Skip to main content

Full text of "California water plan update"

See other formats


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 0 

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 0 

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 

0 

r^ 

0 

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 0  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  *  0  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  0  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 

0 

349 

0 

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 0  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  0  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  0  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    0 


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 0  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 

0 

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  Districts  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 


0  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 

0 

0 

0 

0 

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 0  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  0  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 

0 

0 

0 

0 

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 

0 

0 

0 

0 

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 0  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 0  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 


0 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  0  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 0  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  Lahontan  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 0  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. 
Table  9-19.  State  Water  Project  Contractors  In  the  Colorado  River  Region 

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 

0 

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) 

0 

0 

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 

0 

177 

0 

194 

San  Francisco  Bay 

0 

349 

0 

376 

Central  Coast 

214 

282 

177 

273 

South  Coast 

0 

568 

728 

1295 

Sacramento  River 

111 

867 

206 

1109 

San  Joaquin  River 

239 

788 

805 

1481 

Tulare  Lake 

870 

1862 

735 

1866 

North  Lahontan 

0 

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 

0 

177 

0 

190 

San  Francisco  Bay 

0 

349 

0 

71 

Central  Coast 

214 

282 

34 

170 

South  Coast 

0 

568 

0 

25 

Sacramento  River 

111 

867 

0 

780 

San  Joaquin  River 

239 

788 

768 

1,369 

Tulare  Lake 

870 

1,862 

409 

1,031 

North  Lahontan 

0 

128 

10 

128 

South  Lahontan 

89 

92 

159 

180 

Colorado  River 

69 

Q5 

0 

0 

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 0  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 

0 

1 

0 

Central  Coast 

4 

37 

128 

533             87 

0 

0 

2 

2 

South  Coast 

8 

92 

373 

604            131 

0 

0 

1 

7 

Sacramento  River 

8 

1,275 

12 

32               2 

1 

4 

1 

2 

San  Joaquin  River 

7 

1,339 

22 

238               6 

2 

0 

1 

4 

Tulare  Lake 

11 

2,672 

42 

161                9 

1 

0 

4 

6 

South  Lahontan 

1 

18 

61 

61              61 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Colorado  River 

4 

3,403 

13 

14               8 

2 

0 

0 

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 0  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      0 

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  0    '^   ^ 

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 0  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 0  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 

0 

■5 

a- 
u 

u    0 

00   u 

2   E 

0.  ^ 
c    0. 

urrently  being 
ugh  annual 
CUWCC 

a*    cr 

1;! 

^ 

c 

c 

J3    . 

ca 

B   > 

0    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    0 

ca  —    c 
•£    S    H 

"O 

c 

E 

o  .h 

*"      3 

=  a£ 

c 

0  -5' 

1  1 

0 

c 
3 

c 
.E   0 
;;  3 

--  -a 

"3  "^ 

E    c 
0  ■- 
cj  -a 

c    •■«   c 
g    =   § 

Si! 

■c    ei 

w 

aj 

J2    '^ 

U    « 

c 

00 

'J    a3 

0 

c    ° 

3  1' 

o 
U 

O 

o 

|i 

1 

c.  S 

'J  0 

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 

(«   0 

Oi 

c    u 

•=   ■» 

c 

c    w 

■S    n 

^ 

.2  £ 

•-.    cd 

o 

ji: 

0  S 

ca    ca 

2  cJo 

M  •= 

o 

O     in   — 

0 

0   _. 

0    c 

5      " 

■o 

00  ■" 

c 

o 

1  5-g 

a    0 
F   "-> 

T3 

00  ^. 

5 
-  i 

u    0 
=    1 

o  _ra 

1 

E 

> 

>  >.  ?; 

o    u    s 

!a  ^  " 

gl 

1 

.      > 

5  0 

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  0 

0   E 

E   00 

0     OJ 

'J    > 

o. 
E 

EC 

ta  2 

a 

•a 

U    T3 

CO 

S  :j? 

-S  S 

2 

-S-S  S 

S     y 

^ 

-§s 

0  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    0 

0 

0 

c 

E  S 

^^ 

0   0 

Is 

-5     -yi 

il 

F   '= 
i  ^ 

c 

a.  — 
00  ■-' 
>  ■£ 
u  (2 

0     y. 
s    -i 

^   E   5 
Si  S    E 

u 
u 
u 

u 
0 

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 
0 
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 

0  s 

U   0- 

E 
0 

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 
0 
N/A 

0 
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 

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 

0 
U 

0 
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 
0.760 
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  0  2000 
Physical  Scienc:c  L!::^ 


DEC  0  1  2006 


APR  1  3  20)0 

RECEIVED 

MAR  2  9  200li 
Physical  Sciences  Li  sraiy 

KG  0  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