

Director 

Department of Water Resources 



Douglas P. Wheeler 

Secretary for Resources 

Resources Agency