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